Leptodactylus labyrinthicus (Spix, 1824)

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

Rana labyrinthica Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: 31. Type(s): Not specifically designated but including animals figured on pl. 7, figs. 1-2 of the original publication; holotype was ZSM 2501/0, now lost, according to Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 360, and Glaw and Franzen, 2006, Spixiana, München, 29: 175. Type locality: "Provincia Rio de Janeiro", Brazil. Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 89, considered the type locality to be in error and instead suggested that it was more probably "Paraíba, já próximo da divisa com São Paulo", Brazil.

Cystignathus labyrinthicusWagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 203; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 407.

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

Pleurodema labyrinthicumGünther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 31.

Gnathophysa labyrinthicaCope, 1865, Nat. Hist. Rev., N.S., 5: 112.

Rana marginata Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 23. Nomen nudum apparently suggested as a junior synonym of Cystignathus labyrinthicus. (May merely be a repetition of the synonymy of Rana marginata Linnaeus, 1758, by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 78, as a junior synonym of "Rana ocellata", which at that time included Cystignathus labyrinthicus and several other nominal species—DRF.)

Leptodactylus wuchereri Jiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 68. Holotype MNCN 1694, according to Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 316. Type locality: "Republica Argentina", suggested by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 316, to be "somewhere between Montevideo, Uruguay and Santiago, Chile". Synonymy by Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 15.

Leptodactylus bufo Andersson, 1911, Ark. Zool., 7(17): 1. Holotype: NHRM 1495, according to Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 316. Type locality: "Ponta Grosso, Paraná, Brazil", considered by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 316, to be at 25° 06′ S, 50° 10′ W.. Synonymy by Heyer, 1974, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 253: 42-43, and Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 15.

Leptodactylus pentadactylus labyrinthicusMüller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 276.

Leptodactylus pentadactylus mattogrossensis Schmidt and Inger, 1951, Fieldiana, Zool., 31: 444. Holotype: FMNH 9240, by original designation. Type locality: "manganese mine, Urucum de Corumba, Matto Grosso", Brazil. Locality noted by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 316, to now be in Mato Grosso do Sul and at 19° 10′ S, 57° 39′ W. Synonymy by Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 23.

Leptodactylus pentadactylus matogrossensisBokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 74. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

English Names

Labyrinth Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Pepper Foam Frog (Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 93).

South American Pepper Frog (Kokubum and Silva, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 76).

Pepper Frog (Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 316).


Cerrados and caatingas of central and southeastern Brazil, Argentina (provinces of Misiones and Corrientes), and eastern Paraguay; introduced populations in Rondônia, Amazonas, and Pará, Brazil. 

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay

Introduced: Brazil


In the Leptodactylus pentadactylus group of Heyer, 1972, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 231: 1-8, and Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 1-43. See synonymy in Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 360. See account by Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 353-355. Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1995, J. Zool., London, 237: 313–336, reported on vocalization in Bolivia. De la Riva, Köhler, Lötters, and Reichle, 2000, Rev. Esp. Herpetol., 14: 41, provided the Bolivian citations. Köhler, 2000, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 48: 133, provided a brief account. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 58-60, commented on distribution in Venezuela. Kokubum and Silva, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 76, provided a record for Rondonia, Brazil, and detailed the distribution. Heyer, de Sá, and Rettig, 2005, in Ananjeva and Tsinenko (eds.), Herpetol. Petropolitana: 35–39, reported on the advertisement call. Zina and Haddad, 2005, Biota Neotrop., São Paulo, 5: 1–11, reported on vocalization. Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 269-348, provided an extensive discussion of morpholical variation. Santos and Haddad, 2006, Check List, 2(1): 22-23, discussed the range and provided a new record for Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 14, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 93-94, provided a photograph and brief account. Silva, Giaretta, and Facure, 2008, Contemp. Herpetol., 1: 1–6, reported on the advertisement call. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567-583, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence the possibility that populations assigned to Leptodactylus labyrinthicus in Bolivia actually represent a cryptic species that is similar in morphology to Leptodactylus vastus. Jansen and Schultze, 2012, Zootaxa, 3307: 35-47, referred the Bolivian records to Leptodactylus vastus, but noted that they may represent an unnamed species. In the Leptodactylus pentadactylus 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. 52–53. 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. 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. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 94, provided a brief account, image, and dot map for Paraguay. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 113–114, provided an account. Eterovick, Souza, and Sazima, 2020, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 1–292, provided an account, life history information, and an identification scheme for the Serra de Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Alves-Ferreira, Paixão, and Nomura, 2021, Biota Neotrop., 21 (4: e20201178): 1–11, reported on larval morphology in Goias, Brazil. Pezzuti, Leite, Rossa-Feres, and Garcia, 2021, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 22 (Special Issue): 1–109, described and discussed larval morphology and natural history. Santos, Feio, and Nomura, 2023, Biota Neotrop., 23 (3:e20231486): 1–43, characterized tadpole morphology as part of an identification key to the tadpoles of the Brazilian Cerrado. Melo-Dias, Souza-Cruz, Moreira, Curi, Carvalho, Freitas, and Canedo, 2024, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 29: 38–65, discussed introduced populations in 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.