Leptodactylus knudseni Heyer, 1972

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leptodactylinae > Genus: Leptodactylus > Species: Leptodactylus knudseni

Leptodactylus knudseni Heyer, 1972, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 231: 3. Holotype: LACM 72117, by original designation. Type locality: "Limoncocha, 0° 24′ S, 76° 37′ W, Provincia de Napo, Ecuador".

English Names

Knudsen's Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Knudsen's Thin-toed Frog (Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 314).

Distribution

Greater Amazon basin of Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru north to Colombia, Venezuela, Trinidad, and the Guianas.

Comment

In the Leptodactylus pentadactylus group of Heyer, 1972, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 231: 1-8, and Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 1–43. Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 66–67, provided a brief account for the Iquitos region of northeastern Peru. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 244–245, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 57–58, commented on distribution in Venezuela and noted that the original description was based on a juvenile, which did not show the typically adult color pattern. Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 86–87, provided a brief account for Trinidad. Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 269–348, provided an extensive discussion and account of variation. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 282–283, provided an account (adult and larval morphology, description of the call, life history). Heyer, de Sá, and Rettig, 2005, in Ananjeva and Tsinenko (eds.), Herpetol. Petropolitana: 35–39, reported on the advertisement call. Heyer and Heyer, 2006, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 807: 1-12, provided a review. Fouquet, Gilles, Vences, Marty, Blanc, and Gemmell, 2007, PLoS One, 10 (e1109): 1–10, provided molecular evidence that this is a species complex. Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 214–215, provided an account and suggested that the taxon may be a species complex. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 234–237. França and Venâncio, 2010, Biotemas, 23: 71–84, provided a record for the municipality of Boca do Acre, Amazonas, with a brief discussion of the range. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 423–424, for brief account and records for Guyana. Señaris, Lampo, Rojas-Runjaic, and Barrio-Amorós, 2014, Guía Ilust. Anf. Parque Nac. Canaima: 208–209, provided a photograph and a brief account for the Parque Nacional de Canaima, Venezuela. In the Leptodactylus pentadactylus species group of de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, and who provided a summary of relevant literature (adult and larval morphology, identification, advertisement call, and range) on pp. 51–52. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 91, for comments on range and literature. For identification of larvae in central Amazonia, Brazil, see Hero, 1990, Amazoniana, 11: 201–262. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 226–227. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil.

External links:

Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.