Boana xerophylla (Duméril and Bibron, 1841)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Cophomantinae > Genus: Boana > Species: Boana xerophylla

Hyla xerophylla Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 549. Holotype: MNHNP 652, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 24. Type locality: "Cayenne", French Guiana. 

Hyla levaillantii Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 550. Holotype: MNHNP 764, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 24. Type locality: "Surinam". Synonymy (provisional) with Hyla crepitans by Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 612–613; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 352. Synonymy with Hyla xerophylla by Orrico, Nunes, Mattedi, Fouquet, Lemos, Rivera-Correa, Lyra, Loebmann, Pimenta, Caramaschi, Rodrigues, and Haddad, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 107. 

Hyla doumercii Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 551. Holotype: MNHNP 766, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 24. Type locality: "Surinam". Provisional synonymy with Hyla crepitans by Peters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 212. Synonymy by Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 612–613; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 352, but subsequently recognized by Lutz, 1951, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 47: 320, although not be subsequent authors. Synonymy with Hyla xerophylla by Orrico, Nunes, Mattedi, Fouquet, Lemos, Rivera-Correa, Lyra, Loebmann, Pimenta, Caramaschi, Rodrigues, and Haddad, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 107.

Hypsiboas (Hypsipsophus) xerophyllumFitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 30.

Hypsiboas levaillantiiCope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 200.

Hypsiboas doumericiiCope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 200.

Hypsiboas xerophyllumCope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 200.

Hypsiboas indris Cope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 201. Holotype: KM 1009, according to Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, 95: 49. Type locality: "Surinam". Synonymy with Hyla crepitans by Barbour, 1920, Am. Nat., 54: 287; Cochran and Goin, 1970, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 288: 192. Synonymy with Hyla xerophylla by Orrico, Nunes, Mattedi, Fouquet, Lemos, Rivera-Correa, Lyra, Loebmann, Pimenta, Caramaschi, Rodrigues, and Haddad, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 107.Nomen nudum. 

Hyla indrisBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 353.

Hyla fuentei Goin and Goin, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 581. Holotype: CM 44218, by original designation. Type locality: "Suriname, Suriname District. Powakka".

Hyla fuentei — Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 89.

Hypsiboas xerophylla — Orrico, Nunes, Mattedi, Fouquet, Lemos, Rivera-Correa, Lyra, Loebmann, Pimenta, Caramaschi, Rodrigues, and Haddad, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 99. 

Boana fuentei — Dubois, 2017, Bionomina, 11: 28. 

Boana xerophylla — Dubois, 2017, Bionomina, 11: 28. 

 

English Names

Fuente's Powakka Treefrog (Hyla fuentei [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 55).

Emerald-eyed Treefrog (Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 13).

Distribution

Relatively dry habitats in eastern Panama, through northern Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas, including adjacent northern Brazil, below 2400 m elevation.

Comment

Removed from the synonymy of Hypsiboas crepitans by Orrico, Nunes, Mattedi, Fouquet, Lemos, Rivera-Correa, Lyra, Loebmann, Pimenta, Caramaschi, Rodrigues, and Haddad, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 107, where it had been placed by Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 24. See account (as Hyla fuentei) for Surinam population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 148–150. In the Hyla boans group of Duellman, 2001, Hylid Frogs Middle Am., Ed. 2: 859 (who also noted that the previous record for this species in Honduras was erroneous). This taxon (as Hyla crepitans) considered to be a composite of several species; see Kluge, 1979, Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 688: 1–24 (see Hyla pugnax). Kenny, 1969, Stud. Fauna Curaçao and other Caribb. Is., 29: 38–40, and Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 66–67, provided accounts for the Trinidad and Tobago populations (as Hyla crepitans). Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 118–119, provided a brief account (as Hyla crepitans) and photo (although this photo is of an undescribed cryptic rainforest species according to Barrio-Amorós, personal commun.). Lynch and Suárez-Mayorga, 2001, Caldasia, 23: 491–507, discussed the Colombian range of the species (as Hyla crepitans) and suggested that the nominal species is a composite of cryptic species, mirrored by comments by Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 29. See comment regarding geographic differentiation (as Hyla crepitans) in Venezuela by Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 29–30. In the Hypsiboas faber group of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 87. Martins, Silva, and Giaretta, 2009, Salamandra, 45: 106–109, suggested on the basis of call structure that the two allopatric populations were probably distinct species; these were formally diagnosed (as Hypsiboas xerophylla and Hypsiboas crepitans) and revised by Orrico, Nunes, Mattedi, Fouquet, Lemos, Rivera-Correa, Lyra, Loebmann, Pimenta, Caramaschi, Rodrigues, and Haddad, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 99–113. See account for Surinam population (as Hypsiboas fuentei and Hypsiboas crepitans) by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 140–143. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 404, for brief account (as Hypsiboas crepitans) and records for Guyana. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 232–235, provided a brief summary of natural history for the species of Hypsiboas in Central America and provided a range map and photograph for this species, as Hypsiboas crepitans. Vanzolini and Myers, 2015, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 395: 72, doubted that the populations in Panama and Colombia (now Hypsiboas xerophylla) are conspecific with the Brazilian species (now Hypsiboas crepitans). Guarnizo, Paz, Muñoz-Ortiz, Flechas, Méndez-Narváez, and Crawford, 2016, PLoS One, 10(5: e0127312): 1–20, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that two species may exist in Colombia (as Hypsiboas crepitans). Ovalle-Pacheco, Camacho-Rozo, and Arroyo, 2019, Check List, 15: 396, reported the species from Boyacá, Colombia, and commented on the range in Colombia. Escalona Sulbarán, Juncá, Giaretta, Crawford, and La Marca, 2019, Zootaxa, 4609: 519–547, found differences in calls, DNA, and morphology separating populations in western Venezuela from the Guianas suggesting that they are different lineages. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 68, for comments on range, systematics (noting that this name covers at least four species in Venezuela alone), and literature. Señaris and Rojas-Runjaic, 2020, in Rull and Carnaval (eds.), Neotrop. Divers. Patterns Process.: 571–632, commented on range and conservation status in the Venezuelan Guayana. Mijares-Urrutia, 1998, Rev. Biol. Tropical, 46: 119–143, characterized the larval morphology (as Hyla crepitans) as part of a key to the tadpoles of the high elevation frogs in Venezuela.   

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.