Hyalinobatrachium mesai

Castroviejo-Fisher, Santiago, Vilà, Carles, Ayarzagüena, José, Blanc, Michel & Ernst, Raffael, 2011, Species diversity of Hyalinobatrachium glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) from the Guiana Shield, with the description of two new species, Zootaxa 3132, pp. 1-55 : 26-27

Hyalinobatrachium mesai

Barrio-Amorós and Brewer-Carías, 2008: 18.

Type locality. Southern slope of Sarisariñama-tepui (04°25’ N, 64°7’ W; 420 m), Bolívar, Venezuela.

Diagnosis. (1) Dentigerous processes on vomer and vomerine teeth absent; (2) snout truncate in dorsal and lateral view; (3) tympanum covered by skin, not visible through skin; (4) dorsal skin shagreened in life and preservative; (5) presence of small cloacal enameled warts; (6) parietal peritoneum transparent, pericardium transparent, visceral and hepatic peritonea white, all other peritonea presumably transparent (not dissected); (7) liver bulbous; (8) humeral spine absent; (9) webbing formula of fingers III 2 1/3 – 2+ IV; (10) webbing formula of toes I 1 – 2 2/3 II 1 – 2 1/2 III 1 – 2 IV 2 – 1 V; (11) low and enameled ulnar and tarsal folds; (12) nuptial pad inconspicuous, prepollex not evident from external view; (13) Finger I longer Finger II; (14) eye diameter larger than width of disc on Finger III; (15) coloration in life: dorsum light green with big irregular darker green patches, black dots, and minute melanophores, bones green; (16) coloration in preservative: cream with big irregular white patches and black dots; (17) iris white with black flecks; (18) minute melanophores not extending throughout fingers and toes except base of Finger IV and Toe V; in life, tip of fingers and toes unknown; (19) advertisement call composed by one to two notes, each lasting 0.075 s, dominant frequency of 4414.5 Hz, one male observed to call from the upper side of a leave; (20) fighting behavior unknown; (21) egg clutches unknown, parental care unknown; (22) tadpole unknown; (23) adult size 20.0 mm in one male, unknown in females.

Comparisons. This species can only be differentiated from Hyalinobatrachium iaspidiense by the presence of white bones in the later (versus green in H. mesai ). All other characters compared are identical (see below for more details).

Remarks. This species is only known from the holotype, an adult male. Although the original description ( Barrio-Amorós & Brewer-Carías, 2008) listed seven differences between Hyalinobatrachium iaspidiense and H. mesai the authors did not directly compare it with material of H. iaspidiense but rather follow descriptions in the literature. We have identified descriptive lapses in their report of character states of H. iaspidiense and their comparison with those of H. mesai (in parentheses character states used by the authors): both species show low and enameled ulnar and tarsal folds ( H. iaspidiense has folds but not H. mesai ); as in most species of glassfrogs H. iaspidiense has a thenar tubercle, although low and difficult to appreciate (thenar tubercle absent in H. iaspidiense but present in H. mesai ); the ventral skin of H. iaspidiense is granular and not smooth, we did not observe differences with H. iaspidiense when we examined the holotype of H. mesai (ventral skin smooth in H. iaspidiense but areolate in H. mesai ); the canthus rostralis of both species is similar and we did not find differences that would suggest considering them different character states (well defined in H. iaspidiense not well defined in H. mesai ); webbing formula of toes is basically identical (toes approximately two-thirds webbed in H. mesai versus three-fourths in H. mesai ); we did not find differences in the shape of the choanae, which is approximately oval in both species (choanae trilobate in H. iaspidiense and oval in H. mesai ). Furthermore, the re-analysis of the recorded call revealed that it is identical to that of H. iaspidienses ( Fig. 2 E–G). The only consisted divergent character is color of bones in life specimens, which is white in H. iaspidiense but green in H. mesai . Although there is no record in the literature of intraspecific polymorphism of bone colors in Hyalinobatrachium , the fact that H. mesai is just known from a single specimen for which there are no ventral photographs in live (color of bones is lost in preservative) does not allow us to evaluate the validity of this character. Unfortunately, we could not amplify DNA from a tissue sample of the specimen. Thus and till more data are available, we consider H. mesai as a valid species but its status is pending revaluation.

Ecology and distribution. Only known from the type locality in the Venezuelan GS.

Figures

FIGURES 2. Comparative oscillograms and spectograms of advertisement calls of Hyalinobatrachium species from the Guiana Shield and H. fleischmanni: (A) H. fleischmanni from Panama, audio from Ibañez et al. (1999); (B) H. kawense sp. nov. from French Guiana, MNCN 44825; (C) H. cappellei Venezuela, MHNLS 17328; (D) H. cappellei French Guiana, audio from Marty and Gaucher (1999); (E) H. iaspidiense from Venezuela, MHNLS 13495; (F) H. iaspidiense from French Guiana, audio from Marty and Gaucher (1999); (G) H. mesai, holotype; (H) H. tricolor sp. nov. from type locality in French Guiana, uncollected specimen; (I) H. mondolfii from Venezuela, MHNLS 17120; (J) H. taylori from Venezuela, MHNLS 13496.