Hylomantis Peters, 1873

FAIVOVICH, JULIÁN, HADDAD, CÉLIO F. B., GARCIA, PAULO C. A., FROST, DARREL R., CAMPBELL, JONATHAN A. & WHEELER, WARD C., 2005, Systematic Review Of The Frog Family Hylidae, With Special Reference To Hylinae: Phylogenetic Analysis And Taxonomic Revision, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2005 (294), pp. 1-240 : 114-115

Hylomantis Peters , ‘‘1872’’ [1873]

TYPE SPECIES: Hylomantis aspera Peters , ‘‘1872’’ [1873], by monotypy.

DIAGNOSIS: The monophyly of this group is supported by 38 transformations in mitochondrial protein and ribosomal genes. See appendix 5 for a complete list of these molecular synapomorphies. We are not aware of any morphological synapomorphy supporting this genus.

COMMENTS: Only Phyllomedusa lemur of the P. buckleyi group was included in the analysis, and it obtains as the sister group of our exemplar of Hylomantis , H. granulosa , but with a Bremer support value of 3. While it is evident that this group should be excluded from Phyllomedusa , the possible taxonomic actions (whether to create a new genus or to include it in Hylomantis ) deserve further discussion. From the definition of the group given by Cannatella (1980), the only character state that could be considered a synapomorphy is the bright orange flanks in life. The other character states included by Cannatella (1980) are either likely symplesiomorphies (absence of the slip of the m. depressor mandibulae originating from the dorsal fascia at the level of the m. dorsalis scapulae; hands and feet less than one­fourth webbed; parotoid gland not differentiated; palpebrum unpigmented; frontoparietal fontanelle exposed, large, and oval; oral discs of larvae lacking marginal papillae anteriorly) or character states whose taxonomic distribution in Phyllomedusinae makes their polarity unclear (lack of spots or pattern on flanks; cream or white iris; size; dorsum uniformly green by day; presence or absence of calcars). Like the P. buckleyi group, the two species included in Hylomantis by Cruz (1990) also lack spots or pattern on flanks, which are light yellow (instead of bright orange). At this point, we have no evidence regarding the polarity of these two character states; consequently, we consider that the morphological evidence of monophyly of the P. buckleyi group is weak. Considering that we could not test the monophyly of the P. buckleyi group, and that available morpho­ logical evidence for its monophyly is not compelling, provisionally, and with the caveat that the molecular support for this grouping is rather weak, we prefer to include all species of this group in Hylomantis , where we recognize them as a separate species group, pending a rigorous test of its monophyly when a denser taxon sampling becomes available.

CONTENTS: Eight species placed in two species groups.