Leptodactylus petersii (Steindachner, 1864)

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

Platymantis petersii Steindachner, 1864, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 14: 254. Holotype: NHMW, now lost according to Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 17. AMNH 23182 designated neotype by Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 21. This designation considered invalid by Heyer, 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 546: 79, who considered this specimen to represent Leptodactylus pallidirostris; CFBH 44102 designated neotype by Gazoni, Lyra, Ron, Strüssmann, Baldo, Narimatsu, Pansonato, Schneider, Giaretta, Haddad, Parise-Maltempi, and Carvalho, 2021, Zool. Anz., 290: 126. Type locality: "Marabitanas", Amazonas, Brazil. Invalid neotype of Heyer from Venezuela: Amazonas; Mt. Duida region, Rio Pescado, 325 ft. (reidentified as Leptodactylus pallidirostris by Heyer, 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 546: 79); locality for Gazoni et al. (2021) neotype "São Gabriel da Cachoeira (0.134786°S, 67.040317°W; 84 m elevation), in the Brazilian state of Amazonas, northwestern Brazil".

Leptodactylus (Platymantis) petersiiLutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 1, 21, by implication.

Leptodactylus caliginosus petersiParker, 1935, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1935: 507.

Leptodactylus podicipinus petersiiGans, 1960, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 35: 305, by implication; Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 47.

English 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.  

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 wagneriDuellman, 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. 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.  

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.