- Amphibian Species of the World on Twitter
- What is the right name?
- Running log of additions and changes, 2021
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2020
- How to cite
- How to use
- History of the project, 1980 to 2021
- The big changes in amphibian taxonomy (2006–2013): versions 5.6 and 6.0
- Scientific Nomenclature and Its Discontents
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Contributors, 1985 edition
- Contributors, online edition
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Phrynomedusa appendiculata (Lutz, 1925)
Phyllomedusa appendiculata Lutz, 1925, C. R. Mém. Hebd. Séances Soc. Biol. Filial., Paris, 93 (1925, vol. 2): 139. Holotype: Not stated; likely MNRJ 770 according to Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 82. Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 70, considered USNM 97147 to be a syntype. Type locality: Not stated, given as São Bento do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil, by Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 70, and Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 82 (who discussed the problems surrounding the provenance of the type.
Phrynomedusa appendiculata — Cruz, 1991 "1990", Rev. Brasil. Biol., 50: 721.
English Names
Lutz's Phyllomedusa (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 122).
Santa Catarina Leaf Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 61).
Distribution
Known only from three localities: the type locality in the município de São Bento do Sul and Novo Horizonte, município de Lauro Müller, both in the state of Santa Catarina and at Paranapiacaba, município de Santo André, state of São Paulo, in south and southeastern Brazil, respectively. 800-1000 m elevation.
Comment
Resurrected from the synonymy of Phrynomedusa fimbriata by Cruz, 1987 "1985", Arq. Univ. Fed. Rural Rio de Janeiro, 8: 94, where it had been placed by Bokermann IN Funkhouser, 1957, Occas. Pap. Nat. Hist. Mus. Stanford Univ., 5: 27. See account by Heyer, Rand, Cruz, Peixoto, and Nelson, 1990, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 31: 284. See statement of geographic range, habitat, and conservation status in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 616. See account by Baêta, Giasson, Pombal, and Haddad, 2016, Herpetol. Monogr., 30: 56–59. Forti, Haddad, Leite, Drummond, Assis, Crivellari, Mello, Garcia, Zornosa-Torres, and Toledo, 2019, PeerJ, 7(e7612): 1–39, reported on advertisement call.
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.
- For additional sources of information from other sites search Google
- For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
- For additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observation see iNaturalist; for a quick link to their maps see iNaturalist KML
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.