Proceratophrys appendiculata ( Günther, 1873 ), Gunther, 1873

Dias, Pedro Henrique Dos Santos, Amaro, Renata Cecília, Carvalho-E-Silva, Ana Maria Paulino Telles De & Rodrigues, Miguel Trefaut, 2013, Two new species of Proceratophrys Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920 (Anura; Odontophrynidae) from the Atlantic forest, with taxonomic remarks on the genus, Zootaxa 3682 (2), pp. 277-304 : 292

Proceratophrys appendiculata ( Günther, 1873)

( Fig. 10 )

Holotype. BMNH 0 27, adult male, without collecting date ( Fig. 10 ). Unfortunately the holotype could not be examined by us, because it could not be found in the collection of British Museum of Natural History (Mark Wilkinson and Barry Clarke, personal communication). Günther’s (1873) description stated that specimen was purchased and it is from Brazil, but it could not be ascertained exactly from where. Boulenger (1882) redescribed the holotype housed at the British Museum, and no additional information about the locality was quoted. Nevertheless, the osteological data provided by Boulenger (1882) and Prado and Pombal (2008) compared to those retrieved from the cleared specimens examined indicate its probable origin. In the holotype ( Fig. 10 ), as in specimens from Serra dos Órgãos ( Fig. 5 C), the outer margins of the frontoparietal bones are curved, and poorly developed, whereas in other species examined they are almost parallel and well developed, giving a characteristic shape to this bone. Thus, we propose that the type was collected somewhere at the Serra dos Órgãos.

Our finds also corroborate the taxonomic position of other taxa as junior synonym of Proceratophrys appendiculata such as P. cafferi (= Ceratophrys cafferi ; Camerano, 1879) collected in Serra dos Órgãos and P. unicolor (= Stombus appendiculatus var. unicolor ; Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926) collected in Japuíba, Cachoeiras de Macacu municipality, Rio de Janeiro state.

Diagnosis. The species is characterized by: 1) medium size (SVL 43.1–58.0 mm in males and 39.5–61.8 mm in females); 2) rounded head; 3) rounded snout in dorsal view; 4) frontoparietal crests slightly accentuated; 5) nasal bones do not contact each other ( Fig. 4 ); 6) nasals do not contact the frontoparietal; 7) outer margin of frontoparietal bones curved and expanded medially ( Fig. 5 C); 8) squamosal bones with tubercles and crests ( Fig. 5 A); 9) maxillary pits very deep; 10) humerus very robust.

Comparisons with other species (Data for species in comparison are given in parenthesis; biometric comparisons only between males). Proceratophrys appendiculata differs from P. laticeps , P. melanopogon , P. phyllostomus and P. subgutatta for presenting a preocular cutaneous crest (preocular cutaneous absent). From P. moehringi by the presence of a well developed rostral appendage in adults (rostral appendage absent or vestigial). It differs from P. sanctaritae by the larger size (SVL 43.1–58.0 in P. appendiculata and 38.4–45.5 in P. sanctaritae ), and by the longer hindlimbs (THL+TIL/SVL 89% in P. appendiculata [89–90%] and 83% in P. sanctaritae [80– 84%]). It differs from P. tupinamba by the smaller eye diameter in relation to head length (ED/HL 16% in P. appendiculata [16–18%] and 23% in P. tupinamba [24–24.6%]) and by the smaller foot length (FL/SVL 47% in P. appendiculata [46–51%] and 59% in P. tupinamba [63–67%]). It also differs from P. izecksohni and P. belzebul by its robust humerus (humerus diameter representing approximately 55% of the greatest humerus width in P. appendiculata and less than 50% in P. izecksohni and P. b e l z e b u l).

Redescription of holotype. For redescription and further data on the holotype see Prado and Pombal (2008).

Geographical distribution. The species is known from the municipalities of Duque de Caxias, Cachoeiras de Macacu, Petrópolis, and Teresópolis in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil ( Fig. 7 ).

Conservation. Recent researches conduced with Proceratophrys appendiculata in the Serra dos Órgãos demonstrate some abnormalities in the tadpole’s development ( Dias & Carvalho-e-Silva 2012). These findings become more relevant now that the geographic distribution of the species is reduced. As Dias & Carvalho-e-Silva (2012) attest, more investigations on this population are needed.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Dorsal view of the cranium of Proceratophrys appendiculata (left — UNIRIO 2063) Teresópolis, RJ, and Proceratophrys izecksohni sp. nov. (right — paratype, UNIRIO 2095) from Mangaratiba, RJ (A). Detail of nasal bones in Proceratophrys appendiculata (left) showing absence of contact between them and with frontoparietal and and the opposite condition observed in Proceratophrys izecksohni sp. nov. (right). fp, frontoparietal; n, nasal; s, sphenethmoid.

FIGURE 5. Osteological features of Proceratophrys species. Squamosal bone of Proceratophrys appendiculata, with tubercles and crests (A) and Proceratophrys izecksohni sp. nov. with smooth surface (morphology also representative of Proceratophrys belzebul sp. nov. (B); frontoparietal bones morphology for Proceratophrys appendiculata (C), Proceratophrys izecksohni sp. nov. (D), and Proceratophrys belzebul sp. nov. (E); ilium of Proceratophrys appendiculata (F) and Proceratophrys belzebul sp. nov. with a small projection, representing less than 30 % of ilium diameter (G). Scale bar = 10.0 mm.

FIGURE 7. Geographic distribution of Proceratophrys appendiculata (circles); Proceratophrys izecksohni sp. nov. (diamonds); Proceratophrys belzebul sp. nov. (squares); and Proceratophrys tupinamba (star).

FIGURE 10. Dorsal (left) and ventral (right) views of the holotype of Proceratophrys appendiculata (BMNH 027; SVL 50.0 mm).