\u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus cunicularius\u3c/em\u3e

Adult Leptodactylus cunicularius are moderately small. The head is longer than wide and the hind limbs are long (Table 1; Heyer and Thompson 2000 provided definitions of adult size and leg length categories for Leptodactylus). Male vocal sacs are internal, not externally expanded. The snout is protruding, not sexually dimorphic. Male forearms are not hypertrophied and males lack asperities on the thumbs and chest. The dorsum is variegated with small, often confluent, spots and blotches. There is a very thin interrupted mid-dorsal light stripe (pinstripe). Usually, there is a noticeable light, irregular, elongate, mid-dorsal blotch in the scapular region. The supratympanic fold is not marked differently from the surrounding region. A weak to distinct pair of interrupted (partial or along entire length) dorsolateral folds extends from the posterior portion of the eye, passing just lateral to the sacral bones and ending in the upper groin region of the leg; the folds are usually subtly highlighted with marginally lighter stripes than the surrounding dorsal region. Another pair of interrupted, irregular dorsal folds may or may not be visible on either side of the dorsum mid-line. A pair of interrupted (along entire length) lateral folds extends from the posterior dorsal portion of the tympanic fold to the mid-groin level at the leg juncture; the folds are usually slightly lighter in color than the adjacent flanks. The toe tips are rounded, not dilated. The toes lack lateral ridges or fringes and either lack or have a trace of basal webbing between toes II-III-IV. The dorsal surface of the shank lacks tubercles and has weakly developed longitudinal folds, not differentially patterned. The posterior surface of the tarsus lacks tubercles. The sole of the foot is smooth but with small irregular light spots of the same size as light tubercles found in other species. The upper lip usually has a distinct light cream or tan stripe from just behind the snout tip, passing under the eye and tympanum and continuing through the commissural gland; if lacking, the upper lip region is homogeneously colored. The belly is cream-colored, with or without a few small tan blotches on the lateral-most extent of the belly. The posterior surface of the thigh ranges from an indistinct to a labyrinthine pattern of darker and lighter browns; usually there are a series of light dots on the lower posterior thigh where light stripes occur in other species

\u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus mystacinus\u3c/em\u3e

Adult Leptodactylus mystacinus are of moderate size, the head is as wide as long, and the hind limbs are moderately short (see Table; Heyer and Thompson 2000 provided definitions of adult size and leg length categories for Leptodactylus). Male vocal sacs are not visible externally or at best are weakly expanded laterally and slightly darker than female throats. Male snouts are more spatulate than those of females. Male forearms are not hypertrophied. Males lack asperities on the thumbs and chest. One or two pairs of dorsolateral folds (indicated by dark/light outlining in indifferently preserved specimens) are present: one distinct more dorsal pair extends from behind the eye (often with a gap with the fold beginning at a level above the tympanum) to the upper groin; a second pair, either complete or interrupted, extends from above the forearm insertion at the same level as the dorsal portion of the supratympanic fold and extends to the groin along the flanks. The toe tips are narrow. The toes lack fringes or fleshy ridges. The upper shank has many or scattered distinct white tubercles. The outer tarsus almost always (94%) has many or scattered distinct white tubercles. The sole of the foot usually (75%) has distinct scattered to many white tubercles, sometimes (25%) the white tubercles are absent

Leptodactylus cunicularius Sazima and Bokermann Rabbit-burrow Frog

Adult Leptodactylus cunicularius are moderately small. The head is longer than wide and the hind limbs are long (Table 1; Heyer and Thompson 2000 provided definitions of adult size and leg length categories for Leptodactylus). Male vocal sacs are internal, not externally expanded. The snout is protruding, not sexually dimorphic. Male forearms are not hypertrophied and males lack asperities on the thumbs and chest. The dorsum is variegated with small, often confluent, spots and blotches. There is a very thin interrupted mid-dorsal light stripe (pinstripe). Usually, there is a noticeable light, irregular, elongate, mid-dorsal blotch in the scapular region. The supratympanic fold is not marked differently from the surrounding region. A weak to distinct pair of interrupted (partial or along entire length) dorsolateral folds extends from the posterior portion of the eye, passing just lateral to the sacral bones and ending in the upper groin region of the leg; the folds are usually subtly highlighted with marginally lighter stripes than the surrounding dorsal region

\u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus savagei\u3c/em\u3e

Adult Leptodactylus savagei are large, the head is as wide as long or usually wider than long, and the hind limbs are moderate in length (Table 1; Heyer and Thompson (2000) provided definitions of adult size and leg length categories for Leptodactylus). Male vocal sacs are not visible externally. Sexually active males have hypertrophied forearms, usually 1 large black spine on each thumb, rarely with 1 large spine and a prepollical bump, and a pair of black chest spines. A pair of entire dorsolateral folds extend anteriorly from at least one_half to full distance from eye to groin, the dorsolateral folds are rarely interrupted. Flank folds (diverging from the supratympanic fold at the uppermost posterior portion of the tympanum and extending as far as the lower flank at mid_body level) range from entire (often) to only a dark spot/wart (rarely) in the area where the fold would be between the tympanum and shoulder. Lateral folds are not distinguishable. The toe tips are rounded and either barely wider than or of equal width as the toes immediately behind the tips. The toes have weak to noticeable lateral ridges and either lack any web or (usually) have vestigial webbing between toes I-II-III or I-II-III-IV. Metamorphic and slightly larger juveniles lack webbing and either have very weak lateral ridges or lack them. The upper shank surfaces almost always have some texture, including a shagreen and/or small black or white tubercles. The outer surface of the tarsus may either be smooth or with a shagreen or small black or white tubercles. The sole of the foot is typically smooth, lacking texture

\u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus syphax\u3c/em\u3e

Adult Leptodactylus syphax are moderately sized (males 58-83 mm, females 70-90 mm SVL). The head is about as long as wide, but usually is just wider than long. The hind limbs are moderately short (Table 1; Heyar and Thompson 2000 provided definitions of adult size and leg length categories for Leptodactylus). Male vocal sacs are laterally expanded, tan, and not darker than the adjacent throat. The male snout is not spatulate, the snout profile is rounded to obtuse in both sexes. Male arms are hypertrophied during the breeding season in sexually active males. The male thumb has two large, sharp, black spines; a pair of black chest spine patches has sharp, protruding spines. The dorsum is indistinctly patterned with dark, poor1y defined spots or blotches, sometimes the spots/blotches are regularly distributed. A dark posteriorly-directed triangular interorbital mark is variably present. The supratympanic fold is either the same color as or noticeably darker than the tan or brown surrounding area. There are no dorso-lateral folds. The dorsum is smooth to weakly rugose with large white tubercles limited to the sacral and postsacral region. The toe tips are rounded and are either weakly or noticeably swollen with a diameter greater than the region immediately behind the toe tip. The toes usually lack any lateral fringe or ridge or basal webbing; rarely the toes have weak ridges or a trace of webbing between toes II-III-IV. The dorsal surface of the shank has scattered white or blacktipped tubercles. The posterior surface of the tarsus and sole of the foot are either smooth or have a few large white or black-tipped tubercles. The upper lip has poorly defined to distinct vertical bars, one between the nostril and eye and two underneath the eye, or a complex dark and light pattern. There is no mid-dorsal stripe. The belly is lightly to moderately mottled with light gray or brown markings. The posterior surfaces of the thighs are boldly patterned with various-sized light tan and brown markings and lack a light longitudinal stripe on the lower halves

\u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus pentadactylus\u3c/em\u3e

Adult Leptodactylus pentadactylus (Figure 1) are large, the head is about as wide as long, and the hind limbs are moderately long (Table 1; Heyer and Thompson [2000] provided definitions of adult size and leg length categories for Leptodactylus). Male vocal sacs are not visible externally or are moderately expanded as a single sac. Sexually active males usually do not have hypertrophied forearms (the largest male examined, 195 mm SVL, has very weakly hypertrophied forearms), only the largest males have a single small to moderate size black spine on each thumb. No males have chest spines. Dorsolateral folds are usually entire from the eye to at least the sacrum. Flank folds (diverging from the supratympanic fold at the uppermost portion of the tympanum) are variable, either continuous or interrupted, often extending from the tympanum to the lower flank, or only to the shoulder. The toe tips are rounded, just wider than the adjacent phalanges. The toes have prominent lateral ridges. A trace of basal webbing occurs among all toes, or toes I–II–III–IV or II–III–IV. The upper shank and outer tarsal surfaces are smooth, shagreened, or have several white or black tubercles. The sole of the foot texture is usually smooth, a few individuals have no more than a few black or white tubercles

Variation, Systematics, and Relationships of the \u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus Bolivianus\u3c/em\u3eComplex (Amphibia: Anura: Leptodactylidae)

A cluster of morphologically similar frogs of the genus Leptodactylus having a pair of distinct dorsolateral folds on the dorsum and well-developed lateral fringes on the toes has never been systematically evaluated by examining materials from throughout its geographic range. The species involved are herein referred to as members of the Leptodactylus bolivianus complex. There have been three names proposed for members of this complex: Leptodactylus bolivianus Boulenger, 1898; Leptodactylus insularum Barbour, 1906; and Leptodactylus romani Melin, 1941. The collective range for the L. bolivianus complex is from Costa Rica southward through Panama, extending across northern South America (east of the Andes) in the river valleys draining to the Caribbean, and throughout much of the Amazon basin with southernmost limits in the Bolivian departments of La Paz, Cochabamba, and Santa Cruz. We analyze variation in this complex of frogs throughout its geographic range to understand inherent patterns of differentiation and to interpret those patterns in terms of species-level recognition, distributions, and relationships

ARE Leptodactylus didymus AND L. mystaceus PHYLOGENETICALLY SIBLING SPECIES (AMPHIBIA, ANURA, LEPTODACTYLIDAE)?

The Leptodactylus fuscus species group consists of 25 currently recognized species; within this species group and distributed throughout the Amazon Basin, Atlantic Forests, Gran Chaco, and cerrados is the L. mystaceus species complex. This species complex consists of L. didymus, L. elenae, L. mystaceus, L. notoaktites, and L. spixi. Adult morphologies have been used to distinguish these species from each other except for L. didymus and L. mystaceus (Heyer, 1978; Heyer et al., 1996). Leptodactylus didymus and L. mystaceus are morphologically indistinguishable; the species are recognizable only by the characteristics of their advertisement calls: non-pulsed in L. didymus and pulsed in L. mystaceus (Heyer et al., 1996). Traditionally, L. mystaceus and L. didymus have been considered sibling species. The concept of sibling species was originally introduced by Mayr (1942: 151) to describe pairs or groups of morphologically identical or nearly identical species; however, in subsequent work Mayr (1976) interchangeably used the terms sibling and cryptic species to describe morphologically similar species. Mayr (1942: 151) considered sibling species to be important in understanding the full complexity of animal speciation. In order to differentiate these two terms, herein we take a narrow cladistic methodological approach (i.e., dichotomous speciation) by which we restrict the term sibling species to two taxa that share a most recent common ancestor; whereas, the term cryptic (derived from the Greek Kruptos, meaning \u27hidden\u27; Allaby, 1991) species refers to hidden diversity and does not necessarily imply close phylogenetic relationship. Thus, the sibling species pair of L. didymus and L. mystaceus assumes two postulates: (1) the taxa shared a most recent common ancestor not shared with other species in the L. mystaceus species complex and (2) the two taxa could represent a recent speciation event (i.e., not enough time has passed to reach morphological differentiation, although this is not a requisite). Herein, we analyze the genetic diversity among taxa in this species complex to determine if the sibling species L. didymus and L. mystaceus are sister taxa. If the assumptions about sibling species are correct, then we would expect that the two taxa involved would be genetically closer between themselves than with any other closely related species

Are \u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus didymus\u3c/em\u3e and \u3cem\u3eL. mystaceus\u3c/em\u3e Phylogenetically Sibling Species (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae)?

The Leptodactylus fuscus species group consists of 25 currently recognized species; within this species group and distributed throughout the Amazon Basin, Atlantic Forests, Gran Chaco, and cerrados is the L. mystaceus species complex. This species complex consists of L. didymus, L. elenae, L. mystaceus, L. notoaktites, and L. spixi. Adult morphologies have been used to distinguish these species from each other except for L. didymus and L. mystaceus (Heyer, 1978; Heyer et al., 1996). Leptodactylus didymus and L. mystaceus are morphologically indistinguishable; the species are recognizable only by the characteristics of their advertisement calls: non-pulsed in L. didymus and pulsed in L. mystaceus (Heyer et al., 1996). Traditionally, L. mystaceus and L. didymus have been considered sibling species. The concept of sibling species was originally introduced by Mayr (1942: 151) to describe pairs or groups of morphologically identical or nearly identical species; however, in subsequent work Mayr (1976) interchangeably used the terms sibling and cryptic species to describe morphologically similar species. Mayr (1942: 151) considered sibling species to be important in understanding the full complexity of animal speciation. In order to differentiate these two terms, herein we take a narrow cladistic methodological approach (i.e., dichotomous speciation) by which we restrict the term sibling species to two taxa that share a most recent common ancestor; whereas, the term cryptic (derived from the Greek Kruptos, meaning \u27hidden\u27; Allaby, 1991) species refers to hidden diversity and does not necessarily imply close phylogenetic relationship. Thus, the sibling species pair of L. didymus and L. mystaceus assumes two postulates: (1) the taxa shared a most recent common ancestor not shared with other species in the L. mystaceus species complex and (2) the two taxa could represent a recent speciation event (i.e., not enough time has passed to reach morphological differentiation, although this is not a requisite). Herein, we analyze the genetic diversity among taxa in this species complex to determine if the sibling species L. didymus and L. mystaceus are sister taxa. If the assumptions about sibling species are correct, then we would expect that the two taxa involved would be genetically closer between themselves than with any other closely related species

On the Engimatic Distribution of The Honduran Endemic \u3cem\u3eLeptodactylus Silvanimbus\u3c/em\u3e (Amphibia: Anura: Leptodactylidae)

Most species of the frog genus Leptodactylus occur in South America, and all authors who have treated the zoogeography of the genus have concluded that it originated somewhere in South America (e.g., Savage 1982). Savage (1982, 518) summarized the historical herpetofaunal units of the Neotropics as follows: All evidence points to an ancient contiguity and essential similarity of a generalized tropical herpetofauna that ranged over tropical North, Middle, and most of South America in Cretaceous-Paleocene times. Descendents of this fauna are represented today by the South and Middle American tracks (Elements). To the north of this fauna ranged a subtropical-temperate Laurasian derived unit, today represented by the Old Northern Element (track). By Eocene, northern and southern fragments of the generalized tropical units had become isolated in Middle and South America, respectively. Differentiation in situ until Pliocene produced the distinctive herpetofaunas that became intermixed with the establishment of the Isthmian Link