Two New Species ofPseudopaludicola(Anura: Leptodactylidae: Leiuperinae) from Eastern Bolivia and Western Brazil

Accuracy, limitations and cost efficiency of eDNA‐based community survey in tropical frogs

“…Although the comparison of frog community structures among the assessed ponds may be confounded by the different sample sizes (with the eDNA ordination based on many spatial replicates and the VAES ordination on a single observation event per pond), and the eDNA ordinations are based on read abundances in contrast to the VAES presence-absence ordinations, the correspondence of the results is still striking. Similar results were found in insect (Elbrecht et al, 2017;Ji et al, 2013) (Brusquetti et al, 2014;Pansonato et al, 2016;Jansen, Álvarez, & Köhler, 2007;Schulze et al, 2009), while the eDNA part is only informed by a few years of eDNA biodiversity surveys (Bálint et al, 2016;Vörös, Márton, Schmidt, Gál, & Jelić, 2017). Such comparisons are urgently needed due to stakeholder demands in eDNA (e.g., governmental agencies, conservation NGOs, fisheries).…”

“…Cost comparisons were performed for single species eDNA detection (Davy, Kidd, & Wilson, ; Huver, Koprivnikar, Johnson, & Whyard, ; Smart et al, ), but we are not aware of frameworks suitable for eDNA metabarcoding. Here, the VAES cost estimation is informed by over a decade of field and integrative taxonomic work with tropical frogs (Brusquetti et al, ; Pansonato et al, ; Jansen, Álvarez, & Köhler, ; Schulze et al, ), while the eDNA part is only informed by a few years of eDNA biodiversity surveys (Bálint et al, ; Vörös, Márton, Schmidt, Gál, & Jelić, ). Such comparisons are urgently needed due to stakeholder demands in eDNA (e.g., governmental agencies, conservation NGOs, fisheries).…”

Notes on the distribution of the genus Pseudopaludicola Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926 (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in Paraguay

“…Besides, we consider that the specimens referred as P. falcipes in Motte et al (2015) and those from Laguna General Díaz 8217) are assignable to this species. Pseudopaludicola boliviana and P. motorzinho probably inhabit in syntopy in a wide area of their distribution, and using only the morphological features mentioned by Pansonato et al (2016), it is almost impossible to assign specimens to either species. In Paraguay, P. motorzinho is probably associated with Chaco Seco and Cerrado ecoregions.…”

“…We analyzed all the specimens of the genus Pseudo paludicola housed at Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay (MNHNP, San Lorenzo), in the herpetological collection of the Instituto de Investigación Biológica del Paraguay (IIBP-H, Asunción) and in the Colección Zoológica of the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales (FACEN), Universidad Nacional de Asunción (CZCEN, San Lorenzo). The identifications were corroborated following the descriptions, diagnoses and redescriptions of each species (Hensel 1867;Cope 1887;Parker 1927;Miranda-Ribeiro 1937;Lobo 1994aLobo , 1995Lobo , 1996Pansonato et al 2013Pansonato et al , 2016. Localities contained in museum catalogs were georeferenced using gazetteers (Paynter 1989;Anonymous 1992), GPS records from collectors, estimations from maps and the information in Brusquetti and Lavilla (2006).…”

“…2n = 20 chromosomes (Cardozo et al 2016). one of them, Pseudopaludicola motorzinho Pansonato, Veiga-Menoncello, Mudrek, Jansen, Recco-Pimentel, Martins & Strüssmann, 2016, with distribution records in the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil), and in the department Santa Cruz (Bolivia), near the Paraguay border, so we consider its presence possible in Paraguay. Faced with these expectations (the absence of P. falcipes and the presence of P. motorzinho in the Paraguayan batrachofauna), the main goals of this contribution are to provide an update of the distribution of the genus Pseudopaludicola in Paraguay, to investigate the presence or absence of P. falcipes in the country, and to reanalyze all the available material assigned to Pseudopaludicola in Paraguayan collections.…”