Systematics of Oreobates and the Eleutherodactylus discoidalis species group (Amphibia, Anura), based on two mitochondrial DNA genes and external morphology

Abstract

We present morphological and molecular (mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA) evidence supporting the validity and monophyly of the genus Oreobates. This genus also includes members of the former Eleutherodactylus discoidalis species group plus Eleutherodactylus heterodactylus. The presence of prominent conical subarticular tubercles and prominent supernumerary tubercles associated with the axis of fingers and toes, the presence of glandular axillary pads, and the absence of vocal sacs are proposed as morphological synapomorphies. Species of this taxon form a well-supported crown clade in a phylogeny including members of the genera Craugastor and Eleutherodactylus s.l. The sister taxon to Oreobates is the Eleutherodactylus martinicensis series; Oreobates does not appear to be closely related to the Eleutherodactylus binotatus series or to members of the Eleutherodactylus dolops and Eleutherodactylus nigrovittatus species groups. The taxonomic status of all species of Oreobates is reassessed. Hylodes philippi and Hylodes verrucosus are removed from the synonymy of Oreobates quixensis. We redescribe Oreobates cruralis on the basis of the holotype and new material from Bolivia and Peru, and restrict its distribution to the humid forests of the lowlands and adjacent foothills of the Andes, from southern Peru to central Bolivia. Oreobates granulosus is rediscovered, redescribed, and resurrected, on the basis of the examination of the holotype and additional material from Peru. Phylogenetic analyses of partial 16S mtDNA are used to test the independence of lineages (species). The 14 species of Oreobates are distributed from southern Ecuador to northern Argentina.

A Revision of Species Diversity in the Neotropical GenusOreobates(Anura: Strabomantidae), with the Description of Three New Species from the Amazonian Slopes of the Andes

“…We follow Padial et al (2008a) and Duellman and Lehr (2009) for morphological and color characteristics used in the diagnosis and description. Measurements were taken with a digital caliper to the nearest 0.01 mm and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mm to avoid pseudoprecision.…”

“…1; figure 1 from Amazonian forests at Los Guácharos is sympatric with several other specimens of "O. cruralis," with which it has a UPD of 4.7; they are not closely related ( fig. 1) (Padial et al, 2008a) and an accurate diagnosis of the new taxon would require a detailed analysis after the acquisition of additional specimens from its distribution area.…”

“…From south to north, the current geographical and ecoregional distribution of the 17 species of Oreobates extends as follows (see Padial et al, 2008a;Vaira and Ferrari, 2008;Frost, 2011;Teixeira et al, 2012): Oreobates barituensis inhabits humid Yungas in northern Argentina, and probably occurs in adjacent Bolivia as well. Oreobates discoidalis has a large distribution in the Andean hills, from Central Bolivia to northern Argentina, and inhabits Yungas montane forests as well as semideciduous forests of the inter-Andean dry valleys; it is sympatric with O. barituensis and mostly parapatric with O. ibischi.…”

“…Shortly after the recognition of the genus, Padial et al (2008a) assessed the phylogenetic relationships of Oreobates and putatively related groups and proposed a monophyletic Oreobates composed of 14 species, most of them former members of the Eleutherodactylus discoidalis group (Lynch, 1989). The monophyly of the group was further supported by a larger phylogenetic analysis that included more characters but fewer species of Oreobates (Hedges et al, 2008a).…”

Response to the Point of View of Gregory b. Pauly, David m. Hillis, and David c. Cannatella, by the Anuran Subcommittee of the Ssar/hl/asih Scientific and Standard English Names List

“…The international community of amphibian conservation biologists and systematists are getting species and monophyletic groups named and nomenclaturally sorted (e.g., Alam et al, 2008;Antunes et al, 2008;Barrio-Amoró s et al, 2008;Biju and Bossuyt, 2009;Bossuyt and Dubois, 2001;Cruz et al, 2008;Das, 2008;Fei et al, 2008;Gü nther, 2008;Kö hler et al, 2008;Kuzmin, 2008;Li et al, 2008;ManamendraArachchi and Pethiyagoda, 2005;Padial et al, 2008) at an increasing rate compared to that of the USA. Further, we doubt if imposing an additional level of social inertia by Englishspeaking North Americans on international nomenclature would be seen by the international community as positive.…”