- 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
- 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
Cochranella mache Guayasamin and Bonaccorso, 2004
Cochranella mache Guayasamin and Bonaccorso, 2004, Herpetologica, 60: 486. Holotype: QCAZ 22412, by original designation. Type locality: "Riachuelo La Ducha (0° 20′ 41″ N, 79° 42′ 36″ W; 510 m), tributary of Río Aguacatal, Reserva Biológica Bilsa, 27.4 km W (airline distance) of the town of Quinindé, Montañas del Mache, Provincia Esmeraldas, Ecuador".
Common Names
Mache Glassfrog (Guayasamin, Cisneros-Heredia, McDiarmid, Peña, and Hutter, 2020, Diversity, 12 (222): 85).
Distribution
Municipality of Buenaventura, Valle del Cauca, and municipality of Dabeida, Antioquia, and in nearby Chocó, Colombia below 1030 m elevation, south to northwestern Ecuador, provinces of Esmeraldas, Imbabura, and Manabí, at elevations between 38 and 800 m.
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Colombia, Ecuador
Comment
In the Cochranella granulosa group according to the original publication. Cisneros-Heredia and McDiarmid, 2007, Zootaxa, 1572: 43, suggested that this species may actually be a synonym of Cochranella resplendens, and on page 54 discussed the species in Ecuador and provided access to the relevant literature. Cisneros-Heredia, Delia, Yánez-Muñoz, and Ortega-Andrade, 2008, Herpetozoa, Wien, 21: 57-66, discussed intraspecific variation and natural history. 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: 214. Jaramillo-Martinez, Valencia-Zuleta, Cardona-Botero, Castro-Herrera, and Cisneros-Heredia, 2015, Herpetol. Notes, 8: 161–163, provided records from Chocó, Antioquia, and Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Guayasamin, Cisneros-Heredia, McDiarmid, Peña, and Hutter, 2020, Diversity, 12 (222): 85–88, provided a detailed account, including adult morphology, advertisement call, relationships, natural history, and conservation status.
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.