Two new species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from western Ecuador

Herpetologica

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 261-275

  Ron, Santiago R ^a,b   Cannatella, David C ^a   Coloma, Luis A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DEL ECUADOR   (Ecuador)

Author keywords

Anura; Ecuador; Leptodactylidae; New species; Physalaemus montubio; Physalaemus pustulatus; Physalaemus pustulosus group; Physalaemus randi

Indexed keywords

FROG; MORPHOLOGY; NEW SPECIES;

ECUADOR; SOUTH AMERICA;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; LEPTODACTYLIDAE; PHYSALAEMUS; PHYSALAEMUS COLOMDORUM; PHYSALAEMUS COLORADORUM; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULATUS; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS; REPTILIA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 2442462251     PISSN: 00180831     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1655/03-14     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. CANNATELLA, D. C., AND W. E. DUELLMAN. 1984. Leptodactylid frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus group. Copeia 1984:902-921.
2. CANNATELLA, D. C., D. M. HILLIS, P. T. CHIPPINDALE, L. WEIGT, A. S. RAND, AND M. J. RYAN. 1998. Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group with an examination of data incongruence. Systematic Biology 47:311-335.
3. CERÓN, C., W. PALACIOS, R. VALENCIA, AND R. SIERRA. 1999. Las formaciones naturales de la Costa del Ecuador. Pp. 55-78. In R. Sierra (Ed.), Propuesta Preliminar de un Sistema de Clasificación de Vegetación para el Ecuador Continental. Proyecto INEFAN/GERF-BIRF y Ecociencia, Quito, Ecuador.
4. CHARIF, R. A., S. MITCHELL, AND C. W. CLARK. 1995. Canary 1.12 User's Manual. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.
5. COLOMA, L. A., AND S. R. RON. 2001. Megadiverse Ecuador: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. Serie de Divulgación del Museo de Zoología. Centro de Biodiversidad y Ambiente, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
6. DUELLMAN, W. E. 1970. Hylid frogs of Middle America. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History University of Kansas 1:1-753.
7. ESRI. 2001. ArcGis, version 8.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, California, U.S.A.
8. GREENFIELD, M. D., AND A. S. RAND. 2000. Frogs have rules: selective attention algorithms regulate chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology 106:331-347.
9. LYNCH, J. D., AND W. E. DUELLMAN. 1997. Frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus in western Ecuador: systematics, ecology, and biogeography. Special Publication Natural History Museum University of Kansas 23:1-236.
10. MINITAB. 1995. Users Guide: Release 10.51 Xtra. Minitab Inc. State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
11. RAND, A. S., AND M. J. RYAN. 1981. The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 57:209-214.
12. RAND, A. S., M. J. RYAN, AND W. WILCZYNSKI. 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the Túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. American Zoologist 32:81-90.
13. RYAN, M. J. 1980. Female mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Science 209:523-525.
14. _. 1985. The túngara frog: a study of sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
15. _. 1990. Vocal morphology of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group (Leptodactylidae): morphological response to sexual selection for complex calls. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 40:37-52.
16. _. 1996. Phylogenetics in behavior: some cautions and expectations. Pp. 1-21. In E. P. Martins (Ed.), Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A.
17. RYAN, M. J., J. H. Fox, W. WILCZYNSKI, AND A. S. RAND. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
18. RYAN, M. J., AND A. S. RAND. 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the Túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305-314.
19. _. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution - the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Biology) 340:187-195.
20. _. 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in túngara frogs. Science 269:390-392.
21. _. 2001. Feature weighting in signal recognition and discrimination by túngara frogs. Pp. 86-101. In M. J. Ryan (Ed.), Anuran Communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
22. RYAN, M. J., W. RAND, P. L. HURD, S. M. PHELPS, AND A. S. RAND. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. The American Naturalist 161:380-394.
23. SIMMONS, J. E. 2002. Herpetological collecting and collections management. Herpetological Circular 31:1-153.
24. TÁRANO, Z., AND M. J. RYAN. 2002. No pre-existing biases for heterospecific calls traits in the frog Physalaemus enesefae. Animal Behaviour 64:599-607.
25. VITT L. J., S. S. SARTORIUS, T. C. S. AVILA-PIRES, M. C. ESPÓSITO, AND D. B. MILES. 2000. Niche segregation among sympatric Amazonian teiid lizards. Oecologia 122:410-420.