Leptodactylus bolivianus Boulenger, 1898

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leptodactylinae > Genus: Leptodactylus > Species: Leptodactylus bolivianus

Rana ocellata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., Ed. 10, 1: 211. Type(s): Including NHRM 150; by implication of Linnaeus, 1764, Mus. Adophi Friderici, 2: 39, and as discussed by Andersson, 1900, Bih. K. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 26: 24. Type locality: "in America"; restricted to "Brasilia" by Linnaeus, 1764, Mus. Adophi Friderici, 2: 39. See discussion by Lavilla, Langone, Caramaschi, Heyer, and de Sá, 2010, Zootaxa, 2346: 1–16. Heyer, Caramaschi, and de Sá, 2006, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 63: 184–186, noted that the type of this taxon represents what is currently known as Leptodactylus bolivianus; they suggested that to conserve application of the name, pending action by the ICZN, that a neotype be designated (MNRJ 30733; with a locality of "Vale dos Agriões, Teresópolis, 22° 25′S, 42° 58′ W, approx. 900 m above sea level, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil").

Cystignathus ocellatusWagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 203; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 78; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 396.

Leptodactylus ocellatusGirard, 1853, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6: 420.

Gnathophysa ocellataCope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 73.

Leptognathus ocellatusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 247; Boettger, 1892, Kat. Batr. Samml. Mus. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges.: 31.

Leptodactylus bolivianus Boulenger, 1898, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 2, 19: 131. Syntypes: BMNH 1947.2.17.43–45 (1898.6.9.24–26) according to museum records, MZUT An488 and An506 (according to Gavetti and Andreone, 1993, Cat. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat., Torino, 10: 52); MSNG; MSNG 28875A designated lectotype by Capocaccia, 1957, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 3, 69: 214. Type locality: "Barraca", Río Madidi, and "Misiones Mosetenes", Bolivia; restricted to Barraca, Río Madidi, Bolivia, by lectotype designation.

Leptodactylus (Pachypus) bolivianusLutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 1, 21.

Leptodactylus (Pachypus) ocellatusLutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 1, 21.

Leptodactylus romani Melin, 1941, Göteborgs K. Vetensk. Vitterh. Samh. Handl., Ser. B, 1: 54. Syntypes: NHMG (5 specimens); NHMG 499 designated lectotype by Heyer, 1969, Herpetologica, 25: 6. Type locality: "Taracuá, Rio Uaupés, [Amazonas,] Brazil". Synonymy by Heyer, 1969, Herpetologica, 25: 6.

Leptodactylos ocellatus ocellatusCei, 1950, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 9: 408.

English Names

Bolivian White-lipped Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Bolivian Thin-toed Frog (Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 222).


Central and western portions of the Amazon basin in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela; Serra da Jibóia region, Bahia, Brazil (see comment).

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela


Lynch, 2005, Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exact. Fis. Nat., 29: 581–588, provided a specific locality for the vicinity of Leticia, Colombia. Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 66, provided a brief account for the Iquitos region of northeastern Peru. Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1995, J. Zool., London, 237: 313–336, reported on vocalization in Bolivia. Duellman, 1997, Sci. Pap. Nat. Hist. Mus. Univ. Kansas, 2: 23, commented on a population in southeastern Venezuela. França and Venâncio, 2010, Biotemas, 23: 71–84, provided a record for the municipality of Boca do Acre, Amazonas, with a brief discussion of the range. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 278–280, provided an account (adult and larval morphology, description of the call, life history). See account by Heyer and de Sá, 2011, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 635: 31–35, who included this in their Leptodactylus bolivianus complex. See records for Leptodactylus guianensis and Leptodactylus insularum, both of which have long been confused with this species. Fouquet, Gilles, Vences, Marty, Blanc, and Gemmell, 2007, PLoS One, 10 (e1109): 1–10, provided molecular evidence that this is a species complex. See account for Suriname population (as Leptodactylus ocellatus) by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 250–253. In the Leptodactylus latrans species group of de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, and who provided a summary of relevant literature (adult and larval morphology, identification, advertisement call, and range) on pp. 64–65. Salas, Zavattieri, di Tada, Martino, and Bridarolli, 1998, Cuad. Herpetol., 12: 37–48, and Zimmerman, 1983, Herpetologica, 39: 235–246, discussed the call (as Leptodactylus ocellatus). Nunes and Juncá, 2006, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 64: 151–157, described the advertisement call (as Leptodactylus ocellatus). Juncá, 2006, Biota Neotrop., 6: 1–17, briefly summarized the presence of this species in the Serra da Jibóia region, Bahia, Brazil, and its habitat, although the distance of this record from the main part of the range suggests that confirmation is needed. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 89, for comments on range and literature. For identification of larvae (as Leptodactylus ocellatus) in central Amazonia, Brazil, see Hero, 1990, Amazoniana, 11: 201–262. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 222–223. Metcalf, Marsh, Torres Pacaya, Graham, and Gunnels, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 753–767, reported the species from the Santa Cruz Forest Reserve, Loreto, northeastern Peru. Crnobrna, Santa-Cruz Farfan, Gallegos, López-Rojas, Llanqui, Panduro Pisco, and Kelsen Arbaiza, 2023, Check List, 19: 445, provided a record from Ucayali Department, central-eastern Peru.

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.