Oreobates Jiménez de la Espada, 1872

Common Names

None noted. 

Distribution

Lower slopes of the Andes into the upper Amazon basin from Colombia south to northern Argentina and east into western Brazil.

Comment

See account (as most of Ischnocnema) by Lynch, 1972, Bull. S. California Acad. Sci., 71: 8–10, who noted that the group may be derived from the Eleutherodactylus binotatus group. Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 198–199, discussed the possibility of a relationship of Ischnocnema with the Eleutherodactylus binotatus group (rendering Eleutherodactylus paraphyletic). Harvey and Sheehy, 2005, Herpetologica, 61: 268–275, mapped the species in Bolivia. Caramaschi and Canedo, 2006, Zootaxa, 1116: 43–54, noted that Ischnocnema verrucosus Reinhart and Lutken, is a junior synonym of Eleutherodactylus, rendering the oldest name as Oreobates for the inclusive clade of the remainder of "Ischnocnema". Oreobates had been considered a synonym of Ischnocnema by Lynch and Schwartz, 1971, J. Herpetol., 5: 109. Padial, Chaparro, and De la Riva, 2008, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 152: 737–773, provided evidence for the monophyly of the taxon, its interrelationships, and its placement as the sister taxon of the Eleutherodactylus martinicensis series, which implies that it may rest phylogenetically within Eleutherodactylus in the sense of Heinicke, Duellman, and Hedges, 2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 10092–10097. Hedges, Duellman, and Heinicke, 2008, Zootaxa, 1737: 111, expanded the content of Oreobates. See Duellman and Lehr, 2009, Terrest.-breeding Frogs in Peru: 97–103, for brief accounts for Peruvian species. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, confirmed the monophyly of this taxon, it sister-taxon relationship with Lynchius, and provided a tree of their molecular exemplar species. Padial, Chaparro, Castroviejo-Fisher, Guayasamin, Lehr, Delgado C., Vaira, Teixeira, Aguayo-Vedia, and De la Riva, 2012, Am. Mus. Novit., 3752: 1–55, reviewed and revised the taxon and suggested that it sat in a polotypy with Lynchius and Phrynopus. Pereyra, Cardozo, Baldo, and Baldo, 2014, Herpetologica, 70: 211–227, reported on the phylogenetics of the group. Padial, Grant, and Frost, 2014, Zootaxa, 3825: 53, transferred this genus into Holoadeninae. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Andrade, and Amaro, 2018, Zootaxa, 4441: 89–108, provided a molecular tree of relationships. Ferraro, Blotto, Baldo, Barrasso, Barrionuevo, Basso, Cardozo, Cotichelli, Faivovich, Pereyra, and Lavilla, 2018, in Vaira, Akmentins, and Lavilla (eds.), Cuad. Herpetol., 32 (Supl. 1): 17–19, noted that the taxonomic status of this species in Argentina remains problematic. Pansonato, Motta, Cacciali, Haddad, Strüssmann, and Jansen, 2021, J. Herpetol., 54 : 395, provided an ML tree of the species in the genus. Montero-Mendieta, De la Riva, Irisarri, Leonard, Webster, and Vilà, 2021, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 161 (107167): 1–13, provided coalescent and parsimony trees of the species within the genus. Venegas, García Ayachi, Ormeño, Bullard, Catenazzi, and Motta, 2021, Neotropical Biodiversity, 7: 279–296, provided a map of the species and molecular trees of relationships. 

Contained taxa (26 sp.):

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.

• For access to general information see Wikipedia
• For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
• For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
• For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
• To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
• For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist