Hyalinobatrachium mesai

Abstract

<i>Hyalinobatrachium mesai</i> <p>Barrio-Amorós and Brewer-Carías, 2008: 18.</p> <p> <b>Type locality.</b> Southern slope of Sarisariñama-tepui (04°25’ N, 64°7’ W; 420 m), Bolívar, Venezuela.</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> (1) Dentigerous processes on vomer and vomerine teeth absent; (2) snout truncate in dorsal and lateral view; (3) tympanum covered by skin, not visible through skin; (4) dorsal skin shagreened in life and preservative; (5) presence of small cloacal enameled warts; (6) parietal peritoneum transparent, pericardium transparent, visceral and hepatic peritonea white, all other peritonea presumably transparent (not dissected); (7) liver bulbous; (8) humeral spine absent; (9) webbing formula of fingers III 2 1/3 – 2+ IV; (10) webbing formula of toes I 1 – 2 2/3 II 1 – 2 1/2 III 1 – 2 IV 2 – 1 V; (11) low and enameled ulnar and tarsal folds; (12) nuptial pad inconspicuous, prepollex not evident from external view; (13) Finger I longer Finger II; (14) eye diameter larger than width of disc on Finger III; (15) coloration in life: dorsum light green with big irregular darker green patches, black dots, and minute melanophores, bones green; (16) coloration in preservative: cream with big irregular white patches and black dots; (17) iris white with black flecks; (18) minute melanophores not extending throughout fingers and toes except base of Finger IV and Toe V; in life, tip of fingers and toes unknown; (19) advertisement call composed by one to two notes, each lasting 0.075 s, dominant frequency of 4414.5 Hz, one male observed to call from the upper side of a leave; (20) fighting behavior unknown; (21) egg clutches unknown, parental care unknown; (22) tadpole unknown; (23) adult size 20.0 mm in one male, unknown in females.</p> <p> <b>Comparisons.</b> This species can only be differentiated from <i>Hyalinobatrachium iaspidiense</i> by the presence of white bones in the later (versus green in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>). All other characters compared are identical (see below for more details).</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> This species is only known from the holotype, an adult male. Although the original description (Barrio-Amorós & Brewer-Carías, 2008) listed seven differences between <i>Hyalinobatrachium iaspidiense</i> and <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i> the authors did not directly compare it with material of <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> but rather follow descriptions in the literature. We have identified descriptive lapses in their report of character states of <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> and their comparison with those of <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i> (in parentheses character states used by the authors): both species show low and enameled ulnar and tarsal folds (<i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> has folds but not <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>); as in most species of glassfrogs <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> has a thenar tubercle, although low and difficult to appreciate (thenar tubercle absent in <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> but present in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>); the ventral skin of <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> is granular and not smooth, we did not observe differences with <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> when we examined the holotype of <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i> (ventral skin smooth in <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> but areolate in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>); the <i>canthus rostralis</i> of both species is similar and we did not find differences that would suggest considering them different character states (well defined in <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> not well defined in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>); webbing formula of toes is basically identical (toes approximately two-thirds webbed in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i> versus three-fourths in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>); we did not find differences in the shape of the choanae, which is approximately oval in both species (choanae trilobate in <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> and oval in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>). Furthermore, the re-analysis of the recorded call revealed that it is identical to that of <i>H. iaspidienses</i> (Fig. 2 E–G). The only consisted divergent character is color of bones in life specimens, which is white in <i>H</i>. <i>iaspidiense</i> but green in <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i>. Although there is no record in the literature of intraspecific polymorphism of bone colors in <i>Hyalinobatrachium</i>, the fact that <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i> is just known from a single specimen for which there are no ventral photographs in live (color of bones is lost in preservative) does not allow us to evaluate the validity of this character. Unfortunately, we could not amplify DNA from a tissue sample of the specimen. Thus and till more data are available, we consider <i>H</i>. <i>mesai</i> as a valid species but its status is pending revaluation.</p> <p> <b>Ecology and distribution.</b> Only known from the type locality in the Venezuelan GS.</p>Published as part of <i>Castroviejo-Fisher, Santiago, Vilà, Carles, Ayarzagüena, José, Blanc, Michel & Ernst, Raffael, 2011, Species diversity of Hyalinobatrachium glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) from the Guiana Shield, with the description of two new species, pp. 1-55 in Zootaxa 3132</i> on pages 26-27, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/200895">10.5281/zenodo.200895</a&gt