Leptodactylus plaumanni Ahl, 1936

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

Leptodactylus plaumanni Ahl, 1936, Veröff. Deutsch. Kolon. Uebersee Mus., Bremen, 1: 389. Holotype: originally in Deutsch Kolonial and Uebersee Museum, Bremen, now SMF 22469, according to Mertens, 1967, Senckenb. Biol., 48(A): 39. Type locality: "Nova Teutonia, [Santa Catarina State], Brasilien", 22° 17′ S; 52° 20′ W.

Leptodactylus geminus Barrio, 1973, Physis, Buenos Aires, 32: 199. Holotype: CHINM 5860, by original designation; now MACN 5860, according to de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 43. Type locality: "Bernardo de Irigoyen, Misiones, Argentina". Synonymy by Kwet, Di-Bernardo, and Garcia, 2001, J. Herpetol., 35: 56.

English Names

Nova Teutonia White-lipped Frog (Leptodactylus plaumanni: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 82).

Gray-striped Frog (Leptodactylus geminus [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Distribution

Northeastern Misiones Province, Argentina, and Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná, and Santa Catarina, Brazil; likely into adjacent southeastern Paraguay.

Comment

Removed from the synonymy of Leptodactylus gracilis by Cardoso, 1985, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 36: 87–90, where it had been placed by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 34 (who had transferred it there from the synonymy of Leptodactylus fuscus, where it had been placed by Mertens, 1967, Senckenb. Biol., 48(A): 1–106. Barrio, 1973, Physis, Buenos Aires, 32: 199–206, described the advertisement call (as Leptodactylus geminus). In the Leptodactylus fuscus group of Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. A sibling species of Leptodactylus gracilis according to the original publication and Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 52. See Braun and Braun, 1979, Iheringia, Zool., 54: 3–6 (as Leptodactylus geminus), for Brazilian distribution. Scrocchi and Lavilla, 1986, Physis, Buenos Aires, 44: 93–95, provided additional characters for distinguishing this species (as Leptodactylus geminus) from Leptodactylus gracilis. Kwet, Di-Bernardo, and Garcia, 2001, J. Herpetol., 35: 56–62, discussed this species and the difficulty in distinguishing it from Leptodactylus gracilis. In the Leptodactylus fuscus group of Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. Silva, Garcia, Martins, Bacci, and Kasahara, 2004, Amphibia-Reptilia, 25: 186–195, provided karyological evidence of the distinctiveness of Leptodactylus gracilis from Leptodactylus plaumanni. Lima, 2007, Herpetol. Rev., 38: 215, provided the first record for Paraná, Brazil. Giaretta and Costa, 2007, Zootaxa, 1608: 1-10, discussed this species with reference to its close relatives. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 27, suggested that this species likely occurs in Paraguay. 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. 43–44. Grosso, 2015, Cuad. Herpetol., 29: 117–129, reported on larval morphology. Mello, Gonçalves, Solé, Rossa-Feres, and Conte, 2018, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 53: 233–244, compared larval morphology of Brazilian and Argentinian populations, suggesting the possibility that they represent two species. 

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.