Proceratophrys belzebul, 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.5631941 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CC4E87EB-3C19-FF95-FF57-FF0C1E96FDE4 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Proceratophrys belzebul |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Proceratophrys belzebul sp.nov.
( Figs.8–9 View FIGURE 8 View FIGURE 9 )
Etymology. The specific epithet is an invariable noun in apposition and makes allusion to horn-like palpebral appendages and the dark color of the specimens. Baal Zebub is a Semitic deity that was worshiped in the Philistine —the prince of demons. Belzebul is one of the numerous variants of the latinized Beelzebub.
Holotype: CFBH 16283, adult male collected in Parque Estadual da Serra do Mar, Núcleo Santa Virgínia, São Luis do Paraitinga municipality (23º20’S, 45º03’) São Paulo state on 14 March, 2005 by L. O.M. Giasson ( Figs.8 View FIGURE 8 A and 9).
Paratopotypes: Adult males— CFBH 5819 (21 January, 2003) (cleared and stained), CFBH 11302 (23 February, 2006) by L.M. O. Giasson, CFBH 14813 (19 December, 2006) (cleared and stained) by L.M. O. Giasson, C.P.A. Prado, O.G. Araújo and F. Zara. Adult females— CFBH 8410 (14 April, 2004), CFBH, 8411 (14 April, 2004) ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B), CFBH 8062 (12 January, 2005), CFBH 10792 (24 January, 2006) by L.M. O. Giasson.
Other paratypes: Cunha municipality: Adult males— CFBH 29681 (01 February, 2005) (cleared and stained), CFBH 29682 (01 February, 2005) by D. Picinini. Adult females— CFBH 10751 (01 March, 2005), CFBH 10752 (01 March, 2005) by D. Seale, CFBH 29680 (01 February, 2005), CFBH 29684 (01 February, 2005), CFBH 29685 (01 February, 2005) by D. Picinini.
São Sebastião municipality: Adult males— CFBH 12110 (February, 2005) by M. Martins, MTR 9456 (May, 2000) by G. Skuk and D. Pavan.
Ubatuba municipality: Adult male— CFBH 5660 (15 October, 2002) (cleared and stained) by P.A. Hartmann. Adult females— CFBH 5414 (20 September, 2002), CFBH 21941 (09 January, 2009) by C.F.B.H. and S.F. Reis.
Diagnosis. The species is characterized by: 1) medium size (SVL 40.5–53.5 mm in males and 34.6–62.0 mm in females); 2) nasal bones broadly separated in their medial region; 3) nasal bone broadly separated from frontoparietal in their posterior region; 4) small iliac projection (iliac projection representing less than 30% of ilium diameter) ( Fig.5 View FIGURE 5 F and G); 5) frontoparietal bones very depressed and broad rostrally ( Fig.5 View FIGURE 5 E); 6) nasal and squamosal bones with smooth surface (without or with very reduced swellings and tubercles); 7) maxillary pits very reduced, almost vestigial; 8) female presenting the gular region dark brown ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 B).
Comparisons with other species (Data for species in comparison are given in parenthesis; biometric comparisons only between males). Proceratophrys belzebul differs from P. laticeps , P. melanopogon , P. phyllostomus and P. subgutatta 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 the color of ventral surface of the body (predominantly cream with gular region black in P. s a n c t a r i t a e and light brown with scattered dark dots all over the belly in P. b e lz e b ul), by the largest head in relation to snout-vent length (HL/SVL 49% in P. belzebul [47.3–50%] and 45% in P. sanctaritae [44–47%]) and in relation to head width (HL/HW 90% in P. b e l z e b u l [87–92%] and 80% in P. sanctaritae [78–83%]). It differs from P. tupinamba by the smaller size (SVL 40.5–53.5 mm in P. b e lz e b ul and SVL 52.6–63.4 in P. tupinamba ), by the smaller eye diameter (ED/HL 16.2% in P. belzebul [16–17%] and 23% in P. tupinamba [24–24.2%]) and by the smaller foot (FL/SVL 48% in P. b e l z e b u l [46–48%] and 59% in P. tupinamba [63-67%]). It differs from P. appendiculata by the smaller size (SVL 40.5–53.5 mm in P. b e l z e b u l and 43.1–58.0 in P. appendiculata ), by presenting the surface of the squamosal bones smooth, without or with very reduced projections and tubercles (surface of the squamosal covered with projections) ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 A and B), by presenting the outer margins of frontoparietals expanded rostrally (frontoparietal outer margins curved and medially expanded) ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 C and E), by having a small iliac projection (iliac projection representing less than 30% of ilium diameter in P. belzebul and more the 45% in P. appendiculata ) ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 F and G), by presenting the nasal surface smoother (nasal with furrow and projections), by the deepness of ventral slits of maxillae (poorly deep in P. b e lz e b ul and very deep and evident in P. appendiculata ), and by the presence of dark brown color in female’s gular region (gular region of the same coloration of ventral surface in females). It differs from P. izecksohni by the smaller distance between eye and nostril ( END /HL 21% in P. belzebul [19–21.3%] and 22% in P. izecksohni [21–23%]), by the smaller eye diameter (ED/HL16% in P. b e l z e b u l [16.4–17%] and 18% in P. izecksohni [17.3–18%]), by the smaller hindlimbs (THL+TIL/SVL 87.5% in P. belzebul [88–89%] and 93% in P. izecksohni [90–99%]), by having a smaller iliac projection (iliac projection representing approximately 28% in P. belzebul and more than 50% of ilium diameter in P. izecksohni ), and by the shape of frontoparietal bones (broader rostrally in P. belzebul and almost uniform along their extension in P. izecksohni ) ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 D and E).
Description of the holotype ( Figs. 8 View FIGURE 8 A and 9). Adult male with 56.6 mm of snout vent length; head elliptical, with much narrowed snout, wider than long; head length presenting 86.6% of head width; elliptical nostril, separated by a distance of approximately 80% of the eye diameter; distance of eye to snout corresponding to 45% of head length; eye to nostril distance of approximately 20.1% of the head length; eyes lateral, with a diameter equivalent to 14.3% 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 parallel outer margins; region between frontoparietal crests slightly depressed, with its rostral portion deeper than the posterior; frontoparietals slightly wider on its rostral portion; interocular ridge present and concave; tympanum not clearly defined; arm and forearm robust; arm stout, very close to the body; metacarpal tubercles poorly developed; median outer metacarpal tubercles rounded and something like elliptical distal outer metacarpal tubercles; inner metacarpal tubercle elliptical; finger lengths IV ≈ II <I <III; fingers not webbed; tibia longer than tight; tibia length plus thigh length corresponding to 86.6% of SVL; foot longer than thigh and tibia; foot length represents 47.7% of snout vent length; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; inner metatarsal tubercle elliptical, well developed; toe lengths I<II<V<III<IV; very rough skin, covered by tubercles, well developed all over the body; ocular-dorsal ridge continuous with palpebral appendages, reaching the dorsal extreme of urostyle, with spear shape.
Holotype Dimensions (mm): SVL: 56.6; HL: 24.6; HW: 28.4; THL: 22.0 TIL: 21.9; TRL: 6.3; FL: 24.1; HUL: 10.7; FAL: 10.9; HAL: 14.6; IOD: 10.2; END: 5.3; ESD: 11.3; IND: 2.3; NSD: 6.3 and ED: 3.5.
Color in preservative (names in parentheses from Smithe’s catalog). All dorsal and ventral surface of the body dark brown (Dark grayish). Darker (Dark brown) strips flanking the ocular-dorsal ridge and in the arms and legs. The gular region possesses the same dark coloration as the dorsum and ventral surface, both in males and females.
Variation. Specimens are congruent with respect to morphological characters. Some specimens (CFBH 11302; 29685) presented a black (Raw umber) mask-like pattern. Ventral surface also show some degree of variation, with specimens without brown dots presenting a completely uniform cream color, with exception of the gular region. 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 Cunha, São Sebastião, São Luis do Paraitinga, and Ubatuba in São Paulo 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.