Proceratophrys izecksohni, Dias, Pedro Henrique Dos Santos, Amaro, Renata Cecília, Carvalho-E-Silva, Ana Maria Paulino Telles De & Rodrigues, Miguel Trefaut, 2013
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3682.2.5 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DCB6EF07-50FC-4AE1-A64E-849ADC24AA0B |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5631939 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CC4E87EB-3C11-FF90-FF57-F8D81E5AFBC8 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Proceratophrys izecksohni |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Proceratophrys izecksohni sp. nov.
( Figs. 2–3 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 )
Etymology. The specific epithet is a patronym given in honor of Eugenio Izecksohn, a herpetologist who greatly contributed to the current knowledge of Brazilian frog fauna, particularly to the genus Proceratophrys .
Holotype: UNIRIO 739, adult male collected in Reserva Rio das Pedras ( RERP), Mangaratiba municipality, Rio de Janeiro state (22°59’29’’S, 44°06’01’’W ca. 200 meters above sea level) on 0 6 July, 1999 by A.M.P.T. Carvalho-e-Silva, S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, L. Americo, G.R. Silva and J.A. Chaves ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 A and 3).
Paratopotypes: Adult males - UNIRIO 623 (04 October, 1999), UNIRIO 731 (06 December, 1999) by A.M.P.T. Carvalho-e-Silva, S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, L. Americo, G.R. Silva and J.A. Chaves, UNIRIO 1218 (cleared and stained) (06 January, 2001) by A.M.P.T. Carvalho-e-Silva and S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, UNIRIO 2095 (cleared and stained) (01 October, 2004), MNRJ 40713 (November, 2005) by V. Borges Jr. Adult females— UNIRIO 680 (06 July, 1999) ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 B) by G.R. Silva and J.A. Chaves, UNIRIO 1117 (27 October, 2000) by A.M.P.T. Carvalhoe-Silva, S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, L. Americo, G.R. Silva and J.A. Chaves, UNIRIO 2847 (08 September, 2007) by A.M.P.T. Carvalho-e-Silva, S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, L.A. Cordioli, P.A. Valadares and T.S. Soares.
Other paratypes: Angra dos Reis municipality, Rio de Janeiro state: Adult - MNRJ 2000 (18 March and 11 May, 1948) (cleared and stained) by Carvalho and Berla. Adult female - MNRJ 34016 (without collecting date, although determined in 2007) by H.R. Silva and I. Fichberg.
Itaguaí, municipality, Rio de Janeiro state: Adult females - EI 9030-9031 (24 April, 1974) by O.F. Fraga and C.A.G. Cruz.
Paraty municipality, Rio de Janeiro state: Adult males - EI 9034 (7 April, 1979) by S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, E. Izecksohn and C.A.G. Cruz, MNRJ 64586, (11 November, 2010) by C.C. Ciqueira, M.C. Kiefer and V.A. Menezes, ZUFRJ 405 (06-07 April, 1979) by S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, E. Izecksohn, C.A.G. Cruz and O.L. Peixoto. Adult females - MNRJ 1367 (November/December, 1941), MNRJ 10535 (November or December, 1946), MNRJ 10537, (September or December, 1946), MNRJ 10539 (September or December, 1946) by A.L. Carvalho and B. Lutz, MNRJ 64584-64585 (11 November, 2010) by C.C. Ciqueira, M.C. Kiefer and V.A. Menezes.
Diagnosis. The species is characterized by: 1) small to medium size (SVL 32.1–54.1 mm in males and 30.4– 50.0 mm in females); 2) broad head, dorso-ventrally depressed (HW/SVL 54%); 3) thigh length plus tibia length corresponding to more than 90% of SVL); 4) gular region light brown; 5) ventral surface cream with scattered brown dots; 6) contact between nasal bones in their rostral extremities ( Fig.4 View FIGURE 4 ); 7) wide contact between nasal and frontoparietal bones in their posterior extremities ( Fig.4 View FIGURE 4 ); 8) iliac projection corresponding to more than 50% of ilium diameter.
Comparisons with other species (data for species in comparison are given in parenthesis; biometric comparisons only between males). Proceratophrys izecksohni differs from P. laticeps , P. melanopogon , P. phyllostomus and P. subguttata by 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 presenting a larger head length in relation to head width (HL/HW 90% in P. izecksohni [87–91%] and 80% in P. sanctaritae [78–83%]), by having longer hindlimbs (THL+TIL/SVL 93% in P. izecksohni [90–99%] and 83% in P. sanctaritae [80-84%]). It differs from P. tupinamba and P. appendiculata by presenting nasal bones widely in contact with the frontoparietal bones in their posterior extremities (nasals do not contact frontoparietals) and by presenting the nasal bones contacting each other rostrally (nasals do not contact each other) ( Fig.4 View FIGURE 4 ). It also differs from P. tupinamba by the smaller size (SVL 32.1–54.2 in P. izecksohni and SVL 52.6–63.4 in P. t u p i n a m b a), by presenting a smaller eye diameter in relation to the head length ( P. izecksohni , 18%; P. tupinamba , 25%), by the smaller foot size in relation to snout vent length (FL/SVL 48% in P. izecksohni [47– 48%] and 59% in P. tupinamba [63–67%]); by having a more prominent iliac projection (corresponding to more than 50% of ilium diameter in P. izecksohni and less than 40% in P. tupinamba ); from P. appendiculata by the smaller size (SVL 32.1–54.2 mm in P. izecksohni and SVL 43.1–58.0 mm in P. appendiculata ), by the longer hindlimbs (THL+TIL/SVL 93% in P. izecksohni [90-99%] and 89% in P. appendiculata [89.5–90%]); by the texture of the squamosal bones (smooth in P. izecksohni and rough, with tubercles and crests in P. appendiculata ) ( Fig.5 View FIGURE 5 A and B); by presenting shallow maxillary pits (moderately deep in P. izecksohni and very deep in P. appendiculata ); and by the shape of frontoparietal bones (almost uniform along their extension in P. izecksohni and broader medially in P. appendiculata ) ( Fig.5 View FIGURE 5 C and D).
Description of holotype ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 A and 3). Adult male with 32.14 mm of snout vent length; head slightly rounded, wider than long; head length representing 94.2% of head width; nostrils elliptical, separated by a distance of approximately half of the eye diameter; snout short; distance of eye to snout corresponding to 21.1% of head length; eye to nostril distance approximately 21.3% of the head length; eyes lateral with a diameter equivalent to 22.2% of the head length; a single and long palpebral appendage; pre-ocular crest present, continuous with the palpebral appendage; canthal crest present and well developed; row of tubercles ranging from the posterior corner of the eye to angle of jaw; vomerine teeth present; tongue cordiform, free posteriorly; frontoparietal crests poorly developed, with its outer margins parallels; region between frontoparietal crests slightly depressed; interocular ridge present and concave; tympanum not clearly defined; arm and forearm robust; forearms covered by conical tubercles; median outer metacarpal tubercles rounded and slightly prominent elliptical distal outer metacarpal tubercles; inner metacarpal tubercle elliptical; finger lengths IV ≈ II<I <III; fingers not webbed; legs elongate, with tibia longer than tight; tibia length plus thigh length corresponding to 93.4% of SVL; foot length approximately equal to thigh length; foot length representing 48.9% of snout vent length; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; inner metatarsal tubercle elliptical, poorly developed; toe lengths I<II≈V<III<IV; toes poorly webbed; rough skin, covered by tubercles which are more evident on the limbs, and triangular tubercles in the flank area; ocular-dorsal ridge continuous with palpebral appendages, reaching the dorsal extreme of urostyle, with spear shape.
Holotype Dimensions (mm): SVL: 32.1; HL: 15.9; HW: 16.9; THL: 14.2 TIL: 15.7; TRL: 7.5; FL: 15.7; HUL: 7.8; FAL: 8.1; HAL: 9.4; IOD: 6.5; END: 3.4; ESD: 6.85; IND: 1.5; NSD: 3.8 and ED: 3.5.
Color in life (names in parentheses from Smithe’s catalog) ( Fig.6 View FIGURE 6 A). Dark brown color on the dorsum (Dark Grayish Brown); region between the oculo-dorsal ridges with brighter areas of a light brown color (Buff); anterior and posterior limbs color’s similar to the dorsum, with light brown transversal stripes (Dark Drab); ventral surface of the body light brown (Clay color) with spaced darker spots more concentrated in the gular region (Dusky Brown); head with a black stain in the shape of an "M" between the canthal crests; dark brown iris (Cinnamon); tubercles of the ocular-dorsal ridge slightly lighter than the color of the dorsum (Raw umber).
Color in preservative. The color has fainted in preservative (70% ethanol), with the presence of transversal stripes on the limbs becoming more visible.
Variation. There is a variation in the hue of the dorsum, with some individuals darker than others. Measurements data are given in the Tables 2 View TABLE 2 and 3 View TABLE 3 for males and females respectively.
Geographical distribution. The new species is known from the municipalities of Angra dos Reis, Itaguaí, Mangaratiba and Paraty in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil ( Fig.7 View FIGURE 7 ).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.