- 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
Rhaebo guttatus (Schneider, 1799)
Bufo guttatus Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 218. Holotype: "Musei Blochiani" (= ZMB); ZMB 3517 according to Peters, 1863, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1863: 81. Type locality: "India Orientali"; corrected to Surinam by Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 21.
Bufo Leschenaulti Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 89. Type(s): Not stated, but presumably in MNHNP. Type locality: "India?". Nomen nudum ascribed to Bibron; presumably a jar label name. Synonymy by Peters, 1863, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1863: 81; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 290.
Bufo leschenaultii Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 662. Holotype: MNHNP 801, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 13. Type locality: "Guiane"; corrected to "Mana (Guyane)" by Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 13.
Phrynomorphus leschenaulti — Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 32.
Rhaebo leschenaultii — Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 358.
Bufo guttatus — Peters, 1863, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1863: 81.
Rhaebo guttatus — Cope, 1865, Nat. Hist. Rev., N.S., 5: 102.
Bufo crucifer var. pfrimeri Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 134. Holotype: MNRJ 375, according to Miranda-Ribeiro, 1955, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 42: 408. Type locality: Not designated, although clearly Brazil; given as "Poço do Rodrigues, rio da Bagagem, Goiás", Brazil, by Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 19, who considered this a synonym of Rhaebo guttatus. Treated as a member of Rhinella crucifer (as Bufo) by Lavilla, 1994 "1992", Acta Zool. Lilloana, 42: 64. Placed in the synonymy of Rhaebo guttatus by Baldissera, Caramaschi, and Haddad, 2004, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 62: 255.
Bufo anderssoni Melin, 1941, Göteborgs K. Vetensk. Vitterh. Samh. Handl., Ser. B, 1: 16. Holotype: NHMG 6 according to Hoogmoed, 1985, in Frost (ed.), Amph. Species World: 35; recorded in museum records as NHMG Ba.ex.521. Type locality: "Taracuá, Rio Uaupés, Brazil". Synonymy by Barrio-Amorós and Castroviejo-Fisher, 2007, Salamandra, 43: 250–253, Mueses-Cisneros, 2007, Zootaxa, 1662: 58, and Barrio-Amorós and Castroviejo-Fisher, 2008, Salamandra, 44: 59-62.
Bufo melini Andersson, 1945, Ark. Zool., 37A(2): 62. Replacement name for Bufo anderssoni Melin, 1941, thought incorrectly to be preoccupied by Bufo andersoni Boulenger, 1883 (= Bufo stomaticus).
Bufo guttatus guttatus — Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 21.
Bufo crucifer phrimeri — Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 19. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Rhaebo guttatus — 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: 365.
Rhaebo anderssoni — 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: 365.
Common Names
Smooth-sided Toad (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 80; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 39).
Spotted Toad (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 41).
Andersson's Toad (Rhaebo anderssoni [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40).
Distribution
Amazonian Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador (northern Pastaza, eastern Orellana and central Sucumbíos provinces), Colombia, and Venezuela, as well as the Guyanas to, and Amazonian eastern and central Brazil.
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela
Comment
See comment under Rhaebo glaberrimus. Duellman, 1997, Sci. Pap. Nat. Hist. Mus. Univ. Kansas, 2: 9, commented on a population in southern Venezuela. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 62–63, provided a brief account, including a description of the call, and photo. Lötters, De la Riva, Reichle, and Soto, 2000, Bonn. Zool. Beitr., 49: 75–78, reported this species in Bolivia and diagnosed it from Rhaebo glaberrimus. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 16, provided some comments on distribution in the Venezuela Guyana. Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 8, implied some level of genetic interchange with either Rhaebo anderssoni or Rhaebo glaberrimus (treated as in Bufo) in the foothills of Táchira, Venezuela. Bustamante, Menéndez-Guerrero, and Cisneros-Heredia, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 331, provided the first record for Ecuador. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 183–184, provided an account (adult and larval morphology, description of the call, life history). Lutz, 1971, in Bücherl and Buckley (eds.), Venomous Animals and their Venoms, 2: 423–473, was apparently unaware of the objective synonymy of Bufo anderssoni and Bufo melini and listed both names as different taxa. According to Melin, 1941, Göteborgs K. Vetensk. Vitterh. Samh. Handl., Ser. B, 1: 16, Bufo anderssoni is related to Rhaebo guttatus and to Rhaebo glaberrimus. Andersson, 1945, Ark. Zool., 37A(2): 63, thought Bufo anderssoni closely allied to Bufo glaberrimus, and Myers and Funkhouser, 1951, Zoologica, New York, 36: 280, thought them synonyms. Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 22, and Hoogmoed, 1990, in Peters and Hutterer (eds.), Vert. Tropics: 114, thought that Bufo anderssoni was probably identical to Rhaebo guttatus (as Bufo). Lynch, 2006, Caldasia, 28: 137, discussed misidentifications in Colombia. Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 126–127, provided an account. Bernarde, Machado, and Turci, 2011, Biota Neotrop., 11: 117–144, reported specimens from Reserva Extrativista Riozinho da Liberdade, Acre, Brazil. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 54–55. Mueses-Cisneros, Cisneros-Heredia, and McDiarmid, 2012, Zootaxa, 3447: 22–40, commented on identifications relating to the delimitation of Rhaebo ecuadorensis and suggested that specimens previously allocated to this species from southern Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil should be carefully evaluated. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 378, for brief account and records for Guyana. Señaris, Lampo, Rojas-Runjaic, and Barrio-Amorós, 2014, Guía Ilust. Anf. Parque Nac. Canaima: 62–63, provided a brief account for the Parque Nacional de Canaima, Venezuela, and photograph. Acosta-Galvis and Señaris, 2018, Vol. 6, Fauna Silvestre Escudo Guayanés: 86, noted the species in Guaviare, Vichada, and Vaupés Provinces, Colombia. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 13, for remarks on distribution and literature. Andrade, Silva, Valencia-Zuleta, Orrico, and Ribeiro, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 125–127, reported on the range, with new records from Maranhão, Brazil. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 19, provided an account for Goiás and the D.F. population, Brazil. See brief account by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 36–37. Marinho, Costa-Campos, Sanches, and Carvalho, 2019, J. Nat. Hist., London, 54: 236–238, reported the release call. Metcalf, Marsh, Torres Pacaya, Graham, and Gunnels, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 753–767, reported the species from the Santa Cruz Forest Reserve, Loreto, northeastern Peru. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil. Gagliardi-Urrutia, García Dávila, Jaramillo-Martinez, Rojas-Padilla, Rios-Alva, Aguilar-Manihuari, Pérez-Peña, Castroviejo-Fisher, Simões, Estivals, Guillen Huaman, Castro Ruiz, Angulo Chávez, Mariac, Duponchelle, and Renno, 2022, Anf. Loreto: 46–47, provided a brief account, dot map, and genetic barcode for Loreto, Peru.
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 additional information specific to Ecuador see FaunaWebEcuador: Anfibios del Ecuador
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.