Craugastor rugosus

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Craugastor rugosus

Least Concern  (IUCN 3.1)[1]
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Order: Anura
Family: Craugastoridae
Genus: Craugastor
Species:
C. rugosus
Binomial name
Craugastor rugosus
(Peters, 1874)[2]
Synonyms[3]
  • Hylodes rugosus Peters, 1874
  • Eleutherodactylus rugosus Stejneger, 1904
  • Lithodytes pelviculus Cope, 1877
  • Hylodes pelviculus Brocchi, 1881
  • Eleutherodactylus pelviculus Stejneger, 1904
  • Lithodytes florulentus Cope, 1893
  • Hylodes florulentus Günther, 1900
  • Eleutherodactylus florulentus Stejneger, 1904
  • Craugastor florulentus Crawford and Smith, 2005
  • Eleutherodactylus biporcatus sensu
    pro parte

Craugastor rugosus is a species of rain frog in the family Craugastoridae. It is found in Costa Rica and southwestern Panama,[1] and possibly southern Nicaragua.[4]

Vernacular names

A local

vernacular name is ranita de hojarasca.[5]

Frank and Ramus (1995) invented the name Veragua robber frog for use in English for the taxon Eleutherodactylus biporcatus (now the name of a Venezuelan species, but in 1995 the name for four other species of frog, including this one, see taxonomy), Veragua being a province of Colombia in the 1860s (now in central Panama) where in 1995 the holotype of E. biporcatus was thought to have been obtained. Because of the taxonomic reshuffling which occurred after Frank and Ramus coined the name "Veragua robber frog", their name is presently applied to Craugastor rugosus, despite the fact that it does not occur in Veraguas Province, and now shares this name with other species derived from E. biporcatus.[3][6][7]

Taxonomy

This frog is thought to have first been collected in

Berlin Zoological Museum (ZMB), however the ZMB itself has the holotype specimen being ZMB133470.[8]

In 1877 the famous US fossil baron

Pacific zone of Costa Rica, from one G. K. Cherrie.[10] Unfortunately the type specimen for this taxon is lost (fide Savage and Myers (2002)).[7] Albert Günther, working in Britain, moved this new taxon to Hylodes a few years later, in 1900,[3] and produced the first comprehensive check-lists for the countries of the region. At this time, H. rugosus was only known from Panama and Nicaragua, but suspected to occur in Costa Rica, whilst H. megacephalus, a frog also named by Cope from Costa Rica, was commonly considered extant here, and H. florulentus was still known from Cope's single specimen from the eastern highlands.[10] According to Günther, H. pelviculus was a synonym of H. megacephalus.[9]

Thus, by the turn of the previous century what is presently (2019) understood as this frog species consisted of two taxa and one mixed taxon, and in 1904 the Norwegian

junior synonym, Noble considered E. rugosus the correct name, although it appears that many later authors preferred Cope's E. megacephalus. Noble agreed with Günther in that E. pelviculus was a synonym of E. megacephalus, and also mentioned the possible synonymy of yet another Cope taxon, E. gulosus - a rare, curiously large taxon only known at the time from the initial collection, although he did not formally synonymise this taxon as well.[9] In 1921 Emmett Dunn collected what was thought to be the first specimen of E. rugosus known from Costa Rica near the town of Monteverde, himself and Tom Barbour not agreeing with Noble's synonymy. Fritz Nieden also ignored Noble in his contribution to the second edition of Das Tierreich (book 46) in 1923.[10]

Between 1947 and 1951 Richard Clark Taylor and Edward Harrison Taylor visited Costa Rica for a combined total of 8 12 months, and the two men amassed a collection of over 6,000 herpetology specimens, more than the total that had been harvested from the country in the previous centuries. In his report on the amphibians of the country based on this collection, the latter Taylor follows Noble in considering E. megacephalus to be a synonym E. rugosus, however Taylor expresses some doubt as to if E. pelviculus and E. gulosus could truly be synonymised with E. rugosus, both based on such a paucity of unclear evidence.[10]

Throughout most of 20th century this species was considered to be two accepted species under Stejneger's Eleutherodactylus taxonomy: E. florulentus (still only known from a single damaged specimen, missing since the 19th century) and E. rugosus (at the time a mix of both modern E. rugosus and modern E. megacephalus, and thought to be distributed from Honduras (perhaps even Mexico) to Panama), but in 1975 John D. Lynch synonymised both E. florulentus and E. rugosus, along with the older nomen E. pelviculus and E. megacephalus, and the mysterious E. gulosus (also still only known from the initial collections at the time), with E. biporcatus -under which the frogs of this species were known for the next few decades, and which was henceforth thought to be distributed from Honduras to Peru.[3][7]

In 2002 Savage and Myers reassessed E. biporcatus, searching for the type specimens of the various synonyms in

Frost et al. recognised C. florulentus in 2006.[3][11] In 2014 Frost accepted Savage and Myers' 2002 synonymy.[3]

Interspecific taxonomy

It was formerly classified in the family Leptodactylidae[12] but as of 2014 is placed in the family Craugastoridae.[3]

In 1989 Stephen Blair Hedges classified Eleutherodactylus florulentus, as specimens of this species were known at the time, in the subgenus Craugastor. In 2008 Hedges, Duellman and Heinicke also classified C. rugosus in the subgenus Craugastor.[3]

Savage includes this species in his

Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri series, E. biporcatus group in 2002. Hedges, Duellman and Heinicke place it in their Craugastor gulosus series in 2008. Padial, Grant and Frost classify it under their C. punctariolus series in 2014.[3]

Description

These are relatively big

ventral surface of the animal is mottled brown with white and red. The ventral surfaces of the thighs may be either yellowish or orange. The inner thighs are ornamented with alternating bars of black and bright scarlet red; the black bars continue to the dorsal surface of the thighs. The groin has bright white and black marks.[13]

The juveniles are coloured differently than the adults: the dorsal warts are tipped in white at first but darken with age, the inner thighs are barred with white and black, and the ventral surfaces of the legs and groin are orange-red.[13]

According to Noble, it has a noticeably thicker and more robust stomach wall than other species of Eleutherodactylus (now split into Craugastor and other genera), but he was dissecting a mix of different species, mostly C. megacephalus, in order to describe C. rugosus.[9]

This frog is thought likely to not make a mating call. It has a karyotype of 2n= 20.[13]

Similar species

It is easily told apart from most species of

sympatrically.[7]

Distribution

Although the distribution of this species at present is believed to be mostly restricted to eastern Costa Rica, initially it was in fact believed not to occur in this country and to exist in two disjunct populations in Nicaragua and Panama, this situation persisting until at least 1923 (fide Fritz Nieden).[10]

According to

Escondido River near Bluefields in Nicaragua.[4]

It is seen in Costa Rica in the Carara National Park,[3] the Fila Chonta mountains, the Osa Peninsula and in the harbour town of Quepos, all in Puntarenas Province.[5]

Ecology

This frog can be found in humid and hot tropical lowland

above sea level.[3][13]

It is likely an ambush predator which generally preys on beetles, but may also attack lizards and other frogs.[13]

Conservation

According to the

habitat loss in 2004.[12] Protected populations occur in Carara National Park,[3] Río Piro Wildlife Refuge, Corcovado National Park,[5] Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge (from 0–2,370 m (0–7,776 ft)),[15] and at least historically in the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve area.[10]

References

  1. ^ . Retrieved 15 November 2021.
  2. ^ a b "16 October - Gesammtsitzung der Akademie". Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin (in German). Jahre 1873 (September & October - Sommerferien): 610–611. 1874. Retrieved 11 September 2019.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Frost, Darrel R. (2014). "Craugastor rugosus (Peters, 1873)". Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  4. ^ a b Morris, Paul J (2019). Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Occurrence dataset Version 162.171. https://doi.org/10.15468/p5rupv accessed via GBIF.org on 2019-09-12. https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?institution_code=mcz&taxon_key=2430850
  5. ^
    University of California Berkeley
    . 2019. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  6. University of California Berkeley
    . Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  7. ^ . Retrieved 11 September 2019.
  8. ^ SysTax. SysTax - Zoological Collections. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/zyqkbl accessed via GBIF.org on 2019-09-11. https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1038094822
  9. ^ (PDF). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 38: 313, 315, 329, 330, 331. Retrieved 13 September 2019.
  10. ^ . Retrieved 14 September 2019.
  11. .
  12. ^ a b c Solís, F., Ibáñez, R., Chaves, G., Savage, J., Jaramillo, C. & Fuenmayor, Q. 2004. Craugastor rugosus. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 22 July 2007.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Craugastor rugosus Peters 1873". Panama – Amphibians. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  14. ^ Morris Paul J (2019). Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Occurrence dataset Version 162.171. https://doi.org/10.15468/p5rupv accessed via GBIF.org on 2019-09-12. https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/476572835
  15. ^ Mauricio Salas Varga (2009). Humedales de Ramsar (FIR) – Anexo #2 Biodiversidad 2009 (PDF) (Report) (in Spanish). Centro Científico Tropical. p. 8. Retrieved 3 September 2019.

External links