Taxonomic review of Physalaemus olfersii (Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856) with revalidation of Physalaemus lateristriga (Steindachner, 1864) and description of two new related species (Anura: Leiuperidae)

Abstract

Physalaemus olfersii was described by M.H.K. Lichtenstein and E.K. Martens in 1856 based on two syntypes collected by I.M. Olfers between the years 1818 and 1819. Due to the brevity of it’s original description and high interpopulational variation, a taxonomic review of material assigned to the species is proposed. Morphological comparisons allowed us to associate the syntype of P. olfersii to populations distributed between the state of Espírito Santo and of São Paulo to which the southern limit is the to the municipality of São Paulo. Historical documents allowed us to define an area within Serra do Mar mountain range as the type locality of the species. Morphological and acoutics comparisons of P. olfersii from different localities in southern and southeastern Brazil revealed considerable variation among populations. Differences in call parameters and morphology, led us to conclude that three more species where under the name P. olfersii: Physalaemus lateristriga (Steindachner, 1864) comb. nov. and two new species, Physalaemus feioi sp. nov. and P. orophilus sp. nov.

Integrative Study of Brazilian Anurans: Geographic Distribution, Size, Environment, Taxonomy, and Conservation

“…Furthermore, these three states are suggested refuges for Atlantic Forest amphibian fauna (Carnaval et al . ), and species numbers are expected to be higher than that which is currently recorded.…”

“…), leiuperids (Cassini et al . ), and microhylids (Caramaschi ). Therefore, some species that need conservation efforts might be currently classified as Least Concern due to a failure to recognize the cryptic species.…”

Frogs of the state of Espírito Santo, southeastern Brazil — The need for looking at the ‘coldspots’

“…Two sites were subject to a higher sampling effort, through short or long term studies, and, not surprisingly, are the type-localities of most anuran species described from specimens collected in the state: Linhares and Santa Teresa (Wied-Neuwied 1824;Bokermann 1952Bokermann , 1966b1967;Izecksohn and Cruz 1976;Cruz 1980;Izecksohn and Peixoto 1981;Cruz and Peixoto 1982;Peixoto 1982;Heyer 1984;Weygoldt and Peixoto 1985;Cruz and Peixoto 1985;Peixoto and Weygoldt 1987;Izecksohn 1988;Heyer and Wolf 1989;Izecksohn 1993;Bastos and Pombal 1996;Peixoto 2002;Napoli 2005;Cruz et al 2005;Almeida and Angulo 2006;Pombal and Gasparini 2006). New species are still described on a regular basis, even in intensively sampled areas (Pombal et al 2003;Napoli 2005;Cruz et al 2005;Almeida and Angulo 2006;Pombal and Gasparini 2006;Caramaschi et al 2009;Izecksohn et al 2009;Canedo and Pimenta 2010). A list of species occurring in Espírito Santo is still not available (Gasparini et al 2007), and this prevents adequate planning of conservation strategies regarding amphibians.…”

Heteromorphic Z and W sex chromosomes in Physalaemus ephippifer (Steindachner, 1864) (Anura, Leiuperidae)

“…The genus Physalaemus is currently composed of 45 species (Frost 2010;Cassini et al 2010), which are allocated to seven fenetic groups, proposed originally by Nascimento et al (2005). The P. cuvieri group consists of nine species and is widely distributed in South America (Nascimento et al 2005).…”