Phrynomedusa appendiculata (Lutz, 1925)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Phyllomedusinae > Genus: Phrynomedusa > Species: Phrynomedusa appendiculata

Phyllomedusa appendiculata Lutz, 1925, C. R. Mém. Hebd. Séances Soc. Biol. Filial., Paris, 93 (1925, vol. 2): 139. Holotype: Not stated; likely MNRJ 770 according to Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 82. Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 70, considered USNM 97147 to be a syntype. Type locality: Not stated; given as São Bento do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil, by Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 70, and Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 82 (who discussed the problems surrounding the provenance of the type.

Phrynomedusa appendiculataCruz, 1991 "1990", Rev. Brasil. Biol., 50: 721.

Common Names

Lutz's Phyllomedusa (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 122).

Santa Catarina Leaf Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 61).

Distribution

Known only from five localities: (1) the type locality in the município de São Bento do Sul and (2) Novo Horizonte, município de Lauro Müller, both in the state of Santa Catarina,  (3) Paranapiacaba, município de Santo André, state of São Paulo, (4) municipality of Cubatão, state of São Paulo, and (5) Parque Estadual Nascentes do Paranapanema, Capão Bonito municipality, state of São Paulo, Brazil, in south and southeastern Brazil, respectively. 800–1000 m elevation.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Brazil

Endemic: Brazil

Comment

Resurrected from the synonymy of Phrynomedusa fimbriata by Cruz, 1987 "1985", Arq. Univ. Fed. Rural Rio de Janeiro, 8: 94, where it had been placed by Bokermann IN Funkhouser, 1957, Occas. Pap. Nat. Hist. Mus. Stanford Univ., 5: 27. See account by Heyer, Rand, Cruz, Peixoto, and Nelson, 1990, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 31: 284. See statement of geographic range, habitat, and conservation status in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 616. See account by Baêta, Giasson, Pombal, and Haddad, 2016, Herpetol. Monogr., 30: 56–59, who noted that larval morphology and the advertisement call were unknown. Forti, Haddad, Leite, Drummond, Assis, Crivellari, Mello, Garcia, Zornosa-Torres, and Toledo, 2019, PeerJ, 7(e7612): 1–39, reported on advertisement call. Moraes, Baêta, Amaro, Martensen, and Pavan, 2022, Zootaxa, 5087: 522–540, reported on the first collection in  51 years (Parque Estadual Nascentes do Paranapanema, Capão Bonito municipality, state of São Paulo, Brazil) and detailed the comparative morphology, molecular markers, and advertisement call. Baêta and Pombal, 2024, Ichthyol. & Herpetol., 112: 418–428, discussed misidentifications and provided a dot map of its distribution. 

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.