Ranitomeya fantastica, Boulenger, 1884

Brown, Jason L., Twomey, Evan, Amézquita, Adolfo, Souza, Moisés Barbosa De, Caldwell, Jana- Lee P., Lötters, Stefan, May, Rudolf Von, Melo-Sampaio, Paulo Roberto, Mejía-Vargas, Daniel, Perez-Peña, Pedro, Pepper, Mark, Poelman, Erik H., Sanchez-Rodriguez, Manuel & Summers, Kyle, 2011, A taxonomic revision of the Neotropical poison frog genus Ranitomeya (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae) 3083, Zootaxa 3083 (1), pp. 1-120: 51-52

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3083.1.1

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/1D338788-9572-1568-C8FC-98163C3DFAE4

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Ranitomeya fantastica
status

 

Ranitomeya fantastica   ( Boulenger 1884 “1883”)

Account authors: J.L. Brown, E. Twomey

Figs. 3 View FIGURE 3 , 4 View FIGURE 4 , 9 View FIGURE 9 , 15 View FIGURE 15 (e – l), 18, 20

Tables 1 – 6

Dendrobates fantasticus Boulenger 1884   “1883”: p. 635, Plate 57, drawing 3 [NHML 1947.2.15.1–4 (four syntypes) collected by Paul Hahnel from “Yurimaguas, Huallaga River, Peru ”]; – Myers 1982: p. 1; Kneller 1983: p. 148; Divossen 1999: p. 58, 2002: p. 20; Schulte 1999 (partim): p. 57, Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 , pattern I, L, M Cordillera Oriental “Alto Cainarachi”, Cordillera Oriental “Achinamisa”, Huallaga River “Reticulated Hybrid?” morphs, (I, L, M, reprinted from Silverstone, 1975); Symula et al. 2001 (partim): p. 2415, Fig. 1 photo E, Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 (phylogenetic tree/drawing); Symula et al. 2003 (partim): p. 452, Table 1, Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 (phylogenetic tree/drawing); Christmann 2004: p. 6, Figs. on p. 37, 159; Santos et al. 2009, by implication

Dendrobates quinquevittatus   (non Steindachner 1864) – Silverstone 1975 (partim): p. 33, Fig. 14 View FIGURE 14 (drawing), patterns I, L, M

Ranitomeya fantastica   – Bauer 1988: p. 1; Grant et al. 2006: p. 171, Fig. 76; Lötters et al. 2007 (partim): p. 472, Figs. 588, 590; Brown et al. 2008a: p. 1154; 2008b: p. 5, Fig. 1; 2008c: p. 2, Figs. 1, 3 View FIGURE 3 , 5 View FIGURE 5 , 8–10 View FIGURE 8 View FIGURE 9 View FIGURE 10 ; von May et al. 2008a: p. 394, Appendix 1

Background information. For a summary of current knowledge on this species see Brown et al. (2008c), with the exception of the following comments. Recently, E. Twomey rediscovered a population of R. fantastica   that exactly matched Boulenger’s description (identical to 3 of 4 types, Fig 15e View FIGURE 15 ) less than 20 km from Boulenger’s stated type locality. Two other populations of R. fantastica   are known to occasionally lack black crown markings (near Varadero, Loreto and near Yumbatos, San Martin), however both populations bear subtle differences and occur further from the presumed type locality (ca. 40 km NW and 55 km SW, respectively).

In 2008, Karl-Heinz Jungfer discovered a new population of this species in the Cordillera Campanquis near the Pongo de Manseriche, Loreto, Peru. Given its unique morphology and apparently disjunct distribution, we originally suspected that these frogs might represent an undescribed species. However, after performing phylogenetic analyses on sequences collected from these individuals, there is little phylogenetic support for this hypothesis and they appear to simply represent a northern population of R. fantastica   . Ironically, the discovery of this population (which is morphologically similar in appearance to R. summersi   ), further supports the classification of R. summersi   as a separate species from R. fantastica   . Based on our phylogeny, a population of R. fantastica   that occurs less than 30 km from a population of R. summersi   is most closely related to a population of R. fantastica   from Pongo de Manseriche. These two populations of R. fantastica   are separated by more than 250 km and several mountain ranges, versus less than 30 km and relatively contiguous habitat. This relationship could also be attributed to incomplete lineage sorting and should be further investigated.

The phylogenetic topology of R. fantastica   , R. summersi   and R. benedicta   differs from that published in Brown et al. (2008c). In this study, the lower Huallaga populations of R. fantastica   are sister to R. summersi   , which form a clade that is sister to R. benedicta   ; this entire clade is sister to the rest of the members of R. fantastica   . In Brown et al. (2008c), R. summersi   was sister to R. fantastica   (in which, R. fantastica   consisted of two main clades, one containing individuals from the lower Huallaga and an individual from Tarapoto and all individuals from lower Huallaga sister to all other R. fantastica   ) and both species were sister to R. benedicta   . To clarify these differences, we performed reciprocal topology tests (using Shimodaira-Hasegawa tests, Table 3); each study’s topology was tested on both datasets (note: samples not included in both analyses were left as they were in the unconstrained topology as much as possible). When using the current dataset, which contains fewer base pairs than Brown et al. (2008c), we found no statistical differences in either topologies (p = 0.491) suggesting they are equally probable. The differences in tree length (under Parsimony) were 1. However when using the dataset from Brown et al. (2008c), the Shimodaira–Hasegawa test rejected the topology observed in this study (p = 0.012), supporting the specific relationships observed in Brown et al. (2008c), with individuals from lower Huallaga being members of R. fantastica   ). The difference in tree lengths (via Parsimony) between these two tree topologies was 13. Thus, despite the topology of our phylogeny, we maintain that R. benedicta   is sister to a clade containing the sister species R. fantastica   and R. summersi   .

Even though these results support the specific status of the lower Huallaga individuals as R. fantastica   ( Brown et al. 2008c; Fig. 15 View FIGURE 15 ), this population’s phylogenetic status (and specific status) is not entirely clear. In other unpublished analyses (based on different datasets), these populations were observed sister to R. summersi   (as in this study), and based on morphology we cannot reject this possible relationship (that these populations are members of R. summersi   ). To clarify this, additional morphological and sequence data are necessary, using both mitochondrial and nuclear genes, and molecular data should be analyzed using coalescent-based phylogenies.

Distribution. This species is known to occur within the departments of Amazonas, Loreto and San Martín, Peru ( Fig. 20 View FIGURE 20 ).

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Amphibia

Order

Anura

Family

Dendrobatidae

Genus

Ranitomeya

Loc

Ranitomeya fantastica

Brown, Jason L., Twomey, Evan, Amézquita, Adolfo, Souza, Moisés Barbosa De, Caldwell, Jana- Lee P., Lötters, Stefan, May, Rudolf Von, Melo-Sampaio, Paulo Roberto, Mejía-Vargas, Daniel, Perez-Peña, Pedro, Pepper, Mark, Poelman, Erik H., Sanchez-Rodriguez, Manuel & Summers, Kyle 2011
2011
Loc

Ranitomeya fantastica

Brown, J. L. & Morales, V. & Summers, K. 2008: 1154
von May, R. & Catenazzi, A. & Angulo, A. & Brown, J. L. & Carrillo, J. & Chavez, G. & Cordova, J. H. & Curo, A. & Delgado, A. & Enciso, M. A. & Gutierrez, R. & Lehr, E. & Martinez, J. L. & Medina-Muller, M. & Miranda, A. & Neira, D. R. & Ochoa, J. A. & Quiroz, A. J. & Rodriguez, D. A. & Rodriguez, L. O. & Salas, A. W. & Seimon, T. & Seimon, A. & Siu-Ting, K. & Suarez, J. & Torres, J. & Twomey, E. 2008: 394
Grant, T. & Frost, D. R. & Caldwell, J. P. & Gagliardo, R. & Haddad, C. F. B. & Kok, P. J. R. & Means, D. B. & Noonan, B. P. & Schargel, W. E. & Wheeler, W. 2006: 171
Bauer, L. 1988: 1
1988