- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and corrections, 2024
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2023
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- Amphibian Species of the World on social media
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Atelopus varius (Lichtenstein and Martens, 1856)
Atelopus varius Stannius, 1856, Handb. Zootomie Wiebelthiere, 2: 16. Nomen nudum.
Phrynidium varium Lichtenstein and Martens, 1856, Nomencl. Rept. Amph. Mus. Zool. Berol.: 40. Syntypes: Not designated; according to museum records: ZMB 3377 (2 specimens) and 3378 (2 specimens) and 3379; ZMB 3377 designated neotype by Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 84, but this number applies to two specimens, according to Lötters, 1996, Neotrop. Toad Genus Atelopus: 53. Female of ZMB3377 (subsequently 3377.1) designated lectotype by Lötters, Böhme, and Günther, 1998, Mitt. Mus. Naturkd. Berlin, Zool., 74: 176. Type locality: "Veragoa"; discussed by Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 89. Restricted to "the Pacific portion of the Provincia Veraguas, western Panamá" by Lötters, Böhme, and Günther, 1998, Mitt. Mus. Naturkd. Berlin, Zool., 74: 176.
Phrynidium varium var. adspersum Lichtenstein and Martens, 1856, Nomencl. Rept. Amph. Mus. Zool. Berol.: 41. Syntypes: ZMB 3377-78 (4 specimens); ZMB 3377 designated lectotype by Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 83; but this number applies to two specimens, according to Lötters, 1996, Neotrop. Toad Genus Atelopus: 53. Female of ZMB 3377 (subsequent. 3377.1) designated lectotype by Lötters, Böhme, and Günther, 1998, Mitt. Mus. Naturkd. Berlin, Zool., 74: 176. Type locality: "Veragoa" = Veragua, Panama; discussed by Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 89. Synonymy by Dunn, 1931, Occas. Pap. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 5: 394, and Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 35: 624.
Phrynidium varium var. maculatum Lichtenstein and Martens, 1856, Nomencl. Rept. Amph. Mus. Zool. Berol.: 40. Holotype: ZMB 3379, according to Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 83. Type locality: "Veragoa" = Veragua, Panama; discussed by Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 89. Restricted to "the western portion of the Provincia Chiriquí, western Panamá" by Lötters, Böhme, and Günther, 1998, Mitt. Mus. Naturkd. Berlin, Zool., 74: 176. Synonymy by Dunn, 1931, Occas. Pap. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 5: 397, and Lötters, Böhme, and Günther, 1998, Mitt. Mus. Naturkd. Berlin, Zool., 74: 176.
Hylaemorphus bibronii Schmidt, 1857, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 24: 14. Holotype: KM 1015/1355, according to Savage, 1970, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 38: 273-288. Type locality: "Neu-Granada"; later restricted by Schmidt, 1858, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 14: 256, to "Neu-Granada, unweit Panama, zwischen 2000′ und 3000′ [Polish feet, therefore = 460-760 m, according to Savage, 1970, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 38: 273-288]". Synonymy by Cochran and Goin, 1970, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 288: 137. See comment by Lötters, 1996, Neotrop. Toad Genus Atelopus: 53, about type locality and status.
Hylaemorphus dumerilii Schmidt, 1857, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 24: 14. Holotype: KM 1014/1355, according to Savage, 1970, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 38: 273-288. Type locality: "Neu-Granada", later restricted by Schmidt, 1858, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 14: 256, to "Neu-Granada, Provinz Veragua, in Höhe bis gegen 8000′". Synonymy by Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 137; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 152.
Hylaemorphus plutonius Jan, 1857, Cenni Mus. Civ. Milano: 53. Type(s): MSNM. Type locality: "Brasile" (presumably in error). Nomen nudum attributed to Fitzinger and Tschudi, presumably on the basis of label names. Presumed to be in this synonymy on the basis of similarity of name with Hylaemorphus pluto Schmidt, 1858 (DRF).
Hylaemorphus pluto Schmidt, 1858, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 14: 255. Syntypes: NHMW 3875.1-4 (4 specimens), according to Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 83. Type locality: "Costa Rica". Restricted to "Cartago, Cantón Cartago, Provincia Cartago, Costa Rica" by Savage, 1974, Rev. Biol. Tropical, 22: 84, who also commented on the type locality. Synonymy by Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 35: 624.
Phryniscus bibronii — Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 155.
Phryniscus varius — Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 45.
Phrynidium bibronii — Cope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 196.
Atelopus varius — Keferstein, 1867, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 18: 350; Boulenger, 1894, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 14: 374-375.
Atelopus varius var. maculatus — Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 618.
Phryniscus dumerilii — Brocchi, 1882, Miss. Scient. Mex. Amer. Centr., Rech. Zool., 3(2, livr. 2): 96.
Phryniscus varius — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 152.
Atelopus bibronii — Boulenger, 1894, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 14: 374-375; Rivero, 1963, Caribb. J. Sci., 3: 108.
Atelopus varius varius — Dunn, 1931, Occas. Pap. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 5: 393-397.
Atelopus varius maculatus — Dunn, 1931, Occas. Pap. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 5: 397.
Atelopus varius loomisi Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 35: 625. Holotype: KU 24746, by original designation. Type locality: "Isla Bonita (American Cinchona plantation), approximately 5000 ft. elevation, eastern slope Volcán Poás, [Cantón de Alajuela, Provincia de Alajuela,] Costa Rica". Type locality commented on by Savage, 1974, Rev. Biol. Tropical, 22: 79.
Atelopus varius ambulatorius Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 35: 628. Holotype: R.C. Taylor 766, by original designation; now FMNH 178270 according to Marx, 1976, Fieldiana, Zool., 69: 44. Type locality: "Isla Bonita (American Cinchona Plantation), southeastern slope Volcán Poás, elevation approximately 6000 ft.", Cantón de Alajuela, Provincia de Alajuela, Costa Rica. Type locality commented on by Savage, 1974, Rev. Biol. Tropical, 22: 80.
Atelopus loomisi — Taylor, 1955, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 37: 517. Taxonomic change without discussion.
Atelopus varius bibroni — Cochran and Goin, 1970, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 288: 137.
Common Names
Harlequin Frog (Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 77–94).
Clown Frog (Trade name).
Painted Frog (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 36).
Veragoa Stubfoot Toad (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40).
Distribution
Premontane and lower montane zones on both Atlantic and Pacific versants of the cordilleras of Costa Rica and western Panama, below 1600 m elevation (records from eastern Panama and Colombia apparently are based on misidentifications; see comment).
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Costa Rica, Panama
Comment
In the Atelopus ignescens group of Lynch, 1993, Alytes, 11: 77–87. See account by Savage, 1972, Herpetologica, 28: 77–94. Cocroft, McDiarmid, Jaslow, and Ruiz-Carranza, 1990, Copeia, 1990: 638, suggested that Atelopus varius was a species complex, with at least the Panamanian records represented more than one species. Similarly, Lötters, 1996, Neotrop. Toad Genus Atelopus: 53, suggested that Colombian (source of these is Cochran and Goin, 1970, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 288: 118–145, a notorious source of misidentifications and taxonomic misallocations) and eastern Panamanian records are based on misidentifications. See Lötters, Böhme, and Günther, 1998, Mitt. Mus. Naturkd. Berlin, Zool., 74: 173v184, for discussion of nomenclatural history. See account by Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 189–190, who restricted the distribution to Costa Rica and Panama. Richards and Knowles, 2007, Mol. Ecol., 16: 3119–3133, suggested that at least their samples of Atelopus varius from Costa Rica were more closely related to Atelopus senex than they were to Panamanian Atelopus varius. See photograph, map, description of geographic range and habitat, and conservation status in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 177. Velásquez-Álvarez and Kahn, 2005, in Rueda-Almonacid et al. (eds.), Ranas Arlequines: 115, provided a brief account, photograph, and map. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 98–102, compared this to the other species of Central America and provided a map and photograph. Perez, Richards-Zawacki, Krohn, Robak, Griffith, Ross, Gratwicke, Ibáñez D., and Voyles, 2014, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 8: 30–35, reported on populations in western Panama persisting where chytrid fungus is present. Barrio-Amorós, Chaves, and Puschendorf, 2021, Reptiles & Amphibians, 28: 1–15, discussed surviving populations in Costa Rica, identified three distinct morphs, and provided a dot map. Estupiñán, Ferrari, Gonçalves, Barbosa, Vallinoto, and Schneider, 2016, ZooKeys, 637: 89–106, suggested on the basis of COI barcodes that cryptic species are likely. Jiménez-Monge, Montoya-Greenheck, Bolaños, and Alvarado, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (2: e192): 115–125, discussed a seemingly chytrid-free population in La Amistad International Park, Costa Rica. Veselý and Batista, 2021, Zool. Res., Kunming, 42: 272–279, provided a dot map of the distribution, which suggests that records from eastern Panama and adjacent Colombia are based on misidentifications.
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 additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.