Volume XIII Issue V Version I

Table of contents

1. Introduction

he frog Elachistocleis bicolor Guérin Méneville, 1838 (Figure 1) belongs to the Microhylidae family (Lavilla et al. 2003; Rodrigues et al. 2003). The taxonomy of the species from the genus Elachistocleis are controversial and have undergone several changes (Lavilla et al. 2003; Thomé and Brasileiro 2007). Lavilla et al. (2003) remove E. bicolor from synonymy with E. ovalis Schneider 1799, which is widely distributed in South America (Frost 2009). The occurrence of E. ovalis in syntopy with other congeneric species of the genus and also taxonomically problematic can lead to unreliable identifications (Kwet and Di Bernardo 1998;Lavilla et al. 2003). According to De La Riva et al. 2000, considerable confusion took place in the past regarding the identity of E. bicolor vs. E. ovalis, whose main external difference is the ventral coloration (see Frost 1985). Today most authors apply the name E. bicolor to the frogs with an immaculate venter (De La Riva et al. 2000).

The geographic distribution of this specie extends over several biomes, including Amazonia, In this work we report the first record of E. bicolor for the state of Rondônia, in southwestern Brazil, in a transitional region between the Cerrado and the Amazonian forest biomes. One male and three female of E. bicolor were collected at the municipality of Porto Velho, state of Rondônia, in an area of forested land on a private farm (08°43'09" S, 63°51'64" W), on 13 February 2009 by DBH. Specimens were identified according to De La Riva et al. (1996,2000), Frost (2009), and Rodrigues et al. (2003).

These new records extend the geographic distribution of E. bicolor about 350 km eastwards from closest records in Beni, Bolivia (10°58'59.98" S, 66°06'00" W) and 715 km southwestwards from closest records in Amazonas, Brazil (03°18'15" S, 60°37'03" W) (Figure 2). Voucher specimens were deposited in the anuran

Figure 1.
Chaco, Cerrado, Pampa and Pantanal in Argentina (Céspedez et al. 2001; Lavilla et al. 2003; Aceñolaza et al. 2004; Kacoliris et al. 2006; Echeverría et al. 2007; Baldo et al. 2008; Duré et al. 2008; GBIF 2008), Bolivia (De la Riva et al. 1996, 2000; Reichle 1997; Reichle and Kohler 1998; GBIF 2008), Paraguay (Brusquetti and Lavilla 2006; GBIF 2008), Peru (MVZ 1999), Uruguay (Lavilla et al. 2004; Maneyro and Beheregaray 2007; Canavero et al. 2008) and Brazil. In Brazil, this species was reported to occur in the States of Amazonas (Gordo 2003; Lima et al. 2006; GBIF 2008), Distrito Federal (Lima and Costa 2006; Camargo and Aguiar 2007), Goiás (Bastos et al. 2003), Mato Grosso do Sul (Strüssmann et al. 2000; Gordo and Campos 2003; Rodrigues et al. 2003; Ávila et al. 2004; GBIF 2008), Paraná (Conte and Rossa-Feres 2006, 2007; Shibatta et al. 2009), Rio Grande do Sul (Braun and Braun 1980; Kwet and Di-Bernardo 1998; Colombo et al. 2008; Moreira et al. 2008; Santos et al. 2008; Quintela et al. 2009), Santa Catarina (GBIF 2008; Lucas and Fortes 2008) and São Paulo (Bernarde and Kokubum 1999; Vasconcelos and Rossa-Feres 2005; Silva et al. 2008) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Figure 1 :Figure 2 :
12Figure 1 : Elachistocleis bicolor (female) showing the ovoid body, small and triangular head, dark brown to yellowish brown back with a white to light yellow stripe that extends from the nose to the urostylus region, immaculate yellow belly (the gular region is black in males), and a thin reddish-brown line in the back of the thighs
Figure 3.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1 Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) for de license expedition (17983-2), Fundação de Tecnologia do Acre (FUNTAC) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for financial support.

Appendix B

  1. , Miscelánea 12 p. .
  2. , Boletin de la Sociedad Zoologica del Uruguay 16 p. .
  3. , Iheringia Série Zoologica 98 (2) p. .
  4. Análise comparativa da riqueza de anuros entre três áreas com diferentes estados de conservação na área vizinha ao Jardim Botânico de Brasília. A A M Lima , E M M Da Costa . Boletin do Herbário Ezechias Paulo Heringer 2006. 18 p. .
  5. Calling activity patterns in an anuran assemblage: the role of seasonal trends and weather determinants. A Canavero , M Arim , D E Naya , A Camargo , I Da Rosa , R Maneyro . North-Western Journal of Zoology 2008. 4 (1) p. .
  6. Elachistocleis erythrogaster, a new microhylid species from Rio Grande do Sul. A Kwet , M Di-Bernardo . Brazil. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 1998. 33 p. .
  7. New country record, geographic distribution map and advertisement call. Anura Amphibia , Leptodactylus Leptodactylidae , Furnarius . Check List 4 (2) p. .
  8. Guide to the Frogs of Reserva Adolpho Ducke -Central Amazonia. Manaus: Áttema Design Editorial, A P Lima , W E Magnusson , M Menin , L K Erdtmann , D J Rodrigues , C Keller , W Hödl . 2006. 150.
  9. , Brasil Sul . Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 21 (4) p. .
  10. Diversidade e ocorrência temporal da anurofauna (Amphibia, Anura) em. C E Conte , D De C. Rossa-Feres . Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 2006. 23 (1) p. .
  11. Anuran richness and spatial-temporal distribution along an Araucária Forest remnant in southeastern Paraná State. C E Conte , D De C. Rossa-Feres . Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 2007. 24 (4) p. .
  12. Rapid assessment program, bulletin of biological assessment. A biological assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the Pantanal. C Strüssmann , C P A Prado , M Uetanabaro , V L Ferreira . Conservation International, P Willink, B Chernoff (ed.) (MS, Brasil; Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil. Washington
    ) 2000. p. . (Amphibians recorded during the AquaRAP survey of localities in the southern Pantanal floodplains and surrounding cerrado)
  13. , D Baldo , C Tomatis , M V Segalla . 2008.
  14. Diet of tadpoles from a pond in Iguazu National Park. D D Echeverría , A V Volpedo , V I Mascitti . Argentina. Gayana 2007. 71 (1) p. .
  15. Padrão Reprodutivo de Elachistocleis bicolor (Anura, Microhylidae) na Serra da. D J Rodrigues , F S Lopes , M Uetanabaro . Iheringia Série Zoologica 2003. 93 (4) p. .
  16. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference, D R Frost . 1985. Lawrence: Allen Press and The Association of Systematics Collections. 732.
  17. Amphibian species of the world, version 5.3. Eletronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/. The American Museum of Natural History, D R Frost . 2009. February 2010. USA.
  18. A new species of Elachistocleis (Anura: Microhylidae) from the Andean Yungas of Argentina. E Lavilla , M Vaira , L Ferrari . Amphibia-Reptilia 2003. 24 p. . (with comments on the Elachistocleis ovalis-E. bicolor controversy)
  19. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. E Lavilla , I Di Tada , J Langone . http://www.iucnredlist.org Elachistocleis bicolor. Eletronic Database 2004. 17 February 2010.
  20. Frog diversity in the Floresta Nacional de Chapecó, Atlantic Forest of southern Brazil. E M Lucas , V B Fortes . Biota Neotropica 2008. 8 (3) p. .
  21. Lista comentada de los anfibios de Paraguay. F Brusquetti , E O Lavilla . Cuadernos de Herpetología 2006. 20 (2) p. .
  22. Relação dos anfíbios da Ilha dos Marinheiros, estuário da Lagoa dos Patos. F M Quintela , LF , M Neves , I G Medvedovisky , M B Santos , M C L M De Oliveira , M R C Figueiredo . Revista Brasileira de Biociências 2009. 7 p. .
  23. Herpetofauna of the Argentinean Impenetrable Great Chaco. F P Kacoliris , I Berkunsky , J Williams . Phyllomedusa 2006. 5 (2) p. .
  24. Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Gbif . http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20m?kind=Elachistocleis+bicolor 2008. February 2010. Field Museum of Natural History, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of Washington Burke Museum, and University of Turku
  25. Advertisement calls of four microhylid frogs from Bolivia (Amphibia, Anura). I De La Riva , R Márquez , J Bosch . American Midland Naturalist 1996. 136 (2) p. .
  26. Ten years of research on Bolivian amphibians: updated checklist, distribution, taxonomic problems, literature and iconography. I De La Riva , J Köhler , S Lötters , S Reichle . Revista Española de Herpetología 2000. 14 p. .
  27. Inventario de anfibios y reptiles del Parque Nacional Chaco. J A Céspedez , M L Lions , B B Alvarez , E F Schaefer . Natura Neotropicalis 2001. 32 (2) p. .
  28. Anuran amphibians dynamics in an intermittent pond in southern Brazil. L F B Moreira , I F Machado , A R G M Lace , L Maltchik . Acta Limnologica Brasileira 2008. 20 (3) p. .
  29. Piagaçu-Purus: bases científicas para a criação de uma Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, M Gordo . C.P. Deus, R. Silveira and L.H.R. Py-Daniel (ed.) 2003. Manaus. p. . (Os anfíbios anuros do Baixo Rio Purus/Solimões. Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá)
  30. Listagem dos Anuros da Estação Ecológica Nhumirim e Arredores, Pantanal Sul. Corumbá: Embrapa Pantanal, M Gordo , Z Campos . 2003. 21.
  31. Diversity of Amphybians in rice fields from northeastern Argentina. M I Duré , A I Kehr , E F Schaefer , F Marangoni . Interciencia 2008. 33 (7) p. .
  32. Dimorfismo sexual, uso do ambiente e abundância sazonal de Elachistocleis cf. ovalis (Anura: Microhylidae) em um remanescente de Cerrado no estado de São Paulo, sudeste do Brasil. M T C Thomé , C A Brasileiro . Biota Neotropica 2007. 7 (1) p. .
  33. Eletronic Database accessible at http://arctos.database. museum/SpecimenResults.cfm?taxon_name_id=201 2416. MVZ Herpetological Collection. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Mvz . 1999. February 2010. Berkeley, USA. University of California (Collections Database)
  34. Análise de dados secundários sobre a fauna de vertebrados da unidade fitogeografica do Vale do Paraná. Planaltina: Embrapa Cerrados, N F Camargo , L M De , S Aguiar . 2007. 56.
  35. A fauna de vertebrados do campus da Universidade Estadual de Londrina, região norte do estado do Paraná. O A Shibatta , W Galves , W P D Carmo , I P De Lima , E V Lopes , R A Machado . Semina: Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde 2009. 30 (1) p. .
  36. Lista prévia dos anfíbios do Rio Grande do Sul. P C Braun , C A S Braun . Brasil. Iheringia Série Zoologia 1980. 56 p. .
  37. Composição e ameaças à conservação dos anfíbios anuros do Parque Estadual de Itapeva, município de Torres. P Colombo , A Kinde , G Vinciprova , L Kraus . Biota Neotropica 2008. 8 (3) p. .
  38. , P G Aceñolaza , H E Povedano , A S Manzano , J D Muñoz , ; J I Areta , A L R Virgolini . Biodiversidad Del Parque Nacional Pre-Delta 2004.
  39. Anurofauna do Município de Guararapes, Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. (Amphibia: Anura). P S Bernarde , M N De , C Kokubum . Acta Biológica Leopoldensia 1999. 21 (1) p. .
  40. Bioacústica e sítio de vocalização em taxocenoses de anuros de área aberta no noroeste paulista. R A Silva , I A Martins , D C Rossa-Feres . Biota Neotropica 2008. 8 (3) p. .
  41. First record of Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura, Leiuperidae) in Uruguay, R Maneyro , M Beheregaray . 2007. (with comments on the anuran fauna along the borderline Uruguay-Brazil)
  42. Anfíbios da Floresta Nacional de Silvânia, estado de Goiás, R P Bastos , J A O Motta , L P Lima , L D Guimarães . 2003. Goiânia: Stylo Gráfica e Editora. p. 82.
  43. Riqueza e densidade de vocalizações de anuros (Amphibia) em uma área urbana de Corumbá, R W Ávila , V L Ferreira . 2004. Mato Grosso.
  44. Frosche des savannengebietes der estación biológica del Beni (EBB), Bolivien. Teil II: Die Familien Leptodactylidae, Microhylidae und Hylidae (Teil 1). S Reichle . Herpetofauna 1997. 19 (107) p. .
  45. Saisonale und wasserstanbdsabhangige Rufplazverteilung von froschlurchen der sudlichen Beni savannen. S Reichle , J Kohler . Bolivien. Salamandra 1998. 34 (1) p. .
  46. Distribuição temporal e espacial de anuros em área de Pampa, T G Santos , K Kopp , M R Spies , R Trevisan , S Z Cechin . 2008. Santa Maria, RS.
  47. Diversidade, Distribuição Espacial e Temporal de Anfíbios Anuros (Amphibia, Anura) na Região Noroeste do Estado de São Paulo. T S Vasconcelos , D De C. Rossa-Feres . Brasil. Biota Neotropica 2005. 5 (2) p. .
Home 
Date: 2013-01-15