Leptodactylus rhodomystax Boulenger, 1884

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

Leptodactylus rhodomystax Boulenger, 1884 "1883", Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883: 637. Syntypes: BMNH (2 specimens) 1947.2.17.81–82 (formerly 1884.2.18.45–46) according to museum records; BMNH 1947.12.17.81 designated lectotype by Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 30. Type locality: "Yurimaguas, Huallaga River, [Loreto,] Northern Peru".

Leptodactylus stictigularis Noble, 1923, Zoologica, New York, 3: 293. Holotype: AMNH 10398, by original designation. Type locality: "Kartabo, British Guiana [= Guyana]". Synonymy by Parker, 1935, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1935: 508; Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 30.

English Names

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

Rose-lipped Thin-toed Frog (Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 226).

Distribution

Guianas (including the La Escalera region of Bolívar, Venezuela) through northern and central Brazil to Amazonian Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, 50 to 500 m elevation.

Comment

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. Duellman, 1978, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 65: 111–112, provided a brief account and characterization of the tadpole. Zimmerman and Bogart, 1984, Acta Amazonica, 14: 473–520, reported on vocalization. Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 68–69, provided a brief account for the Iquitos region of northeastern Peru. See comment under Leptodactylus riveroi. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 250–251, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. See comment under Leptodactylus riveroi. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 56, note a specimen which may be the first record for Venezuela, the previous records being misidentified examples of Leptodactylus riveroi. Rodrigues, Menin, and Lima, 2007, Zootaxa, 1509: 61–67, reported on larval morphology and natural history. Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 226–227, provided an account. Fouquet, Gilles, Vences, Marty, Blanc, and Gemmell, 2007, PLoS One, 10 (e1109): 1–10, provided molecular evidence that this is a species complex. MacCulloch and Lathrop, 2009, R. Ontario Mus. Contrib. Sci., 4: 15, commented on specimens from Mount Ayanganna, Guyana. França and Venâncio, 2010, Biotemas, 23: 71–84, provided a record for the municipality of Boca do Acre, Amazonas, with a brief discussion of the range. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 260–261. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 426–427, for brief account and records for Guyana. 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 p. 59.See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 95–97, for comments on range and literature. Fouquet, Vidal, and Dewynter, 2019, Zoosystema, 41: 371, suggested that this binomial represents a species complex. For identification of larvae in central Amazonia, Brazil, see Hero, 1990, Amazoniana, 11: 201–262. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 234–235. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, 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.