Espadarana prosoblepon (Boettger, 1892)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Centrolenidae > Subfamily: Centroleninae > Genus: Espadarana > Species: Espadarana prosoblepon

Hyla prosoblepon Boettger, 1892, Kat. Batr. Samml. Mus. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges.: 45. Syntypes: SMF 3756 (formerly 1400.1a, according to Boettger, 1892, Kat. Batr. Samml. Mus. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges.: vi), and ZMB 28019, according to Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, 95: 193; SMF 3756 designated lectotype by Mertens, 1967, Senckenb. Biol., 48(A): 42. Type locality: "Plantage Cairo (La Junta) bei Limon, [Cantón de Siquirres, Provincia de Limón,] atlantische Seite von Costa Rica". Savage, 1974, Rev. Biol. Tropical, 22: 82, commented on the type locality.

Hylella puncticrus Boulenger, 1896, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 18: 341. Syntypes: BMNH 1896.10.8.70-71, according to Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, 95: 193, now reregistered as 1947.2.13.13 according to museum records. Type locality: "La Palma" San José Province, Costa Rica. Synonymy by Günther, 1901, Biol. Centr. Amer., Rept. Batr., Vol. 7, Part 166: 280. This synonymy considered only tentative by Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 35: 769.

Hylella parabambae Boulenger, 1898, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1898: 125. Holotype: BMNH 1898.4.28.163, according to Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, 95: 193; now 1947.2.13.13 according to museum records; Guayasamin, Cisneros-Heredia, McDiarmid, Peña, and Hutter, 2020, Diversity, 12 (222): 1103, suggested the the holotype may be conspecific with Espadarana callistomma.Type locality: "Paramba", Imbabure Province, Ecuador. Noted elsewhere in the original publication as "Paramba, a farm on the W. bank of the River Mira, at 3500 feet altitude; it is still in the forest region, but the open country commences two or three miles higher up the Mira". Synonymy by Lynch and Duellman, 1973, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 16: 49.

Hyla ocellifera Boulenger, 1899, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 7, 3: 277. Holotype: BMNH 1898.5.19.3 (reregistered as 1947.2.13.50) according to Condit, 1964, J. Ohio Herpetol. Soc., 4: 93, and museum records. Type locality: "Paramba, [Provincia Imbabura,] N. W. Ecuador". Synonymy by Cisneros-Heredia and Yánez-Muñoz, 2007, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 2: 6; Cisneros-Heredia and McDiarmid, 2007, Zootaxa, 1572: 36, 42.

Centrolene prosoblepon — Noble, 1924, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 37: 66.

Centrolene parambae — Dunn, 1933, Occas. Pap. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 8: 73. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Cochranella parabambae — Taylor, 1951, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 64: 35.

Cochranella ocellifera — Taylor, 1951, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 64: 35.

Centrolenella parabambae — Goin, 1964, Herpetologica, 20: 6.

Centrolenella ocellifera — Goin, 1964, Herpetologica, 20: 6.

Centrolenella prosoblepon — Goin, 1964, Herpetologica, 20: 5.

Centrolene prosoblepon — Ruiz-Carranza and Lynch, 1991, Lozania, 57: 20.

Cochranella ocellifera — Ruiz-Carranza and Lynch, 1991, Lozania, 57: 22.

Espadarana prosoblepon — Guayasamin, Castroviejo-Fisher, Trueb, Ayarzagüena, Rada, and Vilà, 2009, Zootaxa, 2100: 33.

Common Names

Nicaragua Giant Glass Frog (Centrolene proboblepon: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 46).

Emerald Glassfrog (Arteaga-Navarro, Bustamante, and Guayasamin, 2013, Amph. Rept. Mindo: 47). 

Paramba Cochran Frog (Cochranella ocellifera [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 47).

Variable Glassfrog (Guayasamin, Cisneros-Heredia, McDiarmid, Peña, and Hutter, 2020, Diversity, 12 (222): 106; Freile, Coloma, Terán-Valdez, Acosta-López, Tapia, and Pazmiño-Otamendi, 2020, Anfibios de Junín: 28). 

Distribution

Eastern Honduras and north-central Nicaragua; Costa Rica, Panama, and Pacific slopes of Colombia to southeastern Ecuador, sea level to 2200 m elevation. Also found on the northern and eastern flanks of the Eastern Andes south to Caldas, and the Magdalena Valley and western slopes of the central Andes of Colombia.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama

Comment

Lynch and Duellman, 1973, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 16: 49, discussed variation and synonyms. In the Centrolene prosoblepon group, according to Ruiz-Carranza and Lynch, 1991, Lozania, 57: 1-30. Lips and Savage, 1996, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 109: 17–26, included this species (as Centrolenella prosoblepon) in a key to the tadpoles found in Costa Rica. See account by Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 361-362 (as Centrolenella prosoblepon) and McCranie and Wilson, 2002, Amph. Honduras: 201-206. Cisneros-Heredia and McDiarmid, 2005, Check List, 1(1): 19-20, discussed the range in Ecuador and provided new localities. McCranie, 2007, Herpetol. Rev., 38: 37, detailed the departmental distribution in Honduras. Cisneros-Heredia and McDiarmid, 2007, Zootaxa, 1572: 60, discussed the species in Ecuador and noted the relevant literature. Cisneros-Heredia and Yánez-Muñoz, 2007, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 2: 6, noted that the record of Lynch and Duellman, 1973, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 16: 49, from Pilalo, on the eastern slope of the Cordillera Oriental of the Ecuadorian Andes is actually of an unnamed species. Kubicki, 2007, Glass Frogs Costa Rica: 98-11, provided an account for Costa Rica (as Centrolenella prosoblepon). See comments by Sunyer, Páiz, Dehling, and Köhler, 2009, Herpetol. Notes, 2: 189-202, regarding Nicaraguan populations. Osorio-Dominguez and Quintero-Angel, 2012, Check List, 8: 85-90, provided a record for the western slope of the Cordillera Central of Colombia. Arteaga-Navarro, Bustamante, and Guayasamin, 2013, Amph. Rept. Mindo: 47–49, provided an account for Ecuador. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 117–127, compared the centrolenid species of Central America and provided an identification key, maps, and photographs. Ríos-Soto, Ospina-L., Basto-Riascos, López-Caro, and Vargas-Salinas, Herpetol. Notes, 10: 27–29, reported on distress call. Guayasamin, Cisneros-Heredia, McDiarmid, Peña, and Hutter, 2020, Diversity, 12 (222): 104–106, provided a detailed account, including adult and larval morphology, advertisement call, relationships, natural history, and conservation status. See Freile, Coloma, Terán-Valdez, Acosta-López, Tapia, and Pazmiño-Otamendi, 2020, Anfibios de Junín: 28–29, for brief account for Junín, Ecuador (identification, call, tadpole morphology, habitat, range) and photograph. 

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.