Leptodactylus petersii (Steindachner, 1864)

Common Names

Peters' Thin-toed Frog (Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 224).

Distribution

Guianas, the Amazon basin of Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, southeastern Venezuela, and southeastern Colombia; presumably to be found in extreme northern Bolivia.  

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela

Comment

All literature prior to the revision of Gazoni, Lyra, Ron, Strüssmann, Baldo, Narimatsu, Pansonato, Schneider, Giaretta, Haddad, Parise-Maltempi, and Carvalho, 2021, Zool. Anz., 290: 117–134 (who discussed molecular evolution, morphology, calls, and cytogenetics), should be used with caution due to the taxonomic realignments in that paper. Removed from the synonymy of Leptodactylus podicipinus (where it had been placed by Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 47; and Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 21, and (as a synonym of Leptodactylus caliginosus) by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 247) by Heyer, 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 546: 96, who provided an account, and considered this species to be in the Leptodactylus wagneri-Leptodactylus podicipinus complex. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 256–257, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana (likely including both Leptodactylus intermedius and Leptodactylus petersii). Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 46, noted that the range is highly provisional given previous confusion with Leptodactylus podicipinus and Leptodactylus wagneri. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 287–289, provided an account (adult and larval morphology, description of the call, life history, although the identification is now suspect with the partition of nominal Leptodactylus petersii). Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 224–225, provided an account. Bernarde, Machado, and Turci, 2011, Biota Neotrop., 11: 117–144, reported specimens from Reserva Extrativista Riozinho da Liberdade, Acre, Brazil. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 426, for brief account and records for Guyana. In the Leptodactylus melanonotus 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. 80–81 (morphology, call, identificationlarval morphology). Señaris, Lampo, Rojas-Runjaic, and Barrio-Amorós, 2014, Guía Ilust. Anf. Parque Nac. Canaima: 215–216, provided a photograph and a brief account for the Parque Nacional de Canaima, Venezuela. Motta, Menin, Almeida, and Hrbek, 2018, Zootaxa, 4438: 79–104, suggested on the basis of 16S rDNA sequence divergence that this nominal taxon is composed of multiple lineages (subsequently partitioned into Leptodactylus petersii, Leptodactylus intermedius, and Leptodactylus brevipes). Vacher, Chave, Ficetola, Sommeria-Klein, Tao, Thébaud, Blanc, Camacho, Cassimiro, Colston, Dewynter, Ernst, Gaucher, Gomes, Jairam, Kok, Lima, Martinez, Marty, Noonan, Nunes, Ouboter, Recoder, Rodrigues, Snyder, Marques-Souza, and Fouquet, 2020, J. Biogeograph., 47: 1786, suggested on the basis of molecular data that this nominal taxon may be composed of as many as 16 species. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 120–121, provided an account (although possibly including both Leptodactylus petersii and Leptodactylus brevipes, then prior to the partition). See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 232–233.  Ron, 2002, Herpetol. Rev., 33: 221, provided the Ecuador record and commented on the distribution; this was later (Gazoni, Lyra, Ron, Strüssmann, Baldo, Narimatsu, Pansonato, Schneider, Giaretta, Haddad, Parise-Maltempi, and Carvalho, 2021, Zool. Anz., 290: 126) reidentified as likely referable to Leptodactylus wagneri. Carvalho, Fouquet, Lyra, Giaretta, Costa-Campos, Rodrigues, Haddad, and Ron, 2022, Syst. Biodiversity, 20 (1: 2089269): 1–31, reported on the systematics, phylogenetics, and advertisement call. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil. Schiesari, Rossa-Feres, Menin, and Hödl, 2022, Zootaxa, 5223: 92–93, detailed larval and metamorph morphology and natural history. Gagliardi-Urrutia, García Dávila, Jaramillo-Martinez, Rojas-Padilla, Rios-Alva, Aguilar-Manihuari, Pérez-Peña, Castroviejo-Fisher, Simões, Estivals, Guillen Huaman, Castro Ruiz, Angulo Chávez, Mariac, Duponchelle, and Renno, 2022, Anf. Loreto: 150–151, provided a brief account, photograph, dot map, and genetic barcode for Loreto, 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.

• 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 additional information specific to Ecuador see FaunaWebEcuador: Anfibios del Ecuador
• For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.