Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leiuperinae > Genus: Physalaemus > Species: Physalaemus cuvieri

Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 39,65. Type(s): Presumably originally in NHMW, but not noted in recent type lists. Type locality: "America, Brasilia".

Physolaemus cuvieriJan, 1857, Cenni Mus. Civ. Milano: 52.

Gomphobates notatus Reinhardt and Lütken, 1862 "1861", Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., Ser. 2, 3: 173. Holotype: ZMUC 11143, by museum records (pers. commun., H. Kristensen, 24 Nov 2010). Type locality: "Lagoa Santa", Minas Gerais, Brazil. Synonymy by Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 461.

Paludicola notataPeters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 223.

Paludicola bischoffi Boulenger, 1887, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 5, 20: 296. Holotype: Presumably BMNH. Type locality: "Mundo Novo, [Taquara,] Rio Grande do Sul", Brazil. Synonymy with Physalaemus gracilis by Milstead, 1960, Copeia, 1960: 83-89; synonymy with Physalaemus cuvieri by Cardozo and Pereyra, 2018, Zootaxa, 4387: 588. 

Paludicola neglecta Ahl, 1927, Zool. Anz., 69: 224. Syntypes: NHMW (4 specimens), registration numbers not provided in the original publication; including NHMW 18894-95, according to Häupl and Tiedemann, 1978, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 2: 26, and Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 30. Type locality: "Santa Cruz (? Uruguay)". Synonymy by Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 461.

Physalaemus bischoffi — Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 468.

Physalaemus neglectaMilstead, 1963, Copeia, 1963: 566.

Physalaemus neglectusCochran and Goin, 1970, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 288: 480.

Physalaemus neglectus neglectusCochran and Goin, 1970, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 288: 480.

English Names

Barker Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 83).

Cuvier's Foam Froglet (Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 101).

Distribution

Northeastern, central, and southern Brazil; arguably from Misiones, Argentina; eastern Paraguay; Departments of Beni and Santa Cruz in Bolivia; lowlands of southern Venezuela (Bolívar and Delta Amacuro states). See comment for taxonomic uncertainties. 

Comment

In the Physalaemus cuvieri group of Nascimento, Caramaschi, and Cruz, 2005, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 308. Discussed by Barrio, 1965, Physis, Buenos Aires, 25: 421-448, who noted that this is a sibling species of Physalaemus albonotatus and Physalaemus centralis. See account by Heyer, Rand, Cruz, Peixoto, and Nelson, 1990, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 31: 312-313. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 67-69, reported this or a closely related species from the state of Bolívar, Venezuela. Canelas and Bertoluci, 2007, Iheringia, Zool., 97: 21-26, provided a record for the Serra do Caraça, southern end of the Serra do Espinhaço, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 17, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. Jansen, Vidoz, and Helmig, 2008, Herpetol. Rev., 39: 106-107, provided a record for the Department of Beni, Bolivia, and briefly discussed the range in that country. Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 101-102, provided a photograph and brief account. Cruz, Feio, and Caramaschi, 2009, Anf. Ibitipoca: 116-117, provided photographs and a brief account for Parque Estadual do Ibitipoca, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567-583, suggested on the basis of molecular data the existed of unnamed cryptic species in Bolivia. Conte, Cancado, Laborda, Zucchi, Andrade, Rossa-Feres, Siqueira, Souza, and Recco-Pimentel, 2009, Conserv. Genetics, 10: 1849-1852, discussed microsaellite variation. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 428-429, for brief account and records for Guyana. Gambale and Bastos, 2014, Herpetol. J., 24: 31–39, reported on vocalizations.  In the Physalaemus cuvieri clade, Physalaemus cuvieri species group, of Lourenço, Targueta, Baldo, Nascimento, Garcia, Andrade, Haddad, and Recco-Pimentel, 2015, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 92: 204–216, and who noted that this name represents a complex of cryptic species. Cardozo and Pereyra, 2018, Zootaxa, 4387: 588, discussed the possible presence of this species in Misiones, Argentina. Miranda, Maciel, Lima-Ribeiro, Colli, Haddad, and Garcia, 2018 "2019", Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 132: 67–80, reported on molecular biogeography. Neves, Yves, Pereira Silva, Alves, Vasques, Coelho, and Silva, 2019, Herpetozoa, Wien, 32: 113–123, provided habitat information and records for western Minas Gerais, Brazil. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 99, for comments on range (with special reference to Venezuela) and literature. Nascimento, Lima, Suárez, Baldo, Andrade, Pierson, Fitzpatrick, Haddad, Recco-Pimentel, and Lourenço, 2019, Frontiers in Genetics, 10 (719): 1–15, reported on the phylogenetics of the Physalaemus ephippifer–Physalaemus cuvieri group, suggesting that the Physalaemus cuvieri is a complex of at least 6 species, and including Physalaemus ephippifer as one of the named lineages in the complex. Hepp and Pombal, 2020, Zootaxa, 4725: 1–106, discussed this species as part of a genus-wide discussion of bioacoustical traits among the species. Dubeux, Silva, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2019, Rev. Nordestina Zool., 12: 18–52, summarized the literature on larval morphology. Rossa-Feres and Nomura, 2006 "2005", Biota Neotrop., São Paulo, 6 (2: bn00706012006): 1–24, characterized larval morphology of this species and provided a key to the larvae of northwestern São Paulo state, Brazil. 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. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 137, provided an account for Goiás and the D.F., Brazil.    

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.