Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815

Taucce, Pedro P. G., Costa-Campos, Carlos Eduardo, Carvalho, Thiago R. & Michalski, Fernanda, 2022, Anurans (Amphibia: Anura) of the Brazilian state of Amapá, eastern Amazonia: species diversity and knowledge gaps, European Journal of Taxonomy 836, pp. 96-130 : 112-114

Family Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815

The population previously identified as Boana multifasciata (Günther, 1859) from the Guiana Shield is currently known to be an unnamed candidate species, inhabiting the Guianas and the Brazilian states of Roraima, Pará and Amapá ( Fouquet et al. 2021c) based only on molecular data. We added the molecularbased records from Vacher et al. (2020) and Fouquet et al. (2021c) corresponding to this taxon, as well as the literature records with overall morphology more similar to B. multifasciata . We decided to keep using this name for Amapá populations until more studies clarify their taxonomic status. In the species group of B. semilineata , two species are known to occur in Amapá, Boana diabolica Fouquet, Martinez, Zeidler, Courtois, Gaucher, Blanc, Lima, Souza, Rodrigues & Kok, 2016 and an unnamed species, B. aff. semilineata ( Fouquet et al. 2016) . Besides these two names, records in Amapá have also been identified as Boana geographica (Spix, 1824) ( Lima 2008; Pereira-Júnior et al. 2013; Benício & Lima 2017; Ferreira-Lima et al. 2017) and B. aff. geographica ( Lima 2006b) . These records could belong either to B. diabolica or B. aff. semilineata , so we chose to consider in our list only the molecular confirmed records ( Fouquet et al. 2016; Vacher et al. 2020).

Dendropsophus counani Fouquet, Orrico, Ernst, Blanc, Martinez, Vacher, Rodrigues, Ouboter, Jairam & Ron, 2015 has long been confused with Dendropsophus brevifrons (Duellman & Crump, 1974) (Fouquet et al. 2015) , and we consider the record of D. brevifrons ( Benício & Lima 2017) to be D. counani . Dendropsophus minusculus (Rivero, 1971) is morphologically similar to Dendropsophus branneri (Cochran, 1948) , with which D. minusculus has been historically confused ( Zina et al. 2014). Dendropsophus minusculus is distributed in northern Brazil and the Guiana Shield, mainly within Amazonia, with some sparse records in northeastern Brazil in the states of Maranhão, Piauí, Ceará, and an isolated record from Bahia, whereas D. branneri inhabits the Atlantic Forest of southeastern and northeastern Brazil ( Zina et al. 2014; Frost 2022). Both species seem to have a contact zone in northeastern Brazil, but the state of Amapá is within the distribution range of D. minusculus . Thus, we consider the records of D. branneri ( Lima 2006a, 2006b) to be D. minusculus . Orrico et al. (2021) has recently defined the populations with the overall morphology like D. minutus (Peters, 1872) in the Guiana Shield as D. amicorum , and we agreed with them regarding the records of Amapá. It is important to note that, even though the IUCN status of the species is Critically Endangered (CR, IUCN 2022), it was evaluated when it was known only from the type localiy, and the conservation status of D. amicorum is likely to change during next evaluations. Dendropsophus walfordi (Bokermann, 1962) and Dendropsophus nanus (Boulenger, 1889) are also very similar to each other, being even considered as representing a single species ( Lutz 1973). Despite being currently considered as separate species ( Langone & Basso 1987), these are morphologically and genetically closely related to each other, with D. walfordi being frequently recovered within D. nanus , leaving it paraphyletic ( Fouquet et al. 2011; Medeiros et al. 2013; Orrico et al. 2021). Recently, Seger et al. (2021) evaluated the D. nanus - D. walfordi complex with a broad molecular study and defined that D. nanus is the lineage inhabiting Paraguay, northeastern Argentina, and southern Brazil, whereas D. walfordi is the single lineage inhabiting Amazonia. Thus, we decided to adopt the name D. walfordi to records from both species within the state of Amapá. Benício & Lima (2017) recorded Dendropsophus microcephalus (Cope, 1886) and Dendropsophus parviceps (Boulanger, 1882) in the Amapá National Forest. The first species is distributed from southern Mexico to northern South America ( Frost 2022) but, although the specimens east of Venezuela have been called D. microcephalus due to morphological similarities, they probably correspond to other species, such as D. minusculus or even Dendropsophus gaucheri ( Lescure & Marty, 2000) (V.G.D. Orrico, pers. comm.). Although Benício & Lima (2017) cited both D. minusculus and D. microcephalus , there are no voucher specimens cited in their study. Thus, we decided to remove the record of D. microcephalus from the list until more data from the Amapá National Forest is available to help clarifying the taxonomic status of this population. Moreover, we considered the record of D. microcephalus from Queiroz et al. (2011) as D. minusculus . Dendropsophus parviceps is currently known from Ecuador, Colombia, and the Brazilian state of Amazonas, with related populations from Brazilian states of Acre and Rondônia being recently described as Dendropsophus kamagarini Rivadeneira, Venegas & Ron, 2018 ( Rivadeneira et al. 2018). Besides D. parviceps, Benício & Lima (2017) found another species from the group of D. parviceps (sensu Orrico et al. 2021) in the Amapá National Forest, D. brevifrons (that we consider D. counani , see above). As in the previous case concerning D. microcephalus and D. minusculus , we also decided to remove D. parviceps from our list and consider the record as D. counani until additional data is available. The record of Lysapsus laevis (Parker, 1935) from Araújo & Costa-Campos (2015) (as Pseudis laevis ) is actually Lysapsus bolivianus (Gallardo, 1961) (Costa-Campos, pers. comm.).

There are two species of the group of Osteocephalus buckleyi (sensu Jüngfer et al. 2013) cited for Amapá, O. buckleyi (Boulenger, 1882) ( Lima 2008; Queiroz et al. 2011) and O. cabrerai (Cochran & Goin, 1970) ( Lima 2006b, 2008; Pedroso-Santos et al. 2019). Dewynter et al. (2019) also found two species of the group of O. buckleyi in French Guiana, both reaching the border with Amapá: O. cabrerai and Osteocephalus helenae (Ruthven, 1919) . Vacher et al. (2020) also adopted these two species names in their molecular survey for populations of Osteocephalus from Amapá and French Guiana. Even though the two species were recovered as a single taxonomic entity in their species delimitation analysis, they applied both names to the clade formed by two lineages of Osteocephalus that appear to be morphologically diagnosable to each other and coexist in the Eastern Guiana Shield (see Dewynter et al. 2016). Thus, we consider both O. cabrerai and O. helenae in our list. We did not have access to the voucher specimens of most studies and most of the known previous records do not provide photographs of species of Osteocephalus . As such, we could not be precise about the locations where each of the two species occurs in Amapá. One exception is at Reserva Extrativista Municipal Beija-Flor-Brilho-deFogo, central part of Amapá, from where Pedroso-Santos et al. provided a picture of what they identified as O. cabrerai ( Pedroso-Santos et al. 2019: 801, fig. 1.11) and it corresponds to the same morphotype Dewynter et al. (2016) consider O. cabrerai .

Scinax garbei (Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926) is a widespread species of the group of S. rostratus distributed throughout the middle and upper Amazon Basin in Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil ( Faivovich et al. 2005; Frost 2022). Although there are records of S. garbei from Amapá (FerreiraLima et al. 2017; Lima 2018; Silva e Silva & Costa-Campos 2018), there is molecular evidence of only Scinax jolyi Lescure & Marty, 2000 inhabiting Amapá ( Vacher et al. 2020). Due to the taxonomic complexity of S. garbei ( Ron et al. 2018) and the overall morphological similarity between the two species, we consider more plausible that the records of S. garbei in Amapá are indeed S. jolyi . Scinax cruentomma (Duelmann, 1972) is mainly distributed in western Amazonia, but there are a few additional records in other Amazonian regions ( Carvalho et al. 2015: fig. 3). Those authors conducted acoustic comparisons between populations from the type locality (Santa Cecilia, Ecuador), the upper Negro River (Amazonas, Brazil), and French Guiana (data derived from Lescure & Marty 2000) and found that the high variation in some of the analyzed call traits indicate that the French Guiana population could represent another, potentially unnamed, species. Therefore, we provisionally assign the Amapá population to S. cf. cruentomma until the taxonomic status of the populations of Scinax bearing a horizontal red streak on the iris from the Eastern Guiana Shield is addressed.