- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and corrections, 2024
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2023
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- Amphibian Species of the World on social media
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Pseudopaludicola boliviana Parker, 1927
Pseudopaludicola boliviana Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 455. Holotype: BMNH 1927.8.1.1, by original designation; renumbered BM 1947.2.18.3 according to museum records. Type locality: "Sta. Cruz, Bolivia".
Pseudopaludicola mirandae Mercadal de Barrio and Barrio, 1994, Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. Bernardino Rivadavia, Cienc. Zool., 16: 72. Holotype: MACN (formerly CENAI 6043), acccording to Cardozo and Lobo, 2009, J. Herpetol., 43: 685–687. Type locality: "Itá-Ibaté, Corrientes, República Argentina". Synonymy by Cardozo and Lobo, 2009, J. Herpetol., 43: 685–687.
Common Names
Bolivian Swamp Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 84).
Distribution
Disjunct regions of eastern Colombia, northern Brazil (Roraima, Amapá, and Pará), and Amazonian Venezuela through southern Guyana to southwestern Suriname; western non-Andean Bolivia, Paraguay, and into northern Argentina. Presumably to be found in southeastern Peru.
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname, Venezuela
Comment
In the Pseudopaludicola pusilla group of Lynch, 1989, Copeia, 1989: 577–588. De la Riva, Köhler, Lötters, and Reichle, 2000, Rev. Esp. Herpetol., 14: 45, noted that the two populations, separated by the Amazon Basin, might well represent distinct species and Myers and Donnelly, 2001, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 261: 45, suggested that two species existed under this name in Venezuela and discussed the relevant specimens. Lobo, 1990, Herpetol. Rev., 21: 38, provided the first record for Argentina (Chaco Province). Lobo, 1994, Cuad. Herpetol., 8: 231, provided records for Paraguay and Brazil, and Alcalde and Williams, 2004, Cuad. Herpetol., 18: 75–76. provided records in Argentina (Corrientes Province). Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1995, J. Zool., London, 237: 313–336, reported on vocalization in Bolivia. Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 50, noted previous confusion with Physalaemus pusilla in Venezuela. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 18, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. Cardozo and Lobo, 2009, J. Herpetol., 43: 685–687, discussed morphological variation. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567–583, suggested on the basis of molecular data the existence of an unnamed cryptic species in Bolivia (now apparently named Pseudopaludicola motorzinho). Alcalde and Barrasso, 2013, Amphibia-Reptilia, 34: 129–135, compared the internal larval anatomy of Pseudopaludicola boliviana and Pseudopaludicola falcipes. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 18, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay of nominal Pseudopaludicola falcipes, but subsequently, Langone, Lavilla, de Sá, and Cardozo, 2015, Zootaxa, 4058: 145–150, regarded these to be Pseudopaludicola boliviana. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 109, provided a brief account, image, and dot map for Paraguay. Records in Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, and Santa Cruz, Bolivia, are likely referable to the newly named Pseudopaludicola motorzinho. Pansonato, Veiga-Menoncello, Mudrek, Jansen, Recco-Pimentel, Martins, and Strüssmann, 2016, Herpetologica, 72: 246, provided a range map. Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Freire, 2016, Check List, 12(6: Art. 1991): 1–5, provided a record for the state of Amapá, Brazil, and commented on the advertisement call and range. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 100–101, for comments on range (with special reference to Venezuela) and literature. Andrade, Haga, Lyra, Gazoni, Zaracho, Haddad, Toledo, and Giaretta, 2022, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 57: 66–82, revised the range. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, 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.
- For access to general information see Wikipedia
- For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
- For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
- For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
- For additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.