identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
971B3C7E19345262A911D6469EE7F473.text	971B3C7E19345262A911D6469EE7F473.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Charadrahyla nephila (Mendelson & Campbell 1999)	<div><p>Charadrahyla nephila (Mendelson &amp; Campbell, 1999)</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Duellman (1970): 440, in part.</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Adler and Dennis (1972): 1–19, in part.</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Caldwell (1974): 1–197, in part.</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Flores-Villela (1993): 1–73, in part.</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Toal and Mendelson (1995): 1–20, in part.</p><p>Hyla nephila — Mendelson and Campbell (1999): 80, in part.</p><p>Hyla nephila — Duellman (2001): 937–939, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Faivovich, Haddad, García, Frost, Campbell, Wheeler (2005): 100.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cos, Berridge, Ramani, Young (2008): 241.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Campbell, Blancas Hernández, Smith (2009) 287–295, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Heimes (2010): 80–88.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Delia, Whitney, Burkhardt (2013): 1405–1414, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Caviedes-Solis, Vázquez-Vega, Solano-Zavaleta, Pérez-Ramos, Rovito, Devitt, Heimes, Flores-Villela, Campbell, Montes de Oca (2014): 229–241, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Lamoreux, McKnight, Cabrera-Hernández (2015): 105–160, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Canseco-Márquez, Ramírez-González, González-Bernal (2017): 64–72, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Jiménez-Arcos, Calzada-Arciniega, Alfaro-Juantorena, Vázquez-Reyes, Blair, Parra-Olea (2019): 371–385, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — León-Gómez (2019): 1–79.</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>Hyla nephila Mendelson &amp; Campbell, 1999: 80. Type locality “ 5.8 km W Totontepec, Sierra Mixe, Oaxaca, Mexico, 2,103 m asl 17°13'N, 96°03'W ”. UTA A- 5769, adult male, collected by Jonathan A. Campbell, on 04 April 1978 .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A moderately sized Charadrahyla (males 53.7–61.9 mm, females to at least 79.3 mm) with a relatively short snout, rounded in dorsal and lateral profile; smooth dorsal skin and a brown dorsal ground coloration, with large dark brown dorsal blotches, which are varyingly sprinkled with green iridophores, on some specimens green coloration is very sparse, while on others green iridophores combine to form large areas of green coloration on the large brown dorsal blotches; dorsal tubercles absent, thus giving dorsal ground coloration a clean look; the overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ military camouflage ” appearance. It can be distinguished from all other species of Charadrahyla by the combination of external tympanum visible; a lack of a rostral keel; lack of axillary membrane; lack of conical tubercles on either side of cloacal opening; lack of hypertrophied webbing between first and second toe; and by the absence of tuberculate dorsal skin and the distinctively plain copper-colored iris lacking dark reticulations. Other identifying characteristics include distinctly rounded subarticular tubercles on all fingers; upper lip same color as lateral portions of body, no distinctive pale blotch present on lip posterior to eye; ventral coloration gray or brown colored, not while or cream, with 1–7 immaculate white spots present on chest and abdomen.</p><p>Comparisons.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila can be distinguished from all currently recognized species of Charadrahyla by the combination of the following characteristics: external tympanum present; dorsal skin smooth, no tubercles; snout short in both adult males and females; snout short and rounded in both dorsal and lateral profiles; no rostral keel; subarticular tubercles on fingers rounded, not bifid; no axillary membrane; no hypertrophied webbing between first and second toes; no conical cloacal tubercles; possessing nuptial excrescenses in adult males; unique dark green blotches on a tan or pale brown dorsal coloration with dark green dorsal blotches, which gives the frog an overall “ military camouflage appearance ”; lack of well-defined and highly contrasting dorsolateral blotches, dorsal lateral pattern and coloration similar to other blotches on dorsum; iris copper, clean and un-patterned, without black reticulations. Phenotypically this species appears to be most similar to C. viruela and C. chaneque, the former occurring sympatrically or nearly sympatrically at moderate elevations of the Sierra Juárez of northern Oaxaca. Charadrahyla nephila differs from C. viruela (Comparisons in Figs 4, 5) by possessing smooth dorsal skin on the entire dorsum (vs. tuberculate skin); longer snout, which is rounded in lateral profile (vs. shorter snout, which is truncate in lateral profile); nostrils not flared (vs. flared nostrils); subarticular tubercles rounded, not bifid (vs. subarticular tubercles on some fingers distinctly bifid); finger discs same size in both sexes (vs. sexual dimorphism in finger-disc size); dorsal ground coloration brown, with large dark brown dorsal blotches, which are varyingly sprinkled with green iridophores, on some specimens green coloration is very sparse, while on others green iridophores combine to form large areas of green coloration on the large brown dorsal blotches; dorsal tubercles absent, thus giving dorsal ground coloration a clean look; the overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ military camouflage ” appearance (vs. dorsal ground coloration emerald green, with large dark green dorsal blotches, which paler green interiors and darker green outlines, and dark green spots on the pale interior; numerous dorsal tubercles are reddish-brown or tan; some tan blotching is present dorso-laterally; the overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ mossy ” appearance); no distinctive white blotch on upper lip (vs. distinctive white or whitish-yellow blotch on upper lip posterior to eye); iris solid copper coloration (vs. iris golden, with heavy black reticulations, giving it a starry appearance); subarticular tubercles rounded (vs. distinctly bifid on some fingers); distinctive white blotch on upper lip (vs. no distinctive white blotch on lip); throat, chest, and abdomen is brown, with 1–7 immaculate white spots present on throat or chest and no large tan blotches on throat; and no highly contrasting lateral blotches present (vs. distinct, regular, well defined and highly contrasting lateral blotches compared to other blotches on dorsum).</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila differs from C. chaneque as follows: smooth dorsal skin (vs. dorsal skin smooth or slightly tuberculate); dorsal ground coloration brown, with large dark brown dorsal blotches, which are varyingly sprinkled with green iridophores, on some specimens green coloration is very sparse, while on others green iridophores combine to form large areas of green coloration on the large brown dorsal blotches; dorsal tubercles absent, thus giving dorsal ground coloration a clean look; the overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ military camouflage ” appearance (vs. dorsal ground coloration tan to pale brown, with larger dark brown dorsal blotches, which for the most part lack green iridophores; green iridophores widespread on dorsal ground coloration, giving some specimens a greenish appearance; dorsal tubercles present, same color as skin around them). Comparisons between C. nephila, C. viruela, and C. chaneque are given in Table 2.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila can be distinguished from C. esperancensis by its lack of a rostral keel (vs. distinct rostral keel present), much shorter snout, rounded from a lateral profile (vs. longer snout, protruding in lateral profile), presence of large blotching on the lateral flanks and lack of yellow reticulation (vs. distinctive brown and yellow reticulations, no blotches); unique brown dorsal coloration with large dark brown and green dorsal blotches (vs. dorsal coloration solid brown coloration with some darker brown spots).</p><p>The widespread Charadrahyla taeniopus is a highly variable species, and some of its pattern classes may be readily confused with C. nephila . However, C. nephila can be distinguished from C. taeniopus by smaller adult size, with adult males 53.3–61.9 mm (vs. up to 65.9); short, rounded snout in both adult male and female lateral profile (vs. rounded snout in lateral profile in females and subadults, elongated and acuminate in adult males); and lacking enlarged testes (vs. enlarged).</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila can be distinguished from C. altipotens by its unique brown dorsal coloration with large dark brown and green dorsal blotches, (vs. dorsal coloration brown or green, usually green, with no large dorsal blotches present); snout rounded in lateral profile (vs. accuminate) and axillary membrane absent (vs. present); nuptial excrescences present in adult males (vs. absent) and testes not enlarged (vs. enlarged).</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila can be distinguished from C. sakbah by its dorsal coloration with dark brown and green spots, giving a high-contrast dorsal patterning with an overall “ military camouflage look ” (vs. dorsal coloration brown, with brown or green blotching, pattern not high contrast); lack of axillary membrane (vs. present); lack of hypertrophied webbing on the foot of males (vs. present); lack of conical tubercles around vent (vs. present); lack of enlarged testes (vs. enlarged) and a dark ventral coloration throat, chest and abdomen is brown, with 1–7 immaculate white spots present on throat or chest (vs. white or pale cream abdomen, with no immaculate white spots).</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila can be distinguished from the two larger species in Guerrero, C. trux and C. tecuani, by lacking hypertrophied webbing on the foot of adult males (vs. present); rounded snout from a lateral profile (vs. acuminate or slightly acuminate); a dark ventral coloration throat, chest and abdomen is brown, with 1–7 immaculate white spots present on throat or chest (vs. yellow creamy brown abdomen, with no immaculate white spots).</p><p>Finally, C. nephila differs from the two smaller members of the genus ( C. pinorum and C. juanitae) by presenting an external tympanum (vs. lacking external tympanum); its larger size of 53.7–61.9 mm in males (vs. 27.7–35.8 mm); subarticular tubercles on fingers rounded, not bifid (vs. subarticular tubercles on fingers bifid); lack of axillary membrane (vs. presence of axillary membrane, albeit small); unique brown dorsal coloration with large dark brown and green dorsal blotches (vs. dorsal coloration pale brown with darker brown blotches, no green and no military “ camouflage ” appearance); cloacal tubercles indistinct (distinctive cloacal tubercles present both above and below cloacal opening).</p><p>Distribution and ecology.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila, as now understood, is endemic to Oaxaca, where it occurs at moderate to high elevations of the Sierra Mixe, Sierra Juárez, and Sierra Mazateca in the Sierra Madre Oriental region in the northern part of the state. It is predominately limited to windward slopes of the Atlantic drainage but may occur further inland as well where proper conditions exist such as in the Sierra Mazateca and adjoining portions of highlands in the states of Puebla and Veracruz. In the Sierra Mixe it is known from several localities at elevations from 1,660 –2,175 m asl in the vicinity of Totontepec Villa de Morelos and Santiago Zacatepec. In the Sierra Juárez it occurs along Hwy. 175 from as low as “ 1 km S of La Esperanza ” (1,665 m) up to “ 16.6 km S o f Vista Hermosa ” (2,150 m). It has been collected in the municipalities of Santiago Comaltepec and Ixtlán de Juárez. Finally, in the Sierra Mazateca it has only been collected along Hwy. 182 at elevations between 2,150 –2,180 m asl in the Municipio de Santa María Teopoxco. All localities are along steep cascading streams in montane upper montane cloud forest or very moist pine-oak woodland.</p><p>Referred specimens:</p><p>See Appendix 1.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/971B3C7E19345262A911D6469EE7F473	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Canseco-Márquez, Luis;Grünwald, Christoph I.;Reyes-Velasco, Jacobo;Montaño-Ruvalcaba, Carlos;Campbell, Jonathan A.	Canseco-Márquez, Luis, Grünwald, Christoph I., Reyes-Velasco, Jacobo, Montaño-Ruvalcaba, Carlos, Campbell, Jonathan A. (2026): A new treefrog of the genus Charadrahyla (Anura, Hylidae) from Oaxaca, Mexico, with comments on the conservation status and distribution of related species. Herpetozoa 39: 49-79, DOI: 10.3897/herpetozoa.39.e184954
15CCDCC6CB7857ADA717EE3C5B1D1458.text	15CCDCC6CB7857ADA717EE3C5B1D1458.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Charadrahyla viruela Canseco-Márquez & Grünwald & Reyes-Velasco & Montaño-Ruvalcaba & Campbell 2026	<div><p>Charadrahyla viruela sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 2, 3, 4 A, C, 5 A, B</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Duellman (1965): 164–167, in part.</p><p>Hyla chaneque — Duellman (1970): 440–445, 699, in part.</p><p>Hyla nephila — Mendelson and Campbell (1999): 80–86, in part.</p><p>Hyla nephila — Duellman (2001): 937–939, 1128, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Canseco-Márquez, Ramírez-González, González-Bernal (2017): 64–72, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla nephila — Jiménez-Arcos, Calzada-Arciniega, Alfaro-Juantorena, Vázquez-Reyes, Blair, Parra-Olea (2019): 371–385, in part.</p><p>Charadrahyla sp. — León-Gómez (2019): 1–79.</p><p>Proposed standard English name.</p><p>Tuberculate Cloudforest Treefrog</p><p>Proposed standard Spanish name.</p><p>Ranita Verrugosa de Árbol de Bosque Mesófilo</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>INIRENA 2950 ( CIG 1865). Subadult female (Fig. 2) from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.352&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6264" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.352/lat 17.6264)">Highway 175 between Vista Hermosa and La Esperanza</a>, 1.9 km ENE of La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (17.6264, -96.3520; 1,589 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, Mexico, collected on 06 May 2021 by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Iván Ahumada-Carrillo .</p><p>Paratypes</p><p>(n = 6, Fig. 3). MZFC 37345 (LCM 1700), an adult female, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.3654&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6236" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.3654/lat 17.6236)">Arroyo Tres Manantiales</a>, La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (17.6236, -96.3654, 1,688 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, Mexico, collected on 13 March 2017 by Luis Canseco-Márquez and Cynthia G. Ramírez-González ; MZFC 37344 (CIG 1172), an adult male from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.3656&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6229" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.3656/lat 17.6229)">Highway 175 at La Esperanza</a>, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (17.6229, -96.3656, 1,675 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, Mexico, collected on 25 July 2017 by Héctor Franz-Chávez, André J. Grünwald, and Christoph I. Grünwald ; MZFC 15974 –75, 2 adult males, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.3691&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6133" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.3691/lat 17.6133)">4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa, and approx. 1.2 km S of La Esperanza</a>, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (17.6133, -96.3691, 1,715 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, Mexico, collected on 19 June 2002 by Adrián Nieto-Montes de Oca ; CNAR 24808, an adult male, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.5468&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6801" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.5468/lat 17.6801)">Arroyo Tepetotutla, 6.6 km (airline) S of Santa Cruz Tepetotutla</a>, Municipio de San Felipe Usila (17.6801, -96.5468, 2,030 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, collected on 26 April 2009 by Rocío Ponce, Omar Hernández, and Aldo Carrillo ; INIRENA 2949 (CIG 1252), 1 adult female, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.3691&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6133" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.3691/lat 17.6133)">4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa, and approx. 1.2 km S of La Esperanza</a>, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (17.6133, -96.3691, 1,715 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, Mexico, collected on 24 July 2017 by Héctor Franz-Chávez, André J. Grünwald, and Christoph I. Grünwald ; INIRENA 2948 (CIG 2610), 1 adult male, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-96.3691&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=17.6133" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -96.3691/lat 17.6133)">4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa, and approx. 1.2 km S of La Esperanza</a>, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (17.6133, -96.3691, 1,715 m asl; datum = WGS 84), Oaxaca, Mexico, collected on 17 August 2025 by Christoph I. Grünwald, Leonardo M. Martínez-Campos, Jonathan D. Wedow, Brandon T. La Forest, Oswaldo Corona-Garduño .</p><p>Referred specimens.</p><p>MEXICO: OAXACA: 8 km S of Yetla, Municipio de San Juan Bautista Valle Nacional (KU 86967); 9 km S of Yetla, Municipio de San Juan Bautista Valle Nacional (KU 64335); 10.5 km S of Valle Nacional, Municipio de San Juan Bautista Valle Nacional (KU 136651, KU 136655); 4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec (KU 86966).</p><p>MZFC 37344 from approx. 1.2 km S of La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec, Oaxaca; MZFC 37345 from Arroyo Tres Manantiales, La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec, Oaxaca (A, B); MZFC 15974 from 4.2 km S Vista Hermosa on Hwy 175, ca 1.2 km S La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec, Oaxaca (C, D); MZFC 15975 from 4.2 km S Vista Hermosa on Hwy 175, ca 1.2 km S La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec, Oaxaca (E, F); CNAR 24808 from Arroyo Tepetotutla, 6.6 km (airline) S of Santa Cruz Tepetotutla, Municipio de San Felipe Usila, Oaxaca (G, H); INIRENA 2949 from 4.2 km S Vista Hermosa on Hwy 175, ca 1.2 km S La Esperanza, Municipio de Santiago Comaltepec, Oaxaca (I, J).</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A moderately sized Charadrahyla (males 53.3–61.8 mm, females to at least 76.8 mm) with a distinctly short snout; extensively tuberculate dorsum; and a unique emerald green dorsal coloration. The dorsal patterning consists of large, dark, military green dorsal blotches, with even darker green outlines and pale green interiors, which in turn are covered by dark green spots on the pale interiors. Some tan blotching is present dorso-laterally. The numerous dorsal tubercles are reddish-brown or tan, colored distinctly from the dorsal ground coloration surrounding them. The overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ mossy ” appearance. The iris is golden, heavily reticulated with black, giving a “ starry-eyed ” appearance. This species can be distinguished from all other recognized species of Charadrahyla by the combination of the following characters: presence of tuberculate dorsal skin; lack of a rostral keel; lack of axillary membrane; lack of hypertrophied webbing between first and second toe; lack of conical tubercles on either side of cloacal opening; and the distinctively reticulate “ starry-eyed ” iris. Other identifying characteristics include: snout short in both adult males and females; snout truncate in both dorsal and lateral profiles; nostrils flared, protruding; distinctive white or pale cream blotch on upper lip, located posterior to the eye; subarticular tubercles on some of the fingers distinctly bifid (which fingers varies from specimen to specimen); finger disks pale yellow or cream in coloration, distinctly paler than the pale dorsal coloration of hands; noticeable sexual dimorphism in finger disc size, females with much larger discs; ventral coloration off-white or cream, with no immaculate white spots present on chest; throat coloration cream with large, faded, tan blotches on throat, blotches often squarish in shape; and lateral blotches which are distinct, regular, well defined and highly contrasting compared to other blotches on dorsum. Comparisons between the different species of Charadrahyla are given in Table 1.</p><p>Comparisons.</p><p>Phenotypically this species appears to be most similar to C. nephila and C. chaneque, the former occurring in sympatry or near sympatry at moderate elevations in the Sierra Juárez of northern Oaxaca. Charadrahyla viruela differs from C. nephila (Comparisons in Fig. 4; characters of C. nephila in parenthesis) by possessing tuberculate skin on the entire dorsum (vs. smooth dorsal skin); shorter snout, which is truncate in lateral profile (vs. longer snout, which is rounded in lateral profile); flared nostrils (vs. nostrils not flared); subarticular tubercles on some fingers distinctly bifid (vs. subarticular tubercles rounded); sexual dimorphism in finger-disc size (vs. finger discs same size in both sexes); dorsal ground coloration emerald green, with large dark military green dorsal blotches (vs. dorsal ground coloration brown with large dark brown dorsal blotches); dark dorsal blotches consist of paler green interiors and darker green outlines, and dark green spots on the pale interior (vs. dark brown dorsal blotches which are varyingly sprinkled with green iridophores, and on some individuals iridophores combine to form large areas of green coloration on the large brown dorsal blotches); numerous dorsal tubercles are reddish-brown or tan (vs. dorsal tubercles absent, thus giving dorsal ground coloration a clean look); the overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ mossy ” appearance (vs. the overall combination of the dorsal patterning gives the frog a “ military camouflage ” appearance); distinctive white or whitish-yellow blotch on upper lip posterior to eye (vs. no distinctive white blotch on upper lip); iris golden, with heavy black reticulations, giving it a starry appearance (vs. iris solid copper coloration); large tan blotches on throat (vs. brown throat with no dark blotching, occasional white spot present on throat or chest) and lateral blotches which are distinct, regular, well defined and highly contrasting compared to other blotches on dorsum (vs. highly contrasting lateral blotches absent).</p><p>Charadrahyla viruela differs from C. chaneque as follows: always possessing tuberculate dorsal skin (vs. dorsal skin smooth or slightly tuberculate); dorsal tubercles reddish brown (vs. dorsal tubercles yellow, tan or brown but never reddish); dorsal ground coloration emerald green, with large dark military green dorsal blotches (vs. dorsal ground coloration tan to pale brown, with larger dark brown dorsal blotches); dark green dorsal blotches consist of paler green interiors and darker green outlines, and dark green spots on the pale interior (vs. dark dorsal blotches which for the most part lack green iridophores); numerous dorsal tubercles are reddish-brown or tan (vs. dorsal tubercles same color as skin around them, not reddish); green iridophores not widespread on dorsal ground coloration (vs. green iridophores widespread on dorsal ground coloration, giving some specimens a greenish appearance); the overall combination of the dorsal coloration and patterning gives the frog a “ mossy ” appearance (vs. overall dorsal coloration pale with dark blotches, much cleaner than in C. viruela); snout truncate in lateral profile (vs. bluntly rounded); subarticular tubercles on some fingers distinctly bifid (vs. large and rounded, none bifid). Comparisons between C. viruela, C. nephila and C. chaneque are given in Table 2.</p><p>Charadrahyla viruela can be distinguished from the sympatric C. esperancensis by its tuberculate skin (vs. smooth), much shorter snout, truncate from a lateral profile (vs. longer snout, protruding in lateral profile), lack of a rostral keel (vs. distinct rostral keel present), finger discs pale yellowish, brighter than pale coloration on hands (vs. finger discs same color as pale portions of hands), iris golden with black reticulation, giving starry-eyed appearance (vs. iris solid brown with no dark patterning), presence of large regular blotches on the lateral flanks and lack of yellow reticulation (vs. distinctive brown and yellow reticulations, no rectangular blotches on dorsolateral surfaces), distinct white blotch up upper lip posterior to eye (vs. upper lip unmarked, with no distinctive pale blotches); unique emerald green dorsal coloration with dark green dorsal blotches, extensive emerald green iridophores, dark green spotting on iridophores, and reddish-brown dorsal tubercles, the combination of which gives the frog an overall “ mossy appearance ” (vs. dorsal coloration solid brown coloration with some darker brown spots); and by the presence large, dark, squarish blotches present on throat (vs. dark reticulations present on throat, with no large blotches).</p><p>The widespread Charadrahyla taeniopus is a highly variable species, and some of its pattern classes present a similar dorsal coloration with an overall “ mossy ” appearance as in C. viruela . However, C. viruela can be distinguished from C. taeniopus by being a much smaller frog, with adult males 53.3–61.8 mm (vs. up to 65.9); with tuberculate dorsal skin (vs. smooth); short, truncate snout in both adult male and female lateral profile (vs. rounded snout in lateral profile in females and subadults, elongated and acuminate in adult males); subarticular tubercles on some fingers bifid (vs. rounded or conical, not bifid); presence of the distinct white blotch on the upper lip (vs. no distinctive white blotch on lip); and the presence of cloacal tubercles (vs. absent).</p><p>From the four large species of Charadrahyla from the Sierra Madre del Sur ( C. altipotens, C. tecuani, C. trux, and C. sakbah), C. viruela can be easily distinguished by its much smaller adult size not exceeding 61.8 mm in males (vs. larger than 55.3 mm, C. tecuani being the smallest of the four, usually males above 60.0 mm); tuberculate dorsal skin (vs. smooth, and slightly tuberculate in C. tecuani); short, truncate snout (vs. longer snout, slightly protruding in males); iris golden with black reticulation, with starry appearance (vs. iris with thin black lines, no reticulations and not “ starry ” in appearance); distinct white spot on upper lip posterior to eye (vs. no distinct white spot on lip); unique emerald green dorsal coloration with dark green dorsal blotches, extensive emerald green iridophores, dark green spotting on iridophores, and reddish-brown dorsal tubercles, the combination of which gives the frog an overall “ mossy appearance ” (vs. dorsal coloration variable, but not emerald green with an overall mossy appearance); it furthermore can be distinguished from C. sakbah, C. tecuani, and C. trux by lack of hypertrophied tissue between the first and second toes (vs. present in males of those species).</p><p>Finally, C. viruela differs from the two smaller members of the genus ( C. pinorum and C. juanitae) by presenting an external tympanum (vs. lacking external tympanum); its larger size of males 53.3–61.8 mm (vs. 27.7–35.8 mm); distinctly tuberculate dorsum (vs. smooth dorsum); lack of axillary membrane (vs. presence of axillary membrane, albeit small); pale yellow finger discs on hands which are brighter than pale portions of hands (vs. finger disks same color as pale portions of hands); iris golden with dark reticulations, giving starry-eyed appearance (vs. iris pale brown with thin black lines, no starry-eyed appearance); unique emerald green dorsal coloration with dark green dorsal blotches, extensive emerald green iridophores, dark green spotting on iridophores, and reddish-brown dorsal tubercles, the combination of which gives the frog an overall “ mossy appearance ” (vs. dorsal coloration pale brown with darker brown blotches, not emerald green with an overall “ mossy ” appearance); throat with large, squarish, brown blotches (vs. throat pale, unmarked, with no dark blotches); presence of distinct, highly contrasting dorsolateral blotches (vs. no distinct, high contrast dorsolateral blotches); cloacal tubercles indistinct (distinctive cloacal tubercles present both above and below cloacal opening). It is noteworthy that these two smaller species are the only species within Charadrahyla that share bifid subarticular tubercles (on the third and fourth fingers) and C. pinorum is the only other species of the genus with a characteristic, distinct, white spot on the upper lip posterior to the eye.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Subadult female, relatively large (51.5 mm SVL); head slightly wider (18.3 mm) than long (17.8 mm), top of head flat; head as wide as body; HL / SVL ratio 0.34; nostrils protuberant, sub-oval, directed diagonally; snout truncate in dorsal profile with no distinct dorsal rostral keel; snout short and truncate in both dorsal and lateral profiles, slightly sub-rounded in lateral profile; tympanum indistinct, round, small, greatest width of tympanum 2.3 mm; distinct supratympanic fold from eye, above tympanum and down to above arm insertion, barely covering upper edge of tympanum; canthus moderately angular; loreal region concave; lips moderate and not flared; greatest diameter of eye 5.7 mm; tympanum width to eye-diameter 0.40; eyelid width 4.3 mm, approximately 40 % of the IOD; HaL 19.1 mm; fingers long, 3 FL 12.8 mm, 4 FL 9.7 mm, 3 FL / SVL ratio 0.24; finger lengths 1 &lt;4 &lt;2 &lt;3; fingers moderately webbed, hand webbing formula: I 2–2 ½ II 1 ½ – 2 III 1 ¾ – 2 IV; finger discs large, 3 FPW 3.2 mm, 3 FPW / 3 FW ratio 2.7; 4 FPW 3.1 mm, 4 FPW / 4 FW ratio 1.8, 4 FPW / TW ratio 2.3; subarticular tubercles on fingers large, tubercle on first finger oval, slightly bifid, tubercle on second finger rounded, and tubercles on third and fourth fingers bifid; indistinct supernumerary pustules rounded; no distinct palmar tubercle, rather numerous small tubercles present on palm; no dermal fold on wrist; enlarged tubercles on ventrolateral edge of forearm in row, interrupted, not forming a continuous fold, 5 tubercles on left arm and 6 on right arm; there is no axillary membrane; FL 23.8, toes long, 3 TL 16.8 mm, 4 TL 20.1 mm, 4 TL / SVL ratio 0.39; toe lengths 1 &lt;2 &lt;5 &lt;3 &lt;4; toes fully webbed, webbing not hyper-trophied, foot webbing formula: I 1 - – 1 II 1–1 III 1 –1 ½ IV 1 ½ – 2 V; toe discs large, 4 TPW 2.8 mm, 4 TPW / 4 TW ratio 2.15; toe subarticular tubercles moderately large, round, not bifid: indistinct supernumerary pustules rounded; inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, oval; outer metatarsal tubercle indistinct, not noticeably larger than surrounding tubercles; tarsal fold distinct; a row of slightly raised tubercles on tarsus; tibio-tarsal articulation extends to past snout; cloacal opening directed posteroventrally at mid-level of thighs; cloacal sheath moderately long, grooved medially; no transverse fold above cloacal opening; no enlarged tubercles around vent. Skin on dorsum distinctly tuberculate; lateral skin smooth but slightly shagreen; skin on throat smooth, ventral skin of body and upper thighs granular; ventral skin on arms, lower thighs, tibia and tarsus smooth. The tongue is cordiform, notched posteriorly, and barely free posteriorly. Dentigerous processes of prevomers six on each process; large and posteromedially inclined between two moderate-sized ovoid choanae. Pupil horizontal. We have included illustrations of the ventral surface of the hand (Fig. 6 A) and the foot (Fig. 6 B) of the holotype.</p><p>In life, holotype with emerald-green dorsal coloration on dorsal surfaces of the head back, arms, and legs. Numerous dark green blotches were present on the head and back, these blotches a darker green than the emerald-green ground coloration and outlined in dark brown. Numerous dorsal tubercles were reddish-brown when present on the emerald-green dorsal ground coloration, or dark brown when present on the dark green dorsal blotches. This dorsal coloration creates an overall mossy-like appearance. Top of head emerald green, with numerous dark green blotches outlined in dark brown, and tubercles reddish brown. A continuous line of reddish-brown coloration stretches from the naris, along the canthus rostralis, continues posteriorly along the eyelids and along the upper half of the supratympanic fold, where it fades to pale tan with less reddish undertones. No interorbital bar present. Anterior portion of lip with reddish brown ground coloration and dark brown spots that have a dark green center. Lip posterior to eye with characteristic white blotch, paler than whitish ground coloration on flanks. Tympanum brown, lower portion of supratympanic fold dark brown. Iris golden with black reticulations which gave it a characteristic “ starry-eyed ” appearance. Flanks whitish, 5–6 dark brown blotches with dark green centers. Hands and feet brown with darker brown banding, finger discs were a characteristic pale-yellow coloration in life. Throat and ventral surfaces of abdomen whitish cream, with tan blotches on the throat. Ventral colorations of arms, legs, hands and feet whitish.</p><p>Coloration in preservative is pale brown on dorsal surfaces of head, body, arms, and legs, slightly darker than body, whereas arms and legs slightly paler, and reddish, than body. Dark brown blotches present on dorsum and flanks, dark brown banding on arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, and toes. Dark brown dorsal blotches and barring not outlined in black. Dorsal surface of flanks pale cream to whitish ventrolaterally, with dark brown blotches. Distinctive pale blotch on upper lip posterior to eye whitish. Pale tan line from naris posterior to eyelids and upper supratympanic fold, lower supratympanic fold dark brown. Ventral surfaces of body uniform cream colored and unmarked, except on the throat, which is cream but covered by 10–11 large tan blotches. Ventral surfaces of arms, legs, hands, and feet cream and unmarked. Iris milky grey, pupil transparent (Figs 2 B – C).</p><p>Measurements of the holotype</p><p>(in millimeters): SVL 51.5, HL 17.8, HW 18.3, ED 5.7, ELW 4.3, IOD 10.7, TW 2.3, FeL 24.4, TiL 28.2, TaL 17.7, FL 23.8, HaL 19.1, FaL 15.1, UaL 10.0, END 4.3, IND 6.5, ETD 2.0, 1 FL 7.5, 2 FL 10.2, 3 FPW 3.2, 3 FW 1.2, 3 FL 12.8, 4 FPW 3.1, 4 FW 1.7, 4 FL 9.7, 1 TL 6.9, 2 TL 9.2, 3 TL 16.8, 4 TPW 2.8, 4 TW 1.3, 4 TL 20.1, 5 TL 14.5.</p><p>Ratios of characters.</p><p>HL / SVL 0.35, HW / SVL 0.36, HL / HW 0.97, IOD / HW 0.58, ED / HW 0.31, TW / ED 0.40, TW / ETD 1.15, 3 FPW / 3 FW 2.67, 4 FPW / 4 FW 1.82, 4 TPW / 4 TW 2.15, HaL / SVL 0.37, TiL / SVL 0.55, FL / SVL 0.46.</p><p>Variation.</p><p>Morphological variation of C. viruela is presented in Table 3. Charadrahyla viruela does not appear to exhibit any sexual dimorphism in snout shape, or other proportions, other than that females seem to reach a larger size than males (76.8 mm vs. 53.5–61.8 mm SVL, respectively). The one sexual dimorphic proportion that we were able to find is that females appear to have larger finger discs than males, with third finger pad width 2.4–2.7 times the width of finger in females (vs. 1.7–2.3 times the width of the finger in males); and the fourth finger pad width 1.8–2.2 times the width of the finger in females (vs. 1.1–2.0; times the width of the finger in males). One adult male (MZFC 37344) has nuptial excrescences, composed of fine, brown spicules on an ossified, enlarged prepollex and vocal slits. The intensity of the dark blotches on the throat varies broadly in life, most individuals in life the tan blotches are readily discernable. These blotches fade after preservation, and may appear to be absent in some preserved specimen (MZFC 15974; KU 136655). The shape of subarticular tubercles varies from specimen to specimen, for example MZFC 37344 on both hands the subarticular tubercles on fingers 3 and 4 are bifid, the rest rounded; on MZFC 37345 on the left hand the subarticular tubercle on the third finger is slightly bifid, the rest rounded, but on right hand subarticular tubercles of fingers 2 and 3 are distinctly bifid.</p><p>Advertisement call.</p><p>The advertisement call of the males of this species has not been recorded and thus is not described here. However, the species does call, as one individual was collected and photographed while calling from a tree, 2.5 m above the stream 1.2 km S of La Esperanza, Oaxaca on 17 August 2025 (CIG 2610). The call was described as similar to C. chaneque and C. nephila (B. La Forest, pers. comm.)</p><p>Distribution and ecology.</p><p>Charadrahyla viruela appears to be endemic to moderate elevations on the northern slopes of the Sierra Juárez of northern Oaxaca (Fig. 7). This frog occurs at elevations between 600–1,725 m asl and has been collected in lower montane rainforest and lower montane cloud forest. There are at least three assemblages of cloud forest in the Sierra Juárez, including a lower montane cloud forest, an upper montane cloud forest and a cold high-elevation cloud forest. We have included a photo of the type-locality as an example of what the cloud forest looks like within the range (Fig. 8).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>From latin, viruela, meaning small pox, in reference to the extensive tubercles on the dorsum of this species.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Mendelson and Campbell (1999) designated 53 specimens as paratypes of C. nephila and referred 35 more specimens to that species. We examined photographs of 51 of the paratypes of C. nephila (KU 136660 and KU 136687 are not locatable at the collection and may be missing; A Motta &amp; G. Weatherman, pers. comm.), and we were able to refer two of these paratypes to C. viruela (KU 136651, 136655) and positively identify 40 paratypes as C. nephila (see Appendix 1). The remaining nine paratypes which were examined were not positively identifiable in photographs, either because they are juveniles, badly preserved, or show intermediate pattern in dorsal coloration; and unfortunately, no photographs are available showing the paratypes in life. It should be noted that most unidentifiable specimens originate from the locality listed as “ 4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa ”. Both C. nephila and C. viruela have been reported from the locality “ 4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa ”. Interestingly, J. Caldwell (pers. notes) reported this locality to be at 1,580 m asl and all the specimens collected by her at this locality are C. viruela, whereas W. Duellman (pers. notes) reports this locality to be at 1,800 m asl and the specimens collected by him are C. nephila . We have only collected C. viruela at this locality, and propose one of two scenarios may explain the confusion around this locality. It is possible that two different streams are referenced with this locality, and the confusion may stem from Caldwell referencing the Mestizo lumber camp as “ Vista Hermosa ” (17.6321, -96.3424 °) and Duellman referencing the Chinanteca village of La Esperanza as “ Vista Hermosa ” (17.6285, -96.3675 °). The other scenario is that both species occur at the same locality (parking spot), along the same stream, but one occurs at elevations below Highway 175 down towards the town, and the other occurs above Highway 175 up towards the summit. Different collectors may have decided to take different directions (downstream vs. upstream), and thus reported different elevations and found different species. It should be noted that every specimen examined by us that was collected at “ 4.2 km S of Vista Hermosa ” after 1990 is clearly identifiable as C. viruela . Of the 35 referenced specimens, we reviewed all 24 adult and juvenile specimens in photos; 11 are larva and we made no intent to identify those. Of the 24 specimens, three (KU 54335, 86966–67) are referrable to C. viruela based on the photographs, 17 are identifiable as C. nephila (see Appendix 1), and two are juveniles in bad states of preservation (UTA 3074 –75) and impossible to assign to a species from photographs. One specimen (KU 71126) from “ Arroyo Buena Vista ” at 6.5 km S of Vista Hermosa, Oaxaca has intermediate characters between both species and may be a hybrid. This specimen possesses an untuberculate dorsum and the immaculate white spots on the chest which are characteristic of C. nephila, but it also presents the brown squarish blotches on the throat and the large lateral blotch pattern of C. viruela . These species are readily diagnosable in life, but unfortunately there are no photos of these specimens in life available.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/15CCDCC6CB7857ADA717EE3C5B1D1458	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Canseco-Márquez, Luis;Grünwald, Christoph I.;Reyes-Velasco, Jacobo;Montaño-Ruvalcaba, Carlos;Campbell, Jonathan A.	Canseco-Márquez, Luis, Grünwald, Christoph I., Reyes-Velasco, Jacobo, Montaño-Ruvalcaba, Carlos, Campbell, Jonathan A. (2026): A new treefrog of the genus Charadrahyla (Anura, Hylidae) from Oaxaca, Mexico, with comments on the conservation status and distribution of related species. Herpetozoa 39: 49-79, DOI: 10.3897/herpetozoa.39.e184954
