Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Animal Sciences
The Identity Of Rana Margaritifera Laurenti, 1768 (Anura, Bufonidae), Esteban O. Lavilla, Ulisses Caramaschi, José A. Langone, José P. Pombal Jr., Rafael O. De Sá
The Identity Of Rana Margaritifera Laurenti, 1768 (Anura, Bufonidae), Esteban O. Lavilla, Ulisses Caramaschi, José A. Langone, José P. Pombal Jr., Rafael O. De Sá
Biology Faculty Publications
Rana margaritifera was described by Laurenti in 1768 and currently is associated to the genus Rhinella, under the combination Rhinella margaritifera. Currently, the R. margaritifera species group consists of 16 recognized species. Further-more, many additional species have been suggested to exist in this group which highlights the ambiguity surrounding the identity of Rhinella margaritifera and impend further description of the species in this group. After an exhaustive bibliographic review, we concluded that the recent designation of a lectotype for R. margaritifera is invalid according with Art. 73, ICZN, 1999. Herein, we designate and provide the description of a …
The Identity Of The Crackling, Luminescent Frog Of Suriname (Rana Typhonia Linnaeus, 1758) (Amphibia, Anura), E. O. Lavilla, José A. Langone, José M. Padial, Rafael O. De Sá
The Identity Of The Crackling, Luminescent Frog Of Suriname (Rana Typhonia Linnaeus, 1758) (Amphibia, Anura), E. O. Lavilla, José A. Langone, José M. Padial, Rafael O. De Sá
Biology Faculty Publications
Review of the literature and recently available field notes from the collector of the type allows a reconsideration of the identity of the Linnaean name Rana typhonia. We provide evidence to demonstrate that the Linnaean species is neither a bufonid nor an Asiatic ranid, but a Neotropical hylid. Subsequently, we consider Rana typhonia as an older synonym of Rana venulosa Laurenti, 1768, redescribing its holotype under the new combination, Trachycephalus typhonius (Linnaeus, 1758).
The Identification Of Rana Ocellata Linnaeus, 1758. Nomenclatural Impact On The Species Currently Known As Leptodactylus Ocellatus (Leptodactylidae) And Osteopilus Brunneus (Gosse, 1851) (Hylidae), Esteban O. Lavilla, José A. Langone, Ulisses Caramaschi, W. Ronald Heyer, Rafael O. De Sá
The Identification Of Rana Ocellata Linnaeus, 1758. Nomenclatural Impact On The Species Currently Known As Leptodactylus Ocellatus (Leptodactylidae) And Osteopilus Brunneus (Gosse, 1851) (Hylidae), Esteban O. Lavilla, José A. Langone, Ulisses Caramaschi, W. Ronald Heyer, Rafael O. De Sá
Biology Faculty Publications
The usage of the name Rana ocellata Linnaeus, 1758, is plagued by misidentifications and misinterpretations. After an exhaustive bibliographic review, we conclude that the Linnaeus 1758 name refers to Osteopilus brunneus (Gosse, 1851) from Jamaica, while the taxon currently known as Leptodactylus ocellatus corresponds to Rana latrans Steffen, 1815. Herein, we designate and provide descriptions of the neotypes of Leptodactylus latrans (Steffen, 1815), revalidated, new combination, and Osteopilus ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758), new combination, as a senior synonym of Osteopilus brunneus (Gosse, 1851).
Rana Ocellata Linnaeus, 1758 (Currently Leptodactylus Ocellatus; Amphibia, Anura): Proposed Conservation Of Usage Of The Specific Name By The Designation Of A Neotype, W. Ronald Heyer, Ulisses Caramaschi, Rafael O. De Sá
Rana Ocellata Linnaeus, 1758 (Currently Leptodactylus Ocellatus; Amphibia, Anura): Proposed Conservation Of Usage Of The Specific Name By The Designation Of A Neotype, W. Ronald Heyer, Ulisses Caramaschi, Rafael O. De Sá
Biology Faculty Publications
The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the specific name of Rana ocellata Linnaeus, 1758 for a species of leptodactylid frog from South America by the designation of a neotype. Prevailing usage of the name is threatened by the identity of the type specimen which is a different species than that which is currently known as Leptodactylus ocellatus. It is proposed that all name-bearing types be set aside and a neotype designated in accord with prevailing usage.