Engystomops pustulosus (Cope, 1864)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leiuperinae > Genus: Engystomops > Species: Engystomops pustulosus

Paludicola pustulosa Cope, 1864, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 16: 180. Holotype: "No. 4339"; USNM 4339 according to Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 78, who noted that the specimen was lost. Type locality: "New Grenada, on the River Truando", Colombia.

Bufo stentor Jiménez de la Espada, 1872, An. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat., 1: 85. Syntypes: 2 specimens, presumably in MNCN. Type locality: "en la isla de Taboga (golfo de Panamá)", Panama. Synonymy by Lynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488–496; and Cannatella and Duellman, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 902–921.

Bufo (Microphryne) pustulosus — Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 616.

Microphryne pustulosaCope, 1875 "1876", J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 8: 155.

Peralaimos stentorJiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 163.

Microphryne (Paludicola) pustulosaSumichrast, 1880, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 5: 189.

Engystomops pustulosusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 276; Ruthven, 1912, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 32: 308; Gorzula, 1977, Brit. J. Herpetol., 5: 657; Nascimento, Caramaschi, and Cruz, 2005, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 312..

Engystomops stentorBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 276.

Eupemphix stentorBoulenger, 1888, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 1: 188.

Eupemphix pustulosaBoulenger, 1888, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 1: 188.

Eupemphix trinitatis Boulenger, 1889, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 3: 307. Syntypes: BMNH (4 specimens), by original designation, these being 1947.2.20.33–36 (originally numbered 1889.3.12/19–21) according to museum records. Type locality: "Trinidad . . . in the Gardens". Synonymy by Parker, 1933, Trop. Agric., Trinidad, 10: 8–12.

Bufo atrigularis Werner, 1899, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 49: 482. Types: ZIUG, now lost, according to Böhme and Bischoff, 1984, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 19: 167, and Böhme, 2014, Mertensiella, 21: 86. Type locality: "Arima auf Trinidad". Synonymy with Eupemphix trinitatus by Boulenger, 1900, Zool. Rec., 36: 28. Synonymy by Nieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 166.

Eupemphix ruthveni Netting, 1930, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 19: 167. Holotype: UMMZ 45582, by original designation. Type locality: "Fundación, Colombia". Synonymy by Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 90.

Eupemphix pustulosa trinitatisParker, 1933, Trop. Agric., Trinidad, 10: 8–12.

Eupemphix pustulosus trinitatisLynn, 1959, Herpetologica, 15: 113.

Eupemphix pustulosus ruthveniRivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 90.

Physalaemus pustulosusLynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488–496.

Bufo strigularisGorham, 1974, Checklist World Amph.: 68. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Bufo atrigularis Werner, 1899.

Physalaemus pustulosus ruthveniHoogmoed and Gorzula, 1979, Zool. Meded., Leiden, 54: 202.

English Names

Tungara Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 83; Lee, 1996, Amph. Rept. Yucatan Peninsula: 73; Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 14). 

Túngara Frog (Campbell, 1998, Amph. Rept. N. Guatemala Yucatan Belize: 63; Lee, 2000, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Maya World: 81; (Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 12).

Distribution

Eastern and southern Mexico (Veracruz and Oaxaca) south and east through Central America to Colombia, Venezuela, and Guyana (see comment).

Comment

Drewry, Heyer, and Rand, 1982, Copeia, 1982: 636–645, discussed the advertisement call. See Cannatella and Duellman, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 902–921. Duellman, 1997, Sci. Pap. Nat. Hist. Mus. Univ. Kansas, 2: 25, commented on the southeastern Venezuela population. See accounts by Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 90; Lee, 1996, Amph. Rept. Yucatan Peninsula: 75; Campbell, 1998, Amph. Rept. N. Guatemala Yucatan Belize: 63–64; Lee, 2000, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Maya World: 81–83; Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 224–226; and McCranie and Wilson, 2002, Amph. Honduras: 458–462. Wynn and Heyer, 2002 "2001", Tropical Zool., 14: 279, noted that published Nei distances (Ryan, Rand, and Weigt, 1996, Evolution, 50: 2435–2453, who also reported on variation in advertisement call) among populations suggested that the North American and South American populations contacting in Panama are different species. Lips and Savage, 1996, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 109: 17–26, included this species (as Physalaemus pustulosus) in a key to the tadpoles found in Costa Rica. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 75–77, reported on variation and distribution in Venezuela. Kenny, 1969, Stud. Fauna Curaçao and other Caribb. Is., 29: 54–56 (as Eupemphix pustulosus trinitatis), and Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 90–92, provided accounts for Trinidad and Tobago. Weigt, Crawford, Rand, and Ryan, 2005, Mol. Ecol., 14: 3857–2876, reported on molecular phylogeography, and noted a secondary contact zone between the Mexico-Central America population and the Panama-South America population. Subsequently, Pröhl, Koshy, Mueller, Rand, and Ryan, 2006, Evolution, 60: 1669–1679, produced additional evidence of a species boundary in central Costa Rica, corresponding with a ca. 200 km gap in distribution between the populations. Köhler, Veselý, and Greenbaum, 2005 "2006", Amph. Rept. El Salvador: 60–62, provided an account (for El Salvador) and a color photograph. McCranie, 2007, Herpetol. Rev., 38: 38, summarized the departmental distribution in Honduras. Lampert, Bernal, Rand, Mueller, and Ryan, 2007, Herpetologica, 63: 740–747, reported on evolution in islands populations in Panama. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 421–578, for brief account and record for a the Guyanan specimen, noting it as Engystomops cf. pustulosusKöhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 273–274, provided a brief summary of natural history, photograph, and range map for Central America. Sunyer, Martínez-Fonseca, Salazar-Saavedra, Galindo-Uribe, and Obando, 2014, Mesoam. Herpetol., 1: 172, provided a record for the department of Granada, Nicaragua. Estupiñán, Ferrari, Gonçalves, Barbosa, Vallinoto, and Schneider, 2016, ZooKeys, 637: 89–106, suggested on the basis of COI barcodes that cryptic species are likely. Guarnizo, Paz, Muñoz-Ortiz, Flechas-Hernández, Méndez-Narváez, and Crawford, 2016, PLoS One, 10(5: e0127312): 1–20, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that two species likely exist in Colombia under this binomial. Ospina-L. and Bedoya-Cañón, 2018, Catal. Anf. Rept. Colombia, Medellín, 4(1): 7–15, provided a detailed account for Colombia. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 99, for comments on range and literature.

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.