Reassessment of the taxonomic status of Pseudopaludicola parnaiba (Anura, Leptodactylidae, Leiuperinae), with the description of a new cryptic species from the Brazilian Cerrado

Abstract

<jats:p>The Neotropical frog genus Pseudopaludicola includes 25 species distributed throughout South America. Herein we review the taxonomic status of P. parnaiba relative to P. canga and the specific identity of the population treated in previous studies as Pseudopaludicola sp. 3 from Barreirinhas in the Brazilian state of Maranhão. The lack of differentiation in advertisement call, morphology, and mitochondrial markers from topotypes and different populations rejects the status of P. parnaiba and Pseudopaludicola sp. 3 from Barreirinhas as distinct species. For these reasons, we suggest to formally consider P. parnaiba as a junior synonym of P. canga. We also found that a population previously reported as P. facureae from central Brazil (Palmeiras de Goiás, Goiás) corresponds to a cryptic species that we describe here as a new species. Lastly, we provide for the first time the phylogenetic positions of P. giarettai, P. llanera and P. pusilla.</jats:p>

A New Species of Pseudopaludicola Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926 (Anura, Leptodactylidae) from Tocantins State, Brazil

“…For example, P. pusilla was not part of the species group that harbors its name in our topology (although, the node where it is placed had a low posterior probability of 0.8). Still, in the previous phylogeny where P. pusilla was monophyletic, the clade also had low support (bootstrap 43; Andrade et al, 2020a). Hence, the monophyly of the P. pusilla species group remains contentious.…”

“…Since the description of the first species of Pseudopaludicola 155 years ago, the diversity of this genus has reached 25 species (Frost, 2023), of which 60% were named just in the last two decades (Frost, 2023). This exceptional species description rate has resulted primarily from increases in sampling effort and the implementation of different sources of evidence to determine the taxonomic status of some Pseudopaludicola populations, especially acoustic and molecular data (e.g., Cardozo and Toledo, 2013;Andrade et al, 2019Andrade et al, , 2020a. Additionally, this high rate of species discovery also indicates that new species likely remain to be discovered.…”

“…The most recent molecular phylogeny of the genus included 22 of the 25 described species (Andrade et al, 2020a) and recovered essentially the same topology as the previous work of Veiga-Menoncello et al (2014). However, some nodes still had low bootstrap support, possibly because of the absence of terminals (i.e., unknown species) or the need for more molecular markers, especially nuclear ones (Veiga-Menoncello et al, 2014;Andrade et al, 2020a). Thus, the description of new species by using molecular markers to contextualize their phylogenetic positions may be essential for improving our understanding of the relationships within Pseudopaludicola.…”

“…Additionally, this high rate of species discovery also indicates that new species likely remain to be discovered. Their small body size and conserved external morphology, as well as the existence of many poorly sampled areas across their range, are among the main challenges in describing the hidden diversity of these dwarf swamp frogs (Diniz-Filho et al, 2005; Veiga-Menoncello et al, 2014; Andrade et al, 2020a; Porto et al, 2022).…”

“…In the comprehensive phylogenetic study of Pseudopaludicola provided by Veiga-Menoncello et al (2014), many species and unassigned terminals were included in a phylogenetic context for the first time, and the resulting phylogeny supported four major clades within the genus. Ten new species have been described since the phylogeny proposed by Veiga-Menoncello et al (2014), and three remain without mtDNA sequences available, namely, Pseudopaludicola ibisoroca , Pseudopaludicola ceratophyes , and Pseudopaludicola hyleaustralis (Andrade et al, 2020a). The most recent molecular phylogeny of the genus included 22 of the 25 described species (Andrade et al, 2020a) and recovered essentially the same topology as the previous work of Veiga-Menoncello et al (2014).…”