Lithodytes lineatus (Schneider, 1799)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leptodactylinae > Genus: Lithodytes > Species: Lithodytes lineatus

Rana lineata Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 138. Type(s): "Musei Lampiani" (= the "collection de Lampi" according to Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 105, and Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 188). Type locality: Not stated.

Rana castanea Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 128. Types: Including frog illustrated by Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 114. Type locality: "Surinam". Synonymy by (with Rana schneideri) Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 177; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 625.

Bufo lineatus — Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 105; Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 105.

Bufo albonotatus Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 185. Types: "collection de Lampi" and "collection de Levin Vincent", by original designation; currentl location not known. Type locality: "Surinam". Synonymy (with Rana schneideri Merrem, 1820) by Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 177; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 625.

Rana schneideri Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 177. Type(s): Type locality: Not stated, although obviously the union of the type localities of the constituent taxa, Rana fusca Schneider [now = Leptodactylus fuscus], 1799, Rana lineata Schneider, 1799, Bufo albonotatus Daudin, 1803, and Rana castanea Shaw, 1802. Synonymy by Gravenhorst, 1829, Delic. Mus. Zool. Vratislav., 1: 44.

Bufo albonatus — Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 177. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Hylodes lineatus Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 625. Type(s): MNHNP, but not mentioned in recent type lists. Type locality: "l’Amérique méridionale; l’echantillon que nous possédons a été envoyé de Cayenne". Presumably identical to Rana lineata Schneider.

Lithodytes lineatus — Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 43; Peracca, 1904, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp. Univ. Torino, 19 (465): 31; Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 52.

Hylodes (Lithodytes) lineatus — Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 153.

Eleutherodactylus lineatus — Noble, 1917, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 37: 794.

Leptodactylus (Lithodytes) lineatus — Parker, 1935, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1935: 507; Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 362.

Leptodactylus hemidactyloides Andersson, 1945, Ark. Zool., 37A(2): 3. Syntypes: NHRM (4 specimens) by original indication; largest syntypes selected by Heyer and Peters, 1971, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 84: 167, as lectotype. Type localities: "Rio Napo, 400 m" and "Rio Pastaza", Ecuador. Restricted to Rio Pastaza by lectotype designation. Synonymy by Heyer and Peters, 1971, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 84: 167.

English Names

Chestnut Frog (Rana castanea [no longer recognized]: Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 114).

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

Painted Antnest Frog (Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 216).

Distribution

Northwestern Colombia and northwestern Venezuela and south along eastern side of the Andean foothills to northern Bolivia and east in Amazonian drainage to the states of Tocantins and Maranhão and north to eastern Venezuela; old unsubstantiated record for Trinidad (see comment).  

Comment

Confused in much literature with Eleutherodactylus lineatus (Brocchi, 1879). Duellman, 1978, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 65: 114–91, provided a brief account. Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 71, provided a brief account for the Iquitos region of northeastern Peru. Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1995, J. Zool., London, 237: 313–336, reported on vocalization in Bolivia. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 258-259, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Distribution in Venezuela discussed briefly by Señaris, La Marca, and Molina, 2002, Herpetol. Rev., 33: 145-146. Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 47-48, suggested that the species will be found in the Venezuelan states of Monagas and Sucre. Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 90, reported a single specimen from Trinidad, collected in 1919, but could not substantiate it with more recent specimens. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 291–292, provided an account (adult and larval morphology, description of the call, life history). Kok and Kalamandeen, 2008, Intr. Taxon. Amph. Kaieteur Natl. Park: 216-217, provided an account. 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: 240-241.See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 428, for brief account and records for Guyana. de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, suggested on the basis of sequence divergence that at least two species exist under this name. Cintra, Silva, and Silva, 2014, Herpetol. Notes, 7: 179-184, provided a record for Tocantins, Brazil, and discussed the range and natural history. Señaris, Lampo, Rojas-Runjaic, and Barrio-Amorós, 2014, Guía Ilust. Anf. Parque Nac. Canaima: 220–221, provided a photograph and a brief account for the Parque Nacional de Canaima, Venezuela. Freitas, Farias, Oliveira e Sousa, Vieira, Moura, and Dias, 2014, Check List, 10615–617, provided a record for Maranhão, northeastern Brazil, and mapped the species. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 97–98, for comments on range and literature. For identification of larvae in central Amazonia, Brazil, see Hero, 1990, Amazoniana, 11: 201–262. Acosta-Galvis, 2017, Biota Colomb., 18: 282–315, reported the species from the Municipality of Yopal, Casanare Department, Colombia. Thaler, Folly, Fadel, Silva, Mângia, and Santana, 2020, Caldasia, 42: 157–160, discussed the range and provided records from the state of Tocantins, Brazil. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 238–239. Fermiano, Silva-Alves, Neves, Silva, Santos, and Silva, 2021, Check List, 17: 1–17, reported on new records in Mato Grosso, Brazil, and discussed habitat. Nascimento, de Sá, and Garcia, 2021, Zool. Anz., 290: 135–147, detailed larval anatomy and discussed taxonomic placement. Dias-Souza, Figueiredo, Tavares-Pinheiro, and Costa-Campos, 2021, Check List, 17: 95–101, provided a record from Amapá, Brazil, and provided an updated range map. 

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.