A new, cryptic species of Physalaemus (anura: leptodactylidae) from western Ecuador with comments on the call structure of the P. pustulosus species group

Herpetologica

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 178-198

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DEL ECUADOR   (Ecuador)

Author keywords

Advertisement call; Anura; Ecuador; Leptodactylidae; Morphology; New species; Phylogeny; Physalaemus guayaco; Physalaemus montubio; Physalaemus pustulatus; Physalaemus pustulosus group; Physalaemus randi; Sensory exploitation hypothesis; Tadpole

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; CLADISTICS; CRYPSIS; FROG; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; LOWLAND ENVIRONMENT; MITOCHONDRIAL DNA; MORPHOLOGY; MORPHOMETRY; NEW SPECIES; PHYLOGENETICS; TAXONOMY;

ECUADOR; PERU; SOUTH AMERICA;

ANURA; LEPTODACTYLIDAE; PHYSALAEMUS; PHYSALAEMUS COLORADORUM; PHYSALAEMUS GUAYACO; PHYSALAEMUS MONTUBIO; PHYSALAEMUS PETERSI; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULATUS; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS; PHYSALAEMUS RANDI;

EID: 33646490321     PISSN: 00180831     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1655/04-38     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED. 2002. Adobe Photoshop version 7.0. Adobe Systems Incorporated. San José, California, USA.
2. AEE. 2000. Almanaque Electrónico Ecuatoriano. Información espacial para aplicaciones agropecuarias. PROMSA, Alianza Jatun Sacha/CDC Ecuador, Mud Springs Geographers, CIMMYT, ESPE. Quito, Ecuador.
3. ALTIG, R., AND R. W. MCDIARMID. 1999. Body plan: development and morphology. Pp. 25-51. In R. W. McDiarmid and R. Altig (Eds.), Tadpoles, The Biology of Anuran Larvae. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
4. BREDER, C. M., JR. 1946. Amphibians and reptiles of the Río Chucunaque drainage, Darien, Panama, with notes on their life histories and habits. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 86:375-436.
5. CANNATELLA, D. C., AND W. E. DUELLMAN. 1984. Leptodactylid frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus group. Copeia 1984:902-921.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. COLOMA, L. A., AND A. QUIGUANGO-UBILLÚS. 2000-2003. Anfibios de Ecuador: lista de especies y distribución altitudinal. [on line]. Ver. 1.3 (April 2 2001). Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador. 〈http://www.puce.edu.cc/ Zoologia/ anfecua.htm〉 [Inquiry: November 21 2003].
10. DUELLMAN, W. E. 1970. Hylid frogs of Middle America. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History University of Kansas 1:1-753.
11. -. 1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna in Amazonian Ecuador. Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Natural History University of Kansas 65:1-352.
12. ESRI. 2001. ArcGis, version 8.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, California, U.S.A.
13. GERHARDT, H. C., AND J. J. SCHWARTZ. 2001. Auditory-tuning and frequency preferences in anurans. Pp. 73-85. In M. J. Ryan (Ed.), Anuran Communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
14. GOSNER, K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183-190.
15. HUELSENBECK, J. P., AND K. A. CRANDALL. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:437-466.
16. KENNY, J. S. 1969. The amphibia of Trinidad. Studies of Fauna of Curaçao and Other Caribbean Islands 29:1-78.
17. LYNCH, J. D., AND W. E. DUELLMAN. 1997. Frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus in western Ecuador: systematics, ecology, and biogcography. Special Publications, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas 23:1-236.
18. MCDIARMID, R. W., AND R. ALTIG. 1999. Research: materials and techniques. Pp. 7-23. In R. W. McDiarmid and R. Altig (Eds.), Tadpoles. The Biology of Anuran Larvae. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
19. 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.
20. RON, S. R., D. C. CANNATELLA, AND L. A. COLOMA. 2004. Two new species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Western Ecuador. Herpetologica 60:261-275.
21. RYAN, M. J. 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7:46-52.
22. -. 1997. Sexual selection and mate choice. Pp. 179-202. In J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology, an Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. -. 1993a. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Biology) 340:187-195.
26. -. 1993b. Phylogenetic patterns of behavioural mate recognition systems in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group (Anura: Leptodactylidae): the role of ancestral and derived characters and sensory exploitation. Pp. 251-267. In D. R. Lees and D. Edwards (Eds.), Evolutionary Patterns and Processes. Linnean Society Symposium Series, No. 14. Academic Press, London, U.K.
27. -. 1999. Phylogenetic inference and the evolution of communication in túngara frogs. Pp. 535-557. In M. D. Hauser and M. Konishi (Eds.), The Design of Animal Communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
28. -. 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.
29. SANTOS, J. C., L. A. COLOMA, AND D. C. CANNATELLA. 2003. Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:12792-12797.
30. SAS INSTITUTE INC. 1998. StatView® Reference. SAS Institute Inc. U.S.A.
31. SAS INSTITUTE INC. 2000. JMP® Statistics and Graphics Guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, U.S.A.
32. SIERRA, R., C. CERÓN, W. PALACIOS, AND R. VALENCIA. 1999. Mapa de vegetación del Ecuador Continental 1:1'000.000. Proyecto INEFAN/GEF-BIRF, Wildlife Conservation Society y Ecociencia. Quito, Ecuador.
33. SIMMONS, J. E. 2002. Herpetological collecting and collections management. Herpetological Circular 31:1-153.
34. STARRET, P. 1960. Descriptions of tadpoles of Middle American frogs. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 110:1-37.
35. SWOFFORD, D. L. 2000. PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4.0b8a. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
36. THOMPSON, J. D., T. J. GIBSON, F. PLEWNIAK, F. JEANMOUGIN, AND D. G. HIGGINS. 1997. The Clustal X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acid Research 25:4876-4882.
37. 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.
38. WIENS, J. J. 2001. Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: problems and solutions. Systematic Biology 50:598-699.
39. WILCZYNSKI, W., A. S. RAND, AND M. J. RYAN. 2001. Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 58:137-151.