A review of the elusive bicolored iris Snouted Treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae:Scinax uruguayus group)

Autoři: Diego Baldo aff001;  Katyuscia Araujo-Vieira aff002;  Dario Cardozo aff001;  Claudio Borteiro aff003;  Fernando Leal aff004;  Martín O. Pereyra aff002;  Francisco Kolenc aff003;  Mariana L. Lyra aff005;  Paulo C. A. Garcia aff004;  Célio F. B. Haddad aff005;  Julián Faivovich aff002
Působiště autorů: Laboratório de Genética Evolutiva, Instituto de Biología Subtropical “Claudio Juan Bidau” (CONICET-UNaM), Posadas, Misiones, Argentina aff001;  División Herpetología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”—CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina aff002;  Sección Herpetología, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Montevideo, Uruguay aff003;  Laboratório de Herpetologia, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil aff004;  Departamento de Zoologia and Centro de Aquicultura (CAUNESP), Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil aff005;  Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222131


The genus Scinax currently includes more than 120 species, recovered in two major clades, the S. catharinae and the S. ruber clades. The latter comprises 75 species, most of which remain unassigned to any species groups, while 12 are included in the S. rostratus and S. uruguayus groups. In this paper we present a taxonomic review of the two species currently included in the S. uruguayus group, discussing some putative phenotypic synapomorphies of this group. Although S. pinima and S. uruguayus have been considered as distinct species, this has been based on scant evidence, and several authors doubted of their distinctiveness. Our study of available specimens of S. pinima and S. uruguayus corroborates that both are valid and diagnosable species based on phenotypic evidence. Furthermore, our results show that S. pinima previously known only from its type locality, has a much widespread distribution than previously thought (including the Brazilian states of Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul), which, added to the biological information presented here allows to suggest the removal of this species from the “Data Deficient” IUCN Red List category to “Least Concern”. Also, we describe a new species formerly reported as S. aff. pinima and S. uruguayus from NE Argentina and some localities from the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul. All species are diagnosed and characterized using adult and larval morphology, osteology, vocalizations, cytogenetics, and natural history.

Klíčová slova:

Brazil – Cartilage – Jaw – Larvae – Teeth – Tadpoles – Toes – Maxilla


1. Frost DR. Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.0. 23 Jan 2019). American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Available from http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.

2. Faivovich J. A cladistic analysis of Scinax (Anura: Hylidae). Cladistics. 2002; 18:367–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2002.tb00157.x

3. Faivovich J, Haddad CFB, Garcia PCA, Frost D, Campbell JA, Wheeler WC. Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to Hylinae: phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 2005; 294:1–240.

4. Faivovich J, Pereyra MO, Luna MC, Hertz A, Blotto BL, Vásquez-Almazán CR, et al. On the monophyly and relationships of several genera of Hylini (Anura: Hylidae: Hylinae). S Am J Herpetol. 2018; 13:1–32. doi: 10.2994/SAJH-D-17-00115.1

5. Bokermann WCA, Sazima I. Anfíbios da Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brasil. 1: duas espécies novas de Hyla (Anura, Hylidae). Rev Brasil Biol. 1973; 33:521–528.

6. Kolenc F, Borteiro C, Tedros M. La larva de Hyla uruguaya Schmidt, 1944 (Anura: Hylidae), con comentários sobre su biología en Uruguay y su status taxonómico. Cuad Herpetol. “2003” 2004; 17:87–100.

7. Pyron RA, Wiens JJ. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2,800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. ‎Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2011; 61:543–583. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.06.012 21723399

8. Pyron RA. Biogeographic analysis reveals ancient continental vicariance and recent oceanic dispersal in amphibians. Syst Biol. 2014; 63:779–797. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syu042 24951557

9. Duellman WE., Marion AB, Hedges SB. Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae). Zootaxa. 2016; 4104:1–109. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4104.1.1 27394762

10. Jetz W, Pyron RA. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018; 2:850–858. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0515-5 29581588

11. Langone JA. Hyla uruguaya K. P. Schmidt, 1944 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Primera cita para el estado brasileño de Santa Catarina. Cuad Herpetol.1997; 11:89.

12. Achaval F, Olmos A. Anfibios y Reptiles del Uruguay. Segunda edición. Graphis. Montevideo, Uruguay. 2003.

13. Eterovick PC, Sazima I. Amphibians from the Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Editora PUC Minas. Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 2004.

14. Giraudo AR, Krauczuk ER, Baldo D. Hyla uruguaya Schmidt, 1944, un nuevo anfibio para la herpetofauna de Argentina. Cuad Herpetol. 2005; 18:61–66.

15. Schmidt KP. New frogs from Misiones and Uruguay. Zool Ser Field Mus Nat. 1944; 2:153–160.

16. Langone JA. Revalidación de Hyla uruguaya Schmidt, 1944 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Com Zool Mus Montevideo. 1990; 12:1–9.

17. Kwet A. Frösche im brasilianischen Araukarienwald. Natur und Tier-Verlag, Münster. 2001. doi: 10.1002/biuz.200410251

18. Bernarde PS. Geographic distribution: Hyla uruguaya. Herp Rev. 1999; 30:230.

19. Sabaj MH. Standard symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology: an online reference. Version 6.5. 16 August 2016. Available from www.asih.org.

20. Heyer WR, Rand AS, Cruz CAG, Peixoto OL, Nelson CE. Frogs of Boracéia. Arq Zool. 1990; 31:231–410.

21. Duellman WE. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Monogr Mus Nat Hist, Univ Kans. 1970; 1:1–753.

22. Napoli MF, Caramaschi U. Duas novas espécies de Hyla Laurenti, 1768 do Brasil central afins de H. tritaeniata Bokermann, 1965 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Bol. Mus. Biol. Mello Leitão, Nova Sér. 1998; 391:1–12.

23. Savage JM, Heyer WR. Digital webbing formulae for anurans: a refinement. Herpetol Rev. 1997; 28:131.

24. Myers CW, Duellman WE. A new species of Hyla from Cerro Colorado, and other tree frog records and geographical notes from Western Panama. Am Mus Novit. 1982; 2752:1–32.

25. Fabrezi M, Alberch P. The carpal elements of anurans. Herpetologica. 1996; 52:188–204.

26. Luna MC, McDiarmid RW, Faivovich J. From erotic excrescences to pheromone shots: structure and diversity of nuptial pads in anurans. Biol J Linnean Soc. 2018; 124:403–446. doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/bly048

27. Taylor WR, Van Dyke GC. Revised procedures for staining and clearing small fishes and other vertebrates for bone and cartilage study. Cybium. 1985; 9:107–119.

28. Jurgens JD. The morphology of the nasal region of Amphibia and its bearing on the phylogeny of the group. Annale Universiteit van Stellenbosch. 1971; 46:1–146.

29. Trueb L. Bones, frogs, and evolution. In: Vial JL Evolutionary biology of the Anurans: contemporary research on major problems. University of Missouri Press, USA; 1973. pp. 65–132.

30. Trueb L. Patterns of cranial diversification among the Lissamphibia. In: Hanken J. Hall BK, The skull, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1993. pp. 255–343.

31. Alberch P, Gale EA. A developmental analysis of an evolutionary trend: digital reduction in Amphibians. Evolution. 1985; 39:8–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb04076.x 28563634

32. Fabrezi M. El carpo de los anuros. Alytes. 1992; 10:1–29.

33. Fabrezi M. The anuran tarsus. Alytes. 1993; 11:47–63.

34. Fabrezi M., Alberch P. The carpal elements of Anurans. Herpetologica. 1996; 52:188–204.

35. Trewavas E. The hyoid and larynx of the Anura. Phil Trans R Soc Lond, Ser. B. 1933; 222:401–527. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1932.0020

36. Altig R, McDiarmid RW. Body plan. Development and morphology. In: Mc Diarmid RW, Altig R. Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1999. pp. 24–51.

37. Gosner KL. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica. 1960; 16:183–190.

38. Lavilla EO, Scrocchi GJ. Morfometría larval de los géneros de Telmatobiinae (Anura: Leptodactylidae) de Argentina y Chile. Physis. 1986; 44:39–43.

39. Wassersug RJ. Oral morphology of anuran larvae: terminology and general descriptions. Occ Pap Mus Nat Hist Univ Kansas. 1976; 48:1–23.

40. Wassersug RJ. Internal oral features of larvae from eight anuran families: functional, systematic, evolutionary and ecological consideration. Misc Publ Mus Nat Hist Univ Kansas. 1980; 68:1–148. https://archive.org/details/internaloralfeat00wass

41. Sueur J, Aubin T, Simonis C. Seewave: a free modular tool for sound analysis and synthesis. Bioacoustics. 2008; 18:213–226. doi: 10.1080/09524622.2008.9753600

42. Köhler J, Jansen M, Rodríguez A, Kok PJR, Toledo LF, Emmrich M, et al. The use of bioacoustics in anuran taxonomy: theory, terminology, methods and recommendations for best practice. Zootaxa. 2017; 4251:1–124. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4251.1.1 28609991

43. Cocroft MR, Ryan BJ. Patterns of advertisement call evolution in toads and chorus frogs. Animal Behav. 1995; 49:283–303. doi: 10.1016/anbe.1995.0043

44. Schmid M, Steinlein C, Bogart JP, Feichtinger W, León P, La Marca E, et al. The chromosomes of terraranan frogs. Insights into vertebrate cytogenetics. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2010; 130–131:1–568. doi: 10.1159/000301339 21063086

45. Howell WN, Black DA. Controlled silver staining of nucleolus organizer regions with a protector colloidal developer: a step method. Experientia. 1980; 453:1014–1015. doi: 10.1007/BF01953855 6160049

46. Sumner AT. A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp Cell Res. 1972; 75:304–306. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(72)90558-7 4117921

47. Reeves A, Tear J. MicroMeasure for Windows, version 3.3. 2000. Free program distributed by the authors over the Internet from http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Biology/MicroMeasure. Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/68cIFjmV4 on 22 June 2012.

48. Green DM, Sessions SK. Nomenclature for chromosomes. In: Amphibian Cytogenetics and Evolution. Green DM, Sessions SK (eds.). Academic Press, San Diego; 1991. pp. 431–432

49. Green DM, Sessions SK. Karyology and cytogenetics. In: Amphibian Biology. Vol. 7. Heatwole H, Tyler M (eds.). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia; 2007. pp. 2756–2841

50. White MJD. Animal cytology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1954.

51. Leite FSF, Juncá FA, Eterovick PC. Status do conhecimento, endemismo e conservação de anfíbios anuros da Cadeia do Espinhaço, Brasil. Megadiversidade. 2008; 4:158–176.

52. Kwet A, Lingnau R, Di-Bernardo M. Pró-Mata: Anfíbios da Serra Gaúcha, sul do Brasil—Amphibien der Serra Gaúcha, Südbrasilien—Amphibians of the Serra Gaúcha, South of Brasil. Brasilien-Zentrum, University of Tübingen, Germany, 148pp. 2010.

53. Alcalde L, Vera Candioti MF, Kolenc F, Borteiro C, Baldo D. Cranial anatomy of tadpoles of five species of Scinax (Hylidae: Hylinae). Zootaxa. 2011; 2787:19–36. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.2787.1.2

54. Vaira M, Akmentins M, Maximiliano A, Baldo D, Barrasso D, Barrionuevo S. et al. Categorización del estado de conservación de los anfibios de la República Argentina. Cuad Herpetol. 2012; 26:131–159.

55. Zaracho VH, Céspedez JA, Álvarez BB, Lavilla EO. Guía de campo para la identificación de los anfibios de la provincia de Corrientes (Argentina). Edit. Fundación Miguel Lillo & UNNE. 2012.

56. Marin da Fonte LF, Zank C, Volkmer G, Fusinatto LA, Gomes RA, Freire MD, et al. Anfíbios In: Witt PRB. Fauna e Flora da Reserva Biológica do Lami José Lutzenberger (Ed.). Secretaria Municipal do Meio Ambiente (SMAM). 2013.

57. Ferrão M, Moravec J, Fraga R, Almeida AP, Kaefer IL, Lima AP. A new species of Scinax from the Purus-Madeira interfluve, Brazilian Amazonia (Anura, Hylidae). ZooKeys. 2017; 706:137–162.

58. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, et al. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience. 2001; 51:933–938. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2

59. Wells KD. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. The University of Chicago Press, USA. 2007.

60. Toledo LF, Sazima I, Haddad CFB. Behavioural defences of anurans: an overview. Ethol Ecol Evol. 2011; 23:1–25. doi: 10.1080/03949370.2010.534321

61. Caramaschi U. Hyla pinima Bokermann & Sazima, 1974 (1973). In: Machado ABM, Fonseca GAB, Machado R. Lista vermelha das espécies ameaçadas de extinção da fauna de Minas Gerais, Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte; 1998. pp. 460–461.

62. Garcia PCA, Caramaschi U, Kwet A. O status taxonômico de Hyla cochranae Mertens e a recaracterização de Aplastodiscus A. Lutz (Anura, Hylidae). Rev Bras Zool. 2001; 18:1197–1218. doi: 10.1590/S0101-81752001000400015

63. Lema T, Martins LA. Anfíbios do Rio Grande do Sul: Catálogo, Diagnoses, Distribuição, Iconografia. EDIPUCRS, Porto Alegre. 2011.

64. Kwet A, Di-Bernardo M. Pró-Mata Anfíbios. EDIPUCRS, Porto Alegre. 1999

65. Silva JA, Machado RB, Azevedo AA, Drumond GM, Fonseca RL, Goulart MF, et al. Identificação de áreas insubstituíveis para conservação da Cadeia do Espinhaço, estados de Minas Gerais e Bahia, Brasil. Megadiversidade. 2008; 4:270–309.

66. Bolzan AMR, Saccol SA, Santos TG. Composition and diversity of anurans in the largest conservation unit in Pampa biome, Brazil. Biota Neotrop. 2016; 16:1–14. doi: 10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2015-0113

67. Nogueira L, Solé M, Siqueira S, Mello Affonso PRA, Strüssmann C, Sampaio I. Genetic analysis reveals candidate species in the Scinax catharinae clade (Amphibia: Anura) from Central Brazil. Genet Mol Biol. 2016; 39:49–53. doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2015-0037 27007898

68. Ferrão M, Colatreli O, de Fraga R, Kaefer IL, Moravec J, Lima AP. High species richness of Scinax treefrogs (Hylidae) in a threatened Amazonian landscape revealed by an integrative approach. PloS One. 2016; 11 (11): e0165679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165679 27806089

69. Ferrão M, Moravec J, Kaefer IL, Fraga R, Lima AP. New species of Scinax (Anura: Hylidae) with red-striped eyes from Brazilian Amazonia. J Herpetol. 2018; 52:473–486. doi: 10.1670/17-165

70. Altig R, McDiarmid RW. Morphological diversity and evolution of egg clutch structure in amphibians. Herpetol. Monogr. 2007; 21, 1–32. doi: 10.1655/06-005.1

71. Barrio A. Sobre la validez de Hyla sanborni K. P. Schmidt e H. uruguaya K. P. Schmidt (Anura, Hylidae). Physis. 1967; 26: 521–524.

72. Langguth A. Anfibios: 30–32. In: Langguth A. (ed.). Lista de las especies de vertebrados del Uruguay. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural & Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Montevideo. 1976.

73. Gudynas E. Comentarios sobre anuros (Amphibia) del Uruguay. La expedición Sanborn y breves notas sistemáticas. Resúmenes y Comunicaciones de las III Jornadas de Ciencias Naturales. Montevideo. 1983; 3:92–93.

74. Achaval F. Lista de las especies de vertebrados del Uruguay. Parte 2: Anfibios, Reptiles, Aves y Mamíferos. Departamento de Publicaciones de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Montevideo. 41 pp. 1989

75. Klappenbach MA, Langone JA. Lista sistemática y sinonímica de los anfibios del Uruguay con comentarios y notas sobre su distribución. Anales Mus Hist Nat Montevideo. 1992; 2:163–222.

76. Prigioni CM, Achaval F. Clave para determinación de los anfibios de Uruguay. Servicio de Publicaciones Docentes Internas. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad de la República, Montevideo. 1992.

77. Langone JA. Ranas y sapos del Uruguay (Reconocimiento y aspectos biológicos). Museo Dámaso Antonio Larrañaga (Serie de Divulgación), Montevideo. 1995; 5:1–123.

78. Achaval F, Olmos A. Anfibios y Reptiles del Uruguay. Barreiro y Ramos, Montevideo. 1997.

79. Olmos A, Prigioni CM, Achaval F. Hyla minuta Peters, 1872. Un nuevo Hylidae para el Uruguay (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae). Acta Zool Platense. 1997; 1:1–7.

80. Achaval F. Anfibios. In: Berrini R. Cuenca Superior del Arroyo Lunarejo. Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente y Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay. Tecnograf, Montevideo; 1998. pp. 66–69.

81. Maneyro R, Langone JA. Avance sobre el estado de conservación de los anfibios del Uruguay. Bol Soc Zool Urug Actas V Jorn Zool Uruguay (2a Época). 1999; 11:28.

82. Probides. Plan Director. Reserva de Biosfera Bafiados del Estel Uruguay. Rocha, Uruguay. 1999.

83. Borteiro C, Kolenc F, Tedros M. Notas sobre la distribución geográfica y ecología de Hyla uruguaya (Anura, Hylidae). Publicación Especial de la Sociedad Zoologica del Uruguay. Actas VI Jorn Zool Uruguay. 2001; 26.

84. Maneyro R, Langone JA. Categorización de 1os anfibios del Uruguay. Cuad Herpetol. 2001; 15:107–118.

85. Langone JA. Diversidad de la Biota Uruguaya. Amphibia. Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural y Antropología (2ª Serie). 2003; 10:1–12.

86. Langone JA, Maneyro R, Arrieta D. Present knowledge of the status of amphibian conservation in Uruguay. In: Wilkinson JW, Collected DAPTF Working Group Reports: Ten Years On. Department of Biological Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall; 2004. pp. 83–87.

87. Núñez D, Maneyro R, Langone J, de Sá RO. Distribución geográfica de la fauna de anfibios del Uruguay. Smithson Herpetol Inf Serv. 2004; 134:1–36.

88. Peters WCH. Über eine Sammlung von Batrachiern aus Neu Freiburg in Brasilien. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1872; 680–684.

89. Lutz B. Brazilian Species of Hyla. Austin and London, University of Texas Press, Austin and London. 1973.

90. Braun PC, Braun CAS. Fauna da fronteira Brasil-Uruguay. Lista dos anfíbios dos Departamentos de Artigas, Rivera e Cerro Largo. Iheringia. 1974; 45:34–43.

91. Gorham SW. Checklist of World Amphibians Up to January 1, 1970. Saint John, Canada: New Brunswick Museum. 1974.

92. Duellman WE. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Hylidae, Centrolenidae, Pseudidae. Das Tierreich. 1977; 95:1–225.

93. Cei JM. Amphibians of Argentina. Monititore Zoológico Italiano, (N.S.) Monografia, 2:i-xii, 1980; 1–609. Firenze.

94. Gallardo JM. Anfibios argentinos. Guía para su identificación. Biblioteca Mosaico. Librería Agropecuaria S.A. 1st Ed. 1987.

95. Braun PC, Braun CAS. Contribuição ao estudo da fauna anfibiológica de região metropolitana (Grande Porto Alegre), Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Comunicações do Museu de Ciências da PUCRS. 1976; 10:1–16

96. Braun PC, Braun CAS. Ocorrência de Hyla pinima Bokermann & Sazima, 1973, no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil (Anura, Hylidae). Iheringia. 1981; 57:113–118.

97. Klappenbach MA. Anfibios. In: Klappenbach MA, Orejas-Miranda B. Anfibios y reptiles. Ed. Nuestra Tierra, Montevideo; 1969. pp. 1–32

98. Achaval F, Olmos A. Anfibios y Reptiles del Uruguay. 3rd Ed. Biophoto, Montevideo. 2007.

99. Kolenc F, Borteiro C, Tedros M, Prigione C. The tadpole of Scinax aromothyella (Anura: Hylidae) from Uruguay. Stud Neotrop Fauna Environ. 2007; 42:175–180. doi: 10.1080/01650520701228429

100. Ziegler L, Maneyro R. Clave para la identificación de los anfibios de Uruguay (Chordata: Amphibia). Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Montevideo. 2008.

101. Canavero A, Brazeiro A, Camargo A, da Rosa I., Maneyro R, Núñez D. Amphibian diversity of Uruguay: Background knowledge, inventory completeness and sampling coverage. Bol Soc zoológicaUrug. 2010; 19:2–19.

102. Canavero A, Carreira S, Langone J, Achaval F, Borteiro C, Camargo A, et al. Conservation status assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of Uruguay. Iheringia. 2010; 100:5–12. doi: 10.1590/S0073-47212010000100001

103. Cardozo DE, Leme DM, Bortoleto JF, Catroli GF, Baldo D, Faivovich J, et al. Karyotypic data on 28 species of Scinax (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae): Diversity and Informative Variation. Copeia. 2011; 251–263. doi: 10.2307/41261874

104. Langone JA. Threats to Uruguayan Amphibians. In: Heatwole H, Barrio-Amorós CL, Wilkinson JW, Amphibian Biology. Volume 9. Status of decline of Amphibians: Western Hemisphere. Part 2. Uruguay, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney; 2011. pp. 79–84.

105. Prigioni C, Borteiro C, Kolenc F. Amphibia and Reptilia, Quebrada de los Cuervos, Departamento de Treinta y Tres, Uruguay. Check List. 2011; 7:763–767. doi: 10.15560/11021

106. Maneyro R, Carreira S. Guía de anfibios del Uruguay. Ediciones de la fuga. Montevideo. 2012.

107. Colaço G, Silva HR. On the type series of Scinax perpusillus (Lutz & Lutz, 1939) (Anura: Hylidae). Zootaxa. 2016; 4154:193–196. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4154.2.7 27615835

108. Lourenço ACC, Zina J, Catroli GF, Kasahara S, Faivovich J, Haddad CFB. A new species of the Scinax catharinae group (Anura: Hylidae) from southeastern Brazil. Zootaxa. 2016; 4154:415–435. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4154.4.3 27615849

109. Conte CE, Araujo-Vieira K, Crivellari LB, Berneck BvM. A new species of Scinax Wagler (Anura: Hylidae) from Paraná, Southern Brazil. Zootaxa. 2016; 4193:245–265. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4193.2.3 27988716

110. Ron SR, Duellman WE, Caminer MA, Pazmiño D. Advertisement calls and DNA sequences reveal a new species of Scinax (Anura: Hylidae) on the Pacific lowlands of Ecuador. PLoS One. 2018; 13:1–25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203169 30256795

111. Ferrão M, Fraga R, Moravec J, Kaefer IL, Lima AP. A new species of Amazonian snouted treefrog (Hylidae: Scinax) with description of a novel species-habitat association for an aquatic breeding frog. PeerJ. 2018; 6:e4321. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4321 29441233

112. Jungfer KH, Lehr E. A new species of Osteocephalus with bicoloured iris from Pozuzo (Peru: Departamento de Pasco) (Amphibia: Anura: Bufonidae). Zoologische Abhandlungen. Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden. 2001; 51:321–329.

113. Berneck BvM Haddad CFB, Lyra ML Cruz CAG, Faivovich J. The Green Clade grows: A phylogenetic analysis of Aplastodiscus (Anura; Hylidae). Mol Phyl Evol. 2016; 97:213–223. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.11.014 26802207

114. Peixoto OL. Caracterização do grupo “perpusilla” e reavaliação da posição taxonômica de Ololygon perpusilla perpusilla e Ololygon perpusilla v-signata (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae). Arquivos de Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. 1988 "1987"; 10:37–49.

115. Lutz A, Lutz B. In: Lutz B. Anfibios anuros do Distrito Federal/The frogs of the Federal District of Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro. 1954; 52:155–197 (Portuguese), 219–238 (English).

116. Cardoso AJ, Haddad CFB. Nova espécie de Hyla da Serra da Canastra (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Rev Bras Biol. 1982; 42:499–503.

117. Nunes I, Kwet A, Pombal JP Jr. Taxonomic revision of the Scinax alter species complex (Anura: Hylidae). Copeia. 2012; 3:554–569. doi: 10.1643/CH-11-088

118. Araujo-Vieira K, Valdujo PH, Faivovich J. A new species of Scinax Wagler (Anura: Hylidae) from Mato Grosso, Brazil. Zootaxa. 2016; 4061:261–273. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4061.3.4 27395498

119. Bokermann WCA. Three new Hyla from the Plateau of Maracás, central Bahia, Brazil. J Herpetol. 1968; 1:25–31.

120. Pombal JP Jr, Haddad CFB, Kasahara S. A new species of Scinax (Anura: Hylidae) from southeastern Brazil, with comments on the genus. J Herpetol. 1995; 29:1–6.

121. Bokermann WCA. Cuatro nuevos hylidos del Brasil. Neotropica. 1962; 8:81–92.

122. Kwet A. The genus Pseudis (Anura: Pseudidae) in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil, with description of a new species. Amphib Reptil. 2000; 21:39–55. doi: 10.1163/156853800507264

123. Araujo-Vieira K, Tacioli A, Faivovich J, Orrico VGD, Grant T. The tadpole of Sphaenorhynchus caramaschii, with comments on larval morphology of Sphaenorhynchus (Anura: Hylidae). Zootaxa. 2015; 3904:270–282. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3904.2.6 25660784

124. Roberto IJ, Araujo-Vieira K, Carvalho-e-Silva SP, Avila RW. A new species of Sphaenorhynchus (Anura: Hylidae) from northeastern Brazil. Herpetologica. 2017; 73:148–161. doi: 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-16-00021

125. Lutz A. Batraciens du Brésil. Comptes Rendus et Mémoires Hebdomadaires des Séances de la Société de Biologie et des ses Filiales. 1925; 93:211–214.

126. Lutz B. Nota prévia sôbre alguns anfíbios anuros do Alto Itatiaia. O Hospital. Rio de Janeiro. 1951; 39:705–707.

127. Lutz B. New Brazilian forms of Hyla. Pearce-Sellards Series. Texas Memorial Museum, Austin. 1968; 10:3–18.

128. Cardoso AJ, Sazima I. Nova espécie de Hyla do sudeste brasileiro (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Rev Bras Biol. 1980; 40:75–79.

129. Drummond LO, Baêta D, Silvério-Pires MR. A new species of Scinax (Anura, Hylidae) of the S. ruber clade from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zootaxa. 2007; 1612:45–53. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.1612.1.3

130. Brusquetti F, Jansen M, Barrio-Amorós CL, Segalla M, Haddad CFB. Taxonomic review of Scinax fuscomarginatus (Lutz, 1925) and related species (Anura; Hylidae). Zool J Linnean Soc. 2014; 171:783–821. doi: 10.1111/zoj.12148

131. Bokermann WCA. Dos nuevas especies de Hyla del grupo catharinae (Amphibia, Hylidae). Neotropica. 1967; 13:61–66.

132. Peixoto OL, Weygoldt P. In: Weygoldt P. Beobachtungen zur Ökologie und Biologie von Fröschen an einem neotropischen Bergbach/Observations on the ecology and biology of frogs of a neotropical mountain stream. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Systematik, Ökologie und Geographie. Jena 1986; 113:429–454.

133. Caramaschi U, Kisteumacher G. Duas novas especies de Ololygon Fitzinger, 1843, do sudeste do Brasil (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Bol Mus Nac, Nova sér, Zool. 1989; 327:1–15.

134. Pombal JP Jr, Bastos RP. Nova especie de Scinax Wagler, 1830 do Brasil Central (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Bol Mus Nac, Nova sér, Zool. 1996; 371:1–11.

135. Izecksohn E. Uma nova espécies de “Hylidae” da Baixada Fluminense, Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Rev Bras Biol. 1959; 19:259–264.

136. Duellman WE, de Sá RO. A new genus and species of South American hylid frog with a highly modified tadpole. Trop Zool. 1988; 1:117–136. doi: 10.1080/03946975.1988.10539408

137. Araujo-Vieira K, Blotto BL, Caramaschi U, Haddad CFB, Faivovich J, Grant T. A total evidence analysis of the phylogeny of hatchet-faced treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae: Sphaenorhynchus). Cladistics. In press. doi: 10.1111/cla.12367

138. Grant T, Frost DR, Caldwell JP, Gagliardo JPR, Haddad CFB, Kok, et al. Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Anura: Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 2006; 299:1–262. doi: 10.1206/0003-0090(2006)299[1:PSODFA]2.0.CO;2

139. Barreto GS, Del Grande ML, Napoli MF, Garda AA, Juncá FA. The tadpole of Scinax camposseabrai (Bokermann, 1968) (Anura, Hylidae). Zootaxa. In press.

140. Anstis M. Tadpoles and Frogs of Australia. First Edition. New Holland Publishers Australia. 2013.

141. Altig R. Tadpoles evolved and frogs are the default. Herpetologica. 2006; 62:1–10. doi: 10.1655/05-23.1

142. Channing A, Rödel MO Channing J.Tadpoles of Africa. Frankfurt am Main: Edition Chimaira, Germany. 2012.

143. Caramaschi U, Almeida AP, Gasparini JL. Description of two new species of Sphaenorhynchus (Anura, Hylidae). Zootaxa. 2009; 2115:34–46. doi: 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-16-00021

144. Izecksohn E. Novo gênero de Hylidae brasileiro (Amphibia, Anura). Rev Univ Rural, Serie Ciencias da Vida. 1998; 18:47–52.

145. Bokermann WCA. Uma nova espécie de Hyla da Serra do Mar em São Paulo (Amphibia, Salientia). Rev Bras Biol. 1964; 24:429–434.

146. Haddad CFB, Pombal JP Jr. Hyla hiemalis, nova espécie do grupo rizibilis do Estado de São Paulo (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Rev Bras Biol. 1987; 47:127–132.

147. Soliz M, Ponssa ML. Development and morphological variation of the axial and appendicular skeleton in Hylidae (Lissamphibia, Anura). J Morphol. 2016; 277:786–813. doi: 10.1002/jmor.20536 27012309

148. Arenas-Rodríguez A, Vargas JFR, Hoyos JM. Comparative description and ossification patterns of Dendropsophus labialis (Peters, 1863) and Scinax ruber (Laurenti, 1758) (Anura: Hylidae). PeerJ. 2018; 6:e4525; doi: 10.7717/peerj.4525 29892498

149. Duellman WE, Wiens JJ. The status of the hylid frog genus Ololygon and the recognition of Scinax Wagler, 1830. Occ Pap Mus Nat Hist Univ Kansas. 1992; 151:1–23.

150. Fabrezi M, Goldberg J. Heterochrony during skeletal development of Pseudis platensis (Anura, Hylidae) and the early offset of skeleton development and growth. J Morphol. 2009; 270:205–220. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10680 18946869

151. Manzano AS, Barg M. The iliosacral articulation in Pseudinae (Anura: Hylidae). Herpetologica. 2005; 61, 259–267. doi: 10.1655/04-28.1

152. Ponssa ML, Goldberg J, Abdala V. Sesamoids in anurans: new data, old issues. Anat Rec. 2010; 293:1646–1668. doi: 10.1002/ar.21212 20652935

153. Emerson SB. The ilio-sacral articulation in frogs: Form and function. Biol J Linn Soc. 1979; 11:153–168.

154. Blair WF. Mating call in the speciation of anuran amphibians. Amer Nat. 1958; 92: 27–51.

155. Lavenex PB. Vocal production mechanisms in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus): the presence and implications of amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106:491. doi: 10.1121/1.427079 10420639

156. Pombal JP Jr, Bastos RP. Vocalizações de Scinax perpusillus (A. Lutz & B. Lutz) e S. arduous Peixoto (Anura, Hylidae), com comentários taxonômicos. Rev Bras Zool. 2003; 20:607–610. doi: 10.1590/S0101-81752003000400007

157. Duellman WE, Wiens JJ. Hylid frogs of the genus Scinax Wagler, 1830, in Amazonian Ecuador and Peru. Occ Pap Mus Nat Hist Univ Kansas. 1993; 153:1–57.

158. de la Riva I, Márquez R, Bosch J. Advertisement calls of Bolivian species of Scinax (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Bijd Dierkunde. 1994; 64:75–85.

159. Duellman WE. Two new species of Ololygon (Anura: Hylidae) from the Venezuelan Guyana. Copeia. 1986; 1986:864–870. doi: 10.2307/1445281

160. Toledo LF, Haddad CFB. Acoustic repertoire and calling behavior of Scinax fuscomarginatus (Anura, Hylidae). J Herpetol. 2005; 39(3):455–465. doi: 10.1670/139-04A.1

161. Jansen M, Plath M, Brusquetti F, Ryan MJ. Asymmetric frequency shift in advertisement calls of sympatric frogs. Amphib Reptil. 2016; 37:137–152. doi: 10.1163/15685381-00003038

162. León JR. The systematics of the frogs of the Hyla rubra group in Middle America. Univ Kans publ, Mus Nat Hist. 1969; 18:505–545.d: doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.19991

163. Barrio A. Los Hylidae de Punta Lara, provincia de Buenos Aires. Physis. 1962; 23:129–142.

164. Pombal JP Jr, Bilate M, Gambale PG, Signorelli L, Bastos RP. A new miniature treefrog of the Scinax ruber clade from the Cerrado of central Brazil (Anura: Hylidae). Herpetologica. 2011; 67:288–299. doi: 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-10-00067.1

165. Fouquette MJJ. Some hylid frogs of the Canal Zone, with special reference to call structure. Caribb J Sci. 1966; 6:167–172.

166. Nunes I, Santiago RS, Juncá FA. Advertisement calls of four hylid frogs from the State of Bahia, Northeastern Brazil (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). S Am J Herpetol. 2007; 2:89–96. doi: 10.2994/1808-9798(2007)2[89:ACOFHF]2.0.CO;2

167. Duellman WE. A new species of Hyla from Amazonian Ecuador. Copeia. 1972; 1972:265–271. doi: 10.2307/1442487

168. Carvalho TR, Martins LB, Giaretta AA. The complex vocalization of Scinax cardosoi (Anura: Hylidae), with comments on advertisement calls in the S. ruber Clade. Phyllomedusa: J Herpetol. 2015; 14(2):127–137. doi: 10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v14i2p127-137

169. Pyburn WF, Fouquette MJ. A new striped treefrog from central Colombia. J Herpetol. 1971; 5:97–101. doi: 10.2307/1562731

170. de Oliveira HHP, Souza CCN, Ribeiro CL, Bastos RP, Da Cruz AD, Silva DM. Citogenética comparativa das famílias Leptodactylidae e Hylidae do cerrado goiano. Estudos. 2012; 339(2):123–31

171. Suárez P, Cardozo D, Baldo D, Pereyra MO, Faivovich J, Orrico VGD, et al. Chromosome evolution in Dendropsophini (Amphibia: Anura: Hylinae). Cytogenet Genome Res. 2013; 141:295–308. doi: 10.1159/000354997 24107475

172. Nogueira L, Paim F, Diniz D, Solé M, Affonso P, Siqueira S, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of Scinax auratus and Scinax eurydice (Anura, Hylidae) with emphasis on cytotaxonomy. Comp Cytogenet. 2015; 9(2):227–36. doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v9i2.4593 26140164. 10.3897/CompCytogen.v9i2.4593

173. Nogueira L, Zanoni JB, Solé M, Affonso P, Siqueira S, Sampaio I. Cytogenetic studies in six species of Scinax (Anura, Hylidae) clade Scinax ruber from northern and northeastern Brazil. Genet Mol Biol. 2015; 38(2):156–61. doi: 10.1590/S1415-4757382220140280 26273218.

174. Peixoto MAA, Lacerda JVA, Coelho-Augusto C, Feio RN, Dergam JA. The karyotypes of five species of the Scinax perpusillus group (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae) of southeastern Brazil show high levels of chromosomal stabilization in this taxon. Genetica. 2015; 143(6): 729–739. doi: 10.1007/s10709-015-9870-1 26497874.

175. Peixoto M. A. A., Oliveira M. P., Feio R. N., & Dergam J. A. Karyological study of Ololygon tripui (Lourenço, Nascimento and Pires, 2009),(Anura, Hylidae) with comments on chromosomal traits among populations. Comp cytogenet. 2016; 10: 505. doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v10i4.9176 28123674

176. Gruber SL, Oliveira GIG, Silva APZ, Narimatsu H, Haddad CFB, Kasahara S. Comparative analysis based on replication banding reveals the mechanism responsible for the difference in the karyotype constitution of treefrogs Ololygon and Scinax (Arboranae, Hylidae, Scinaxinae). Comp Cytogenet. 2017; 11:267–283. doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.11(2).11254 28919964

177. Ferro JM, Cardozo DE, Suárez P, Boeris JM, Blasco-Zúñiga A, Barbero G, et al. Chromosome evolution in Cophomantini (Amphibia, Anura, Hylinae). PLoS ONE. 2018; 13(2): e0192861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192861 29444174

178. Schmid M, Bogart JP, Hedges SB. The Arboranan Frogs. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2018; 155:1–326. doi: 10.1159/000489839 30408794

179. Targueta CP, Guerra V, Gambale PG, Bastos RP, Melo e Silva D, Telles MPC. Cytogenetics of two hylid frogs from Brazilian Cerrado. Genet Mol Biol. 2018; 41:1–6. doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2016-0162

180. Gruber SL, Haddad CFB, Kasahara S. Evaluating the karyotypic diversity in species of Hyla (Anura: Hylidae) with 2n 5 30 chromosomes based on the analysis of ten species. Folia Biol. 2005; 51:68–75.

181. Rossa-Feres DD, Sawaya RJ, Faivovich J, Giovanelli JGR, Brasileiro CA, Schiesari L, et al. Amphibians of São Paulo state, Brazil: State-of-art and perspectives. Biota Neotrop. 2011; 11:47–66.

182. Kwet A, Faivovich J. Proceratophrys bigibbosa species group (Anura; Leptodactylidae), with description of a new species. Copeia. 2001; 203–215. doi: 10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[0203:PBSGAL]2.0.CO;2

183. Nascimento LB, Eterovick PC, Silvano D. Scinax pinima. 25 January 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T55605A11335868. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T55605A11335868.en

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 9

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova

Ulcerative colitis_muž_břicho_střeva
Ulcerózní kolitida
nový kurz

Blokátory angiotenzinových receptorů (sartany)
Autoři: MUDr. Jiří Krupička, Ph.D.

Antiseptika a prevence ve stomatologii
Autoři: MUDr. Ladislav Korábek, CSc., MBA

Citikolin v neuroprotekci a neuroregeneraci: od výzkumu do klinické praxe nejen očních lékařů
Autoři: MUDr. Petr Výborný, CSc., FEBO

Zánětlivá bolest zad a axiální spondylartritida – Diagnostika a referenční strategie
Autoři: MUDr. Monika Gregová, Ph.D., MUDr. Kristýna Bubová

Všechny kurzy