Leptodactylus vastus Lutz, 1930

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

Leptodactylus vastus Lutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 32. Holotype: AL-MNRJ 70, according to museum records (W. R. Heyer, personal commun.). Type locality: "Independencia (Parayba)", Brazil. Noted by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 335, to now be called Guarabira, Paraiba, at 06° 51′ S, 35° 29′ W. Reported incorrectly as a replacement name for Leptodactylus gigas Lutz, 1926, by Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 75.

English Names

Northeastern Pepper Frog (Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 335).


Three distantly allopatric populations: (1) northeastern Brazil, (2) Serra da Jibóia, Bahia, Brazil, and (3) Amazonian Bolivia (see comment).

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil


Removed from the synonymy of Leptodactylus pentadactylus by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 335, where it had been placed by Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 23. Heyer, de Sá, and Rettig, 2005, in Ananjeva and Tsinenko (eds.), Herpetol. Petropolitana: 35–39, reported on the advertisement call. Silva, Santos, Alves, Sousa, and Annunziata, 2010, Sitientibus, Ser. Cienc. Biol., 7: 334-340, provided records for Piauí, Brazil. Vieira, Santana, and Vieira, 2007, Zootaxa, 1397: 61-68, reported on comparative tadpole morphology. See comment under Leptodactylus labyrinthicus. Jansen and Schultze, 2012, Zootaxa, 3307: 35-47, suggested that populations of Leptodactylus in Bolivia, previously assigned to Leptodactylus labyrinthicus actually represent an isolated population of Leptodactylus vastus or an unnamed species closely related to Leptodactylus vastus. 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. 63–64, but apparently did not agree the assignment of populations in Bolivia to this species, but did not address the issue directly. Schulze, Jansen, and Köhler, 2015, Zootaxa, 4016: 80–82, described, diagnosed, and pictured the larva. Freitas, Abegg, Dias, and Moraes, 2018, Herpetol. Notes, 11: 59–72, provided a record from the Serra da Jibóia, Bahia, Brazil. Dubeux, Silva, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2019, Rev. Nordestina Zool., 12: 18–52, summarized the literature on larval morphology. See Dubeux, Nascimento, Lima, Magalhães, Silva, Gonçalves, Almeida, Correia, Garda, Mesquita, Rossa-Feres, and Mott, 2020, Biota Neotrop., 20 (2: e20180718): 1–24, for characterization and identification of larvae north of the Rio São Francisco in the Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 134, provided an account for Goiás and the D.F., Brazil. Reported from the Environmental Protection Area of Catolé and Fernão Velho, Alagoas, Brazil, by Dubeux, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2021, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 61 (e20216176): 1–10, who provided a key to the frogs of that region. Palmeira, Gonçalves, Dubeux, Lima, Lambertini, Valencia-Aguilar, Jenkinson, James, Toledo, and Mott, 2022, Cuad. Herpetol., 36: 65–75, reported on habitat in Natural Heritage Reserve Mata Estrela, Baía Formosa, Rio Grande do Norte state, 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.