Argenteohyla siemersi (Mertens, 1937)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Lophyohylinae > Genus: Argenteohyla > Species: Argenteohyla 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".

English Names

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


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.


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 that call differences between the nominal subspecies, Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni and Argenteohyla siemersi siemersi, suggest 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. 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.  

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.