Revalidation and redescription of Elachistocleis cesarii (Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920) (Anura: Microhylidae)

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Burrowing behavior of Dermatonotus muelleri (Anura, Microhylidae) with reference to the origin of the burrowing behavior of Anura

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

The frog Dermatonotus muelleri (Boettger 1885) (Anura Microhylidae) shifts its search tactics in response to two different prey distributions

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Molecular phylogeny of microhylid frogs (Anura: Microhylidae) with emphasis on relationships among New World genera

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Arcovomer passarellii Carvalho, 1954 (Amphibia: Anura: Microhylidae): distribution extension in São Paulo state, Brazil and geographic distribution map.

The Passarelli's Frog, Arcovomer passarellii Carvalho, 1954, was registered for the first time in the city of Santos, on the seacoast of São Paulo state, extending 160 km to southwest of the distribution previously known for this species. Here we show a distribution map for an up-to-date map for A. passarelli.

Anurofauna em área de cerrado aberto no município de Borebi, estado de São Paulo, Sudeste do Brasil: uso do habitat, abundância e variação sazonal

O bioma Cerrado encontra-se descaracterizado e menos de três por cento de suas áreas originais está legalmente protegida. A anurofauna desse bioma não é muito rica quando comparado a outros biomas, porém há um grande número de espécies endêmicas. Aqui apresentamos uma lista de espécies de anuros registrados em uma lagoa em área de cerrado aberto do município de Borebi, região Centro-Oeste do estado de São Paulo, sudeste do Brasil. Durante 24 meses de estudo (2008 e 2009) caracterizamos a distribuição das espécies na lagoa estudada e descrevemos a variação sazonal das espécies. Foram registradas 27 espécies pertencentes a seis famílias: Bufonidae (duas espécies), Cycloramphidae (uma espécie), Hylidae (13 espécies), Leiuperidae (quatro espécies), Leptodactylidae (cinco espécies) e Microhylidae (duas espécies). A riqueza de espécies e abundância estiveram relacionadas com a precipitação. Dendropsophus minutus foi a espécie mais abundante e com registro de vocalização durante o ano inteiro. Rhinella ornata e Odontophrynus americanus foram restritas ao período seco e frio (abril a agosto). As outras espécies tiveram seu período de maior atividade nos meses chuvosos e quentes (setembro a março). A ocupação da lagoa variou com o tipo de vegetação e conforme a variação do seu volume de água, principalmente nos período de estiagem. A alta riqueza e abundância de anuros da lagoa pode ser resultado da ausência de peixes predadores, dos diversos tipos de microambientes do local e da ausência de outros corpos d'água próximos.

Breeding activity patterns, reproductive modes, and habitat use by anurans (Amphibia) in a seasonal environment in the Pantanal, Brazil

Annual patterns of breeding activity, reproductive modes, and habitat use are described for a frog community in a seasonal environment, in the southern Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Data were collected monthly between January 1995 and December 1998. A total of 24 species from four families; Bufonidae (3 species), Hylidae (10 species), Leptodactylidae (9 species), and Microhylidae (2 species) were registered. Three reproductive activity patterns are recognized among these species: continuous, explosive, and prolonged; 50% of the species were explosive breeders. Seasonal pattern of reproduction was verified for three analyzed years (1995-1997) most species reproduced during the rainy season (Nov-Jan). The reproduction was aseasonal in 1998; unexpected rains in the dry season lead to an unusual breeding activity. Five reproductive modes were noted - 62.5% of the species have the generalized aquatic mode, and 33.3% deposit eggs embedded in foam nests. Many species used the same sites for reproduction, although temporal partitioning and calling site segregation was observed. The occurrence of many species that exhibit explosive breeding early in the rainy season is common in seasonal and open environments with variable and unpredictable rainfall, as is the case in the Pantanal.

Is The amphibian tree of life really fatally flawed?

Wiens (2007, Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55-56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.'s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1-370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is a disaster and recommending that readers simply ignore this study. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as fatal flaws: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates; and (4) the results were at times clearly erroneous, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23-90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed strong support for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719-748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579-596) also found them to be non-monophyletic.Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not wth the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within Eleutherodactylus, and Lineatriton within Pseudoeurycea), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny. (C) The Willi Hennig Society 2007.

Diversidade e distribuição espaço-temporal de anuros em região com pronunciada estação seca no sudeste do Brasil

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Diversidade e ocorrência temporal da anurofauna (Amphibia, Anura) em São José dos Pinhais, Paraná, Brasil

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)