Revising the taxonomy ofProceratophrysMiranda‐Ribeiro, 1920 (Anura: Odontophrynidae) from the Brazilian semiarid Caatinga: Morphology, calls and molecules support a single widespread species

Abstract

Recently, Proceratophrys cristiceps was redescribed along with the description of two species from the Caatinga biome: P. aridus and P. caramaschii. However, only a small fraction of the populations related to such species in Northeastern Brazil was examined, and most populations of central Caatinga were not contemplated in this analysis. Comparisons were also based exclusively on external morphology, precluding a more accurate delimitation of such taxa in the light of multiple characters. Such geographic paucity and reliance in only one data source caused the species status of most central Caatinga populations to be uncertain. Thus, the revision of Proceratophrys populations from the Caatinga biome is of utmost importance to establish a solid taxonomic background and to test the validity of the described species. Based on morphologic, morphometric, acoustic, and multilocus genetic data, we define the range of inter‐ and intrapopulation variation in the parameters we analyzed, establishing which ones are useful as diagnostic characters for Proceratophrys in the Caatinga. We found no evidence supporting P. aridus and P. caramaschii as distinct species and thus place them as junior synonyms of P. cristiceps. Our results reinforce the importance of using multiple lines of evidence to avoid taxonomic instability.

The remarkable larval anatomy of Proceratophrys minuta Napoli, Cruz, Abreu and Del‐Grande, 2011 (Amphibia: Anura: Odontophrynidae)

“…One example of a poorly studied group is the Neotropical genus Proceratophrys , which currently comprises 39 species (Mângia et al, 2020) distributed throughout Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay in several terrestrial habitats in the Amazonian Forest, Cerrado, Caatinga, Pampas, and Atlantic Forest (Frost, 2020). The monophyly of Proceratophrys as well as its status as a sister taxon of Odontophrynus + Macrogenioglottus is well supported by molecular (Dias, Amaro, Carvalho‐e‐Silva, & Rodrigues, 2013a; Jetz & Pyron, 2018; Pyron, 2014; Pyron & Wiens, 2011) and phenotypical evidence (Blotto, Pereyra, Faivovich, Dias, & Grant, 2017; Dias, Araújo‐Vieira, Carvalho‐e‐Silva, & Orrico, 2019a; Lynch, 1971).…”

Anurans of Sete Cidades National Park, Piauí state, northeastern Brazil

“…We deposited voucher specimens in the Herpetological collection of the Universidade Regional do Cariri (URCA-H) and the Coleção Biológica of the Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Piauí, Campus Pedro II (CBPII) and tissue samples in Tissue collection of the Universidade Regional do Cariri (URCA-G). Anuran nomenclature follows Carvalho et al (2020), Frost (2020), and Mângia et al (2020).…”

“…Although we have not registered endemic species and most of them are widespread in Brazilian biomes, some species are distributed predominantly in Caatinga, as Corythomantis greening (Godinho et al 2013), Rhinella jimi (Stevaux 2002), Pleurodema diplolister (Andrade & Vaz-Silva 2012), Pithecopus nordestinus (Caramaschi 2006), and Proceratophrys cristiceps (Mângia et al 2020), or Cerrado biome, as Leptodactylus pustulatus, Rhinella mirandaribeiroi, and Dendropsophus rubicundulus (Roberto et al 2013). Furthermore, despite the wide distribution of Leptodactylus cf.…”

A morphological and molecular study ofHydrodynastes gigas(Serpentes, Dipsadidae), a widespread species from South America

“…However, in many cases, species are difficult to delimit due to the limited number of morphological differences or the absence of them, preventing the recognition of valid cryptic species ( Bickford et al, 2007 ). Morphology alone might result in more than one name being assigned to individuals belonging to the same evolutionary lineage (i.e., species) ( Passos & Prudente, 2012 ; Passos, Martins & Pinto-Coelho, 2016 ; Mângia et al, 2020 ). Many species are described based solely on morphological patterns, which could merely reflect interpopulational variation, instead of evidence of lineage separation (e.g., Brusquetti et al, 2014 ; Mângia et al, 2020 ).…”

“…An integrative approach contributes to taxonomic, phylogenetic and phylogeographic studies ( Pante, Schoelinck & Puillandre, 2014 ), being thus useful in delimiting species and sorting possible interspecific variations and lineages with similar morphologies. Ultimately, integrative approaches are essential for testing taxonomic schemes and correcting nomenclatural inconsistencies (e.g., Recoder et al, 2014 ; Ruane et al, 2018 ; Mângia et al, 2020 ).…”