Dendropsophus nanus (Boulenger, 1889)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Hylinae > Genus: Dendropsophus > Species: Dendropsophus nanus

Hyla nana Boulenger, 1889, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 2, 7: 249. Syntypes: BMNH 1947.2.12.83–85 (formerly 89.3.19.21–22) according to Condit, 1964, J. Ohio Herpetol. Soc., 4: 93, and MSNG 29721A; MSNG 29721A designated lectotype by Capocaccia, 1957, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 3, 69: 213. Type locality: "Colonia Resistencia, South Chaco, Argentine Republic".

Sphoenohyla nana — Goin, 1957, Caldasia, 8: 25.

Dendropsophus nanus — Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 92.

English Names

Dwarf Treefrog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 56).

Distribution

Northeastern Brazil, Suriname, and French Guiana southward through much of Brazil to central Paraguay, northern Argentina, eastern Bolivia, to extreme northwestern Uruguay, and La Plata Basin in Argentina.

Comment

See Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 495–498, and Langone and Basso, 1987, Comun. Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, 11: 1–17. See Barrio, 1967, Physis, Buenos Aires, 26: 521–524, for subspecies. See Dendropsophus sanborni. In the Hyla microcephala group according to Langone and Basso, 1987, Comun. Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, 11: 1–17; and Klappenbach and Langone, 1992, An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, Ser. 2, 8: 179. Lavilla, 1990, J. Herpetol., 24: 207–209, reported on larval morphology. See comment under Hyla walfordi. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 154–155, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1993, Biotropica, 25: 426–443, described the advertisement call. Lavilla and Cei, 2001, Monogr. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 28: 44, noted recent literature. See comment under Hyla minuscula. Medeiros, Rossa-Feres, and Recco-Pimentel, 2003, J. Heredity, 94: 149–154, reported on karyological differences between Hyla nana and Hyla sanborni, species otherwise frequently confused with each other. Martins and Jim, 2003, Brazil. J. Biol., 63: 507–516, discussed and described the advertisement call. See comment under Hyla nana. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 40, provided a brief account and photograph for the Uruguay population. In the Dendropsophus microcephalus group of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 91–92. Ponssa and Lavilla, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 199, provided a southern record for Argentina and noted the range. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 8, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. Vera Candioti, 2007, Zootaxa, 1600: 1–175, reported on detailed larval morphology. Silva, Santos, Alves, Sousa, and Annunziata, 2010, Sitientibus, Ser. Cienc. Biol., 7: 334–340, provided records for Piauí, Brazil. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 126–127. Schulze, Jansen, and Köhler, 2015, Zootaxa, 4016: 31–34, described, diagnosed, and pictured the larva as well as noting an unnamed lineage which they termed Dendropsophus cf. nana.  Teixeira, Zaracho, and Giaretta, 2016, Biota Neotrop., 16 (4: e20160183): 1–4, reported on advertisment and courtship calls. Zimmerman, 1983, Herpetologica, 39: 235–246, reported on advertisement call. See account by Maneyro, Langone, and Carreira, 2019, in Maneyro, Langone, and Carreira (eds.), Libro Rojo Anf. Rept. Uruguay: 53–57, for Uruguay. For identification of larvae (as Hyla nana) in central Amazonia, Brazil, see Hero, 1990, Amazoniana, 11: 201–262. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 59, provided a brief account, image, and dot map for Paraguay. Dubeux, Silva, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2019, Rev. Nordestina Zool., 12: 18–52, summarized the literature on larval morphology. Rossa-Feres and Nomura, 2006 "2005", Biota Neotrop., São Paulo, 6 (2: bn00706012006): 1–24, characterized and provided a key to the larvae of northwestern São Paulo state, Brazil. See Dubeux, Nascimento, Lima, Magalhães, Silva, Gonçalves, Almeida, Correia, Garda, Mesquita, Rossa-Feres, and Mott, 2020, Biota Neotrop., 20 (2: e20180718): 1–24, for characterization and identification of larvae north of the Rio São Francisco in the Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 74–75, provided an account. In the Dendropsophus microcephalus group of Orrico, Grant, Faivovich, Rivera-Correa, Rada, Lyra, Cassini, Valdujo, Schargel, Machado, Wheeler, Barrio-Amorós, Loebmann, Moravec, Zina, Solé, Sturaro, Peloso, Suárez, and Haddad, 2021, Cladistics, 37: 73–105. Alves-Ferreira, Paixão, and Nomura, 2021, Biota Neotrop., 21 (4: e20201178): 1–11, reported on larval morphology in Goias, Brazil. Laufer, Gobel, Kacevas, Lado, Cortizas, Carabio, Arrieta, Prigioni, Borteiro, and Kolenc, 2021, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 15 (2: e290): 228–237, provided new records for Uruguay and discussed conservation status. Lopes, Serra, Piorski, and Andrade, 2020, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 92 (suppl. 2: e20181171): 1–14, reported on morphometric variation in tadpoles correlated with pond type.           

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.