Leptodactylus gracilis (Duméril and Bibron, 1840)

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

Cystignathus gracilis Duméril and Bibron, 1840, Preprint Pl. 13, Voy. Am. Merid. 1826–1833: Pl. 13, fig. 5-7; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 406. Holotype: MNHNP 4490, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 30; this status rejected by de Sá, Dubois, and Ohler, 2007, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 2: 175-178, who discussed the problem of identifying the holotype and who therefore designated as neotype  Guibe's putative holotype, MNHNP 4490. Type locality: Not stated; given as "Montévidéo", Uruguay, by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 406. Original publication discussed by Lescure, Bour, Ineich, Ohler, and Ortiz, 2002, C. R. Palevol, Paris, 1: 527–532. 

Leptodactylus gracilisJiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 44.

Leptodactylus gracilis delattini Müller, 1968, Salamandra, 4: 48. Holotype: Originally SMF 4080; now in MZUSP 56589, by museum records and de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 34. Type locality: "Ilha Campeche (östlich der Insel von Santa Catarina, Brasilien" (27° 42′ S, 48° 28′ W). Status rejected by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1-85, and García-Pérez and Heyer, 1993, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 106: 51-56.

English Names

Dumeril's Striped Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Distribution

Subtropical southern Brazil through Uruguay to Paraguay, Bolivia, and northern Argentina, 200–2000 m elevation.

Comment

In the Leptodactylus fuscus group of Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. See comments under Leptodactylus geminus and Leptodactylus plaumanni. Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 36, noted that the island form, Leptodactylus gracilis delattini, is diagnostically distinct. See Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 329-333, for account. See comment under Leptodactylus geminus. Köhler, 2000, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 48: 131-132, provided a brief account. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 22, provided for the Uruguayan population a brief account and photograph. Silva, Garcia, Martins, Bacci, and Kasahara, 2004, Amphibia-Reptilia, 25: 186–195, provided karyological evidence of the distinctiveness of Leptodactylus gracilis from Leptodactylus plaumanni, and conclused that thee two races of Leptodactylus gracilis  should not be considered species.Giaretta and Costa, 2007, Zootaxa, 1608: 1–10, discussed this species with reference to its close relatives. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 14, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. The status of the types was discussed in detail by de Sá, Dubois, and Ohler, 2007, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 2: 175–178. In the Leptodactylus fuscus 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. 34–35. Salas, Zavattieri, di Tada, Martino, and Bridarolli, 1998, Cuad. Herpetol., 12: 37–48, discussed the call. 

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.