Proceratophrys cristiceps (Müller, 1883)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Odontophrynidae > Genus: Proceratophrys > Species: Proceratophrys cristiceps

Ceratophrys cristiceps Müller, 1883, Kat. Herpetol. Samml. Basler Mus., 3: 8. Reprinted as Müller, 1885, Verh. Naturforsch. Ges. Basel, 7: 279). Holotype: NHMB 1503 according to Forcart, 1946, Verh. Naturforsch. Ges. Basel, 57: 122. Type locality: "Brasilien"; restricted to "Caatinga biome and adjacent areas", Brazil, by Mângia, Oliveira, Santana, Koroiva, Paiva, and Garda, 2020, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 58: 1166. 

Stombus cristicepsMiranda-Ribeiro, 1920, Rev. Mus. Paulista, São Paulo, 12: 302. Reig and Limeses, 1963, Physis, Buenos Aires, 24: 114.

Ceratophrys cristicepsNieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 385.

Proceratophrys cristicepsLynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 134.

Proceratophrys caramaschii Cruz, Nunes, and Juncá, 2012, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 7: 117. Holotype: MNRJ 16592, by original designation. Type locality: "Mucuripe, municipality of Fortaleza (03° 43′ S and 38° 29′ W, 334 m at sea level; WGS84 datum), state of Ceará, northeastern Brazil". Synonymy by Mângia, Oliveira, Santana, Koroiva, Paiva, and Garda, 2020, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 58: 1151. 

Proceratophrys aridus Cruz, Nunes, and Juncá, 2012, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 7: 118. Holotype: MNRJ 55782, by original designation. Type locality: "Minador farm, municipality of Milagres (38° 56′ W and 07° 18′ S, 334 m a.s.l.; SAD69 datum), state of Ceará, northeastern Brazil". Synonymy by Mângia, Oliveira, Santana, Koroiva, Paiva, and Garda, 2020, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 58: 1151. 

English Names

Muller's Smooth Horned Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 84).


Eastern coastal region of northeastern Brazil, from the states of Ceará, Piauí, likely northeastern Maranhão as well as Rio Grande do Norte to Bahia, with a southern limit near Todos os Santos Bay.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Brazil

Endemic: Brazil


Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 92, included Proceratophrys goyana as a synonym but provided no evidence to support this view. U. Caramaschi In Cannatella, 1985, in Frost (ed.), Amph. Species World: 339, noted that this putative synonymy would be in error, as the species are quite distinctive. See account (as Ceratophrys cristiceps) by Cochran, 1955 "1954", Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 206: 228–230. Nunes and Juncá, 2006, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 64: 151–157,  reported on the advertisement call. Vieira, Vieira, and Santana, 2007, Zootaxa, 1397: 17–24, discussed comparative tadpole morphology. Vieira, Arzabe, Hernández, and Vieira, 2008, PLoS One, 3(12: e3934):  1–9, reported on intrapopulational morphometrics. Cruz, Nunes, and Juncá, 2012, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 7: 110–122, reviewed the species and redelimited the range. Dias, Carvalho-e-Silva, and Carvalho-e-Silva, 2013, Zootaxa, 3683: 427–438, reported on the morphology of the larval chondrocranium. Nunes, Loebmann, Cruz, and Haddad, 2015, Salamandra, 51: 103–110, provided an account (as Proceratophrys caramaschii) dealing with the range, advertisement call, reproductive data, and color pattern variation. Santos, Costa, Sena, Araújo, and Andrade, 2019, Herpetol. Notes, 12: 675–670, provided a new record (as Proceratophrys caramaschii) for Piaui, Brazil, and discussed and mapped the range.  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. Mângia, Oliveira, Santana, Koroiva, Paiva, and Garda, 2020, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 58: 1151–1172, reported on molecular and morphological phylogeography and geographic call variation, resulting in the synonymy of Proceratophrys aridus and Proceratophrys caramaschii. They also redescribed the holotype of Proceratophrys cristiceps as well as discussing other systematic issues. Vieira, Oliveira, Vieira, and Alves, 2022, PeerJ, 10(e12879): 1–30, reported on morphometric and chromatic variation within nominal Proceratophrys cristiceps and suggested that the number of species within the Proceratophrys cristiceps group is over-estimated.   

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.