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.

Common Names

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

Distribution

Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná, Brazil, south through central and eastern Paraguay, Entre Ríos in northern Argentina, to extreme northwestern Uruguay, and La Plata Basin in Argentina. Records from Amazonian Brazil apply to unnamed or named relatives (see comment) and reports from Amapá, Brazil, Suriname and French Guiana presumably apply to Dendropsophus walfordi. 

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay

Comment

Care should be employed in using literature prior to 2021 due to widespread confusion of Dendopsophus nanus with named and unnamed species found north of very southern Brazil. Bokermann, 1963, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 35: 472–474, detailed larval morphology (as nominal Hyla nana) but from São Paulo, Brazil, now outside of the known range. See Barrio, 1967, Physis, Buenos Aires, 26: 521–524, for subspecies as then conceived. 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, for accounts (as Hyla nana). 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. Lavilla and Cei, 2001, Monogr. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 28: 44, noted recent literature. Medeiros, Rossa-Feres, and Recco-Pimentel, 2003, J. Heredity, 94: 149–154, reported on karyological differences between Hyla nana (now assigned to an unnamed Dendropsophus species in eastern Brazil) 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 (as Hyla nana), although this record is likely now assignable to an unnamed Dendropsophus from eastern Brazil. 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 from an Argentinian population. Silva, Santos, Alves, Sousa, and Annunziata, 2010, Sitientibus, Ser. Cienc. Biol., 7: 334–340, provided records for Piauí, Brazil (now assigned to an unnamed but associated Dendropsophus lineage). Bernarde, Machado, and Turci, 2011, Biota Neotrop., 11: 117–144, reported specimens from Reserva Extrativista Riozinho da Liberdade, Acre, Brazil. 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 advertisement and courtship calls at the type locality of Hyla nana. See account by Maneyro, Langone, and Carreira, 2019, in Maneyro, Langone, and Carreira (eds.), Libro Rojo Anf. Rept. Uruguay: 53–57, for Uruguay. 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 (as Dendropsophus nanus, but on the basis of range, presumably applying to an associated but unnamed Dendropsophus lineage in northeastern Brazil). 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 (now assigned to an unnamed Dendropsophus lineage). 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 (now assigned to an unnamed lineage). 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 (now assigned to an unnamed lineage). 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, presumably, and on the basis of geography, likely applying to an unnamed but associated Dendropsophus lineage. 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. Seger, Teixeira, Annibale, Rossa-Feres, Lima, Andrade, Giaretta, and Lourenço, 2021, Diversity, 13 (11: 522): 1–23, refined the taxonomic status and range of this species as well as that of Dendropsophus walfordi, noting three unnamed lineages in eastern Brazil, eastern Bolivia, and south-central Brazil. Palmeira, Gonçalves, Dubeux, Lima, Lambertini, Valencia-Aguilar, Jenkinson, James, Toledo, and Mott, 2022, Cuad. Herpetol., 36: 65–75, reported on habitat in Natural Heritage Reserve Mata Estrela, Baía Formosa, Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil (on the basis of geography applying to an unnamed but associated Dendropsophus lineage). Manzano, Takeno, and Sawaya, 2022, Zootaxa, 5178: 453–472, reported on the advertisement call from southern Brazll (on the basis of geography likely applying to an unnamed but associated Dendropsophus lineage). Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 112, regarded records of Dendropsophus nanus from Amapá, Brazil, to apply to Dendropsophus walfordi. Vicente-Ferreira, Nascimento, Batista, Kardush, Reyes, and Garey, 2024, Biota Neotrop., 24(1: e20231526): 1–17, provided records from the Refúgio Biológico Bela Vista, Paraná, southern Brazil (adjacent to the Paraguay border), as well as providing identification keys to these species based on larval and adult morphology.

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.