Ameerega hahneli (Boulenger, 1884)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Superfamily: Dendrobatoidea > Family: Dendrobatidae > Subfamily: Colostethinae > Genus: Ameerega > Species: Ameerega hahneli

Dendrobates hahneli Boulenger, 1884 "1883", Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883: 636. Syntypes: BMNH ("several specimens"), including 1947.2.15.14–20 (formerly 1884.2.36–42) by museum records; BMNH 1947.2.15.17 designated lectotype by Silverstone, 1976, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 27: 42. Type locality: "Yurimaguas, Huallaga River, [Loreto,] Northern Peru".

Dendrobates pictus hahneli — Lutz, 1952, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 50: 601.

Epipedobates hahneli — Martins and Sazima, 1989, Ciencia Hoje, 9: 34; Haddad and Martins, 1994, Herpetologica, 50: 282–295.

Epipedobates hahneli hahneli — Schulte, 1999, Pfeilgiftfrösche: 233.

Ameerega hahneli — 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: 130, by implication; Grant, Frost, Caldwell, Gagliardo, Haddad, Kok, Means, Noonan, Schargel, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 299: 164.

Common Names

Yurimaguas Poison Frog (Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 108).

Distribution

Amazonian lowlands of Amazonian Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, the extreme south of Venezuela, southeastern Guyana, southwestern Suriname, and French Guiana and into Amapá, Brazil.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela

Comment

See account by Haddad and Martins, 1994, Herpetologica, 50: 282–295, who noted that a similar, apparently unnamed, species occurs in the Amazonian lowlands of Peru, and that the review of Phyllobates pictus by Lescure, 1976, Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, Ser. 3, Zool., 377: 487–488, is likely based on this species. See Silverstone, 1976, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 27: 42, who regarded this species as a pattern class of Ameerega picta (as Phyllobates). Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 18–19, provided a brief account as Epipedobates hahneli. See De la Riva, Márquez, and Bosch, 1996, J. Nat. Hist., London, 30: 1413–1420, for Bolivian record, discussion of advertisement call, and discussion of taxonomic uncertainty regarding this and related species. Köhler and Lötters, 1999, Bonn. Zool. Beitr., 48: 259–273, also note a Bolivian record. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 96–97, provided a brief account and photo. Schulte, 1999, Pfeilgiftfrösche: 227–235, provided an account. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 194–196, provided an account (adult morphology, description of the call, life history). Roberts, Brown, von May, Arizabal, Schulte, and Summers, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 41: 149–164, provided DNA sequence data that suggest that nominal Ameerega hahneli is polyphyletic. Lötters, Jungfer, Henkel, and Schmidt, 2007, Poison Frogs: 336–342, provided an account and placed this species in their Ameerega picta group. Fouquet, Gilles, Vences, Marty, Blanc, and Gemmell, 2007, PLoS One, 10 (e1109): 1–10, provided molecular evidence that this is a species complex. Twomey and Brown, 2008, Zootaxa, 1757: 1–17, discussed the Ameerega hahneli complex and noted that populations on the eastern versant of Peru represented a distinct species, Ameerega altamazonica; they also noted other unnamed, but likely distinct species in the complex. França and Venâncio, 2010, Biotemas, 23: 71–84, provided a record for the municipality of Boca do Acre, Amazonas, with a brief discussion of the range. 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: 88–90.See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 390–391, for brief account and records for Guyana. Menin, Pinto, Pegorini, and Silva, 2017, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 12: 236–243, redescribed the larval and its ontogeny. Fouquet, Vidal, and Dewynter, 2019, Zoosystema, 41: 368, reported the species from the Mitaraka Massif in southwestern French Guiana, on the border with Amapá, Brazil, and suggested that the species is actually a complex. Brown, Siu-Ting, von May, Twomey, Guillory, Deutsch, and Chávez, 2019, Zootaxa, 4712: 211–235, mapped the species in Peru and included it in their Ameerega rubriventris complex. In the Ameerega hahneli species group of Guillory, French, Twomey, Chávez, Prates, von May, De la Riva, Lötters, Reichle, Serrano-Rojas, Whitworth, and Brown, 2020, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 142 (106638): 1–13. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 108–109. 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. Schiesari, Rossa-Feres, Menin, and Hödl, 2022, Zootaxa, 5223: 37–38, detailed larval morphology and natural history in central Amazonia, 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: 62–63, provided a brief account, photograph, dot map, and genetic barcode for Loreto, Peru. Crnobrna, Santa-Cruz Farfan, Gallegos, López-Rojas, Llanqui, Panduro Pisco, and Kelsen Arbaiza, 2023, Check List, 19: 441, provided a record from Ucayali Department, central-eastern 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.