Nyctimantis siemersi (Mertens, 1937)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Hylinae > Genus: Nyctimantis > Species: Nyctimantis siemersi

Hyla siemersi Mertens, 1937, Senckenb. Biol., 19: 12. Holotype: SMF 22249, according to Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, 95: 8. Type locality: "Buenos Aires, am Rio de la Plata", Provincia Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Hyla (Trachycephalus) siemersiCei and Pierotti, 1957, An. Depto. Invest. Cient. Secc. Biol. Univ. Nac. Cuyo, Tucuman, 2: 12.

Trachycephalus siemersiKlappenbach, 1961, Comun. Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, 5: 1.

Argenteohyla siemersiTrueb, 1970, Herpetologica, 26: 258.

Argenteohyla siemersi siemersiWilliams and Bosso, 1994, Cuad. Herpetol., 8: 57-62.

Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni Williams and Bosso, 1994, Cuad. Herpetol., 8: 58. Holotype: MLP A 876, by original designation. Type locality: "Argentina, Corrientes, cruce de la ruta nacional 12 y el río Santa Lucia en las proximadades de San Roque".

Nyctimantis siemersi — Blotto, Lyra, Cardoso, Rodrigues, Dias, Marciano, Vechio, Orrico, Brandão, Assis, Lantyer-Silva, Rutherford, Gagliardi-Urrutia, Solé, Baldo, Nunes, Cajade, Torres, Grant, Jungfer, Silva, Haddad, and Faivovich, 2021, Cladistics, 37: 71.

Common Names

Red-spotted Argentina Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 52).

Distribution

Drainages and mouth of the Río Paraná (Santa Fé, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, and Buenos Aires provinces) in Argentina, adjacent south-central Paraguay, and southern coast of Uruguay.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay

Comment

Lavilla and Cei, 2001, Monogr. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 28: 40, noted that the two nominal subspecies were likely distinct species. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 49, provided a brief account and photograph for the Uruguay population. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 7, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. See photograph, map, description of geographic range and habitat, and conservation status in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 239. Lajmanovích, Peltzer, Attademo, Cabagna, Junges, and Basso, 2012, Check List, 8: 790-791, provided a record of Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni from Santa Fé Province, Argentina, and commented on the range. Zaracho and Areta, 2008, FACENA, 24: 49–57, noted advertisement call differences between the nominal subspecies, Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni and Argenteohyla siemersi siemersi, suggesting that they may represent distinct species. Cajade, Schaefer, Duré, Kehr, and Marangoni, 2010, J. Nat. Hist., London, 44: 1953–1978, reported on the advertisement call of Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 54, provided a brief account (as Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni), image, and dot map for Paraguay. Forti, Foratto, Márquez, Pereira, and Toledo, 2018, PeerJ, 6(e4813): 1–19, provided a characterization of the advertisement call. Ferraro, Blotto, Baldo, Barrasso, Barrionuevo, Basso, Cardozo, Cotichelli, Faivovich, Pereyra, and Lavilla, 2018, in Vaira, Akmentins, and Lavilla (eds.), Cuad. Herpetol., 32 (Supl. 1): 17–19, noted that the taxonomic status of this nominal subspecies remains problematic. Blotto, Lyra, Cardoso, Rodrigues, Dias, Marciano, Vechio, Orrico, Brandão, Assis, Lantyer-Silva, Rutherford, Gagliardi-Urrutia, Solé, Baldo, Nunes, Cajade, Torres, Grant, Jungfer, Silva, Haddad, and Faivovich, 2021, Cladistics, 37: 36–72, discussed the phylogenetic placement of the species and noted that the nominal subspecies are likely not different, although they suggested that further work is needed.  

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.