FAMILY BUFONIDAE Gray 1825, 214

(4 genera, 10 species, 1 endemic genus, 3 endemic species). Pyron & Wiens (2011) placed Incilius and Rhinella, all but two of the bufonid genera occurring in Honduras, in the huge genus Bufo Garsault 1764 [plate 672]. Fouquette & Dubois (2014) recognized Incilius and Rhinella as subgenera of Bufo . Solís et al. (2014), without comment, continued to recognize Incilius and Rhinella as valid genera. I also continue to recognize those two genera, not for having new data, but for the convenience of grouping morphologically similar species (but see criticism by Hillis 2014 for recognizing Incilius and Rhinella as valid genera). Also, Pramuk & Lehr (2005) placed the Honduran endemic genus Atelophryniscus in the synonymy of Bufo (equals Rhinella herein), because of the superficial resemblance of its adult and tadpole to those of R. veraguensis (O. Schmidt 1857 [p. 13]) of southeastern Peru and adjacent Bolivia. It defies all biogeographical logic to think that a small, montane bufonid from a small endemic hotspot in north-central Honduras (see McCranie in McCranie & Wilson 2002 and Townsend et al. 2012) can be most closely related to a montane bufonid that occurs thousands of miles away in South America. Köhler (2011) also expressed a similar view and continued to recognize Atelophryniscus as a valid genus. Solís et al. (2014) also continued to recognize Atelophryniscus, but without comment.

Atelophryniscus (E) McCranie, Wilson & Williams 1989, 2 (1 endemic species) Atelophryniscus chrysophorus (E) McCranie, Wilson & Williams, 1989, 3

Incilius Cope 1863, 50 (7 species, 2 endemic species)

Incilius campbelli (Mendelson 1994, 4)

Incilius coccifer (Cope 1866, 130). See comments for I. ibarrai and I. leucomyos for this complex of toads that represents several unnamed species in addition to specimens that have been misidentified in some recent literature.

Incilius ibarrai (Stuart 1954, 162). McCranie (2009) and elsewhere, did not recognize this as a valid species within the I. complex in Honduras simply because the montane Honduran populations assigned to I. ibarrai by Mendelson et al. (2005) do not fit their morphological diagnosis of that species. Mendelson et al. (2005, 13) stated that I. ibarrai is “A large species of Bufo (males to 82.4 mm SVL [snout-vent length]; females to 94.4 mm SVL).” The montane southwestern Honduran populations assigned to I. ibarrai by Mendelson et al. (2005) are among the smallest toads of the I. coccifer complex in Honduras, with 10 adult males averaging 48.9 mm SVL and ten adult females averaging 61.8 mm SVL (McCranie in McCranie & Wilson 2002). Recent collections of additional populations of these montane southwestern Honduran toads confirm they represent a small species in the I. coccifer complex . Thus, I remain to have problems assigning those populations of small toads to the “large” toad species I. ibarrai . At the same time, the populations of “large” toads from the Pacific lowlands of southern Honduras were assigned to the “small” species I. coccifer by Mendelson et al. (2005). Those southern toads are known to reach 68.8 mm SVL in males and 99.2 mm SVL in females (pers. observ.). Recent collections of those southern toads from additional localities confirm their large size. Mendelson et al. (2011) continued to call the small montane southwestern Honduran toads I. ibarrai, without mention of their small sizes, but did mention the possibility that those populations might represent an undescribed species based on molecular data. They also continued to classify the large southern Honduran populations as the small I. coccifer . A fundamental requirement of taxonomic conclusions is that the data needs to match that of the diagnosis. A review of the I. coccifer complex is planned using both morphological and molecular data sets. Either new species need to be proposed for the montane southwestern and southern Pacific Honduran population, or expanded definitions of both I. ibarrai and I. coccifer are needed. Mendelson et al. (2011, 19), still not mentioning the size differences McCranie had previously pointed out (both for their definitions of I. ibarrai and I. coccifer) stated that McCranie and coworkers “brought no data to dispute” the Mendelson et al. (2005) assignment of the small-sized montane southwestern Honduran toads to the large I. ibarrai and large Honduran southern toads to the small I. coccifer .

Incilius leucomyos (E) (McCranie & Wilson 2000, 22). The toad from northeastern Honduras assigned to I. leucomyos by Mendelson et al. (2011) differs significantly from that species in several external morphological characters. Thus, those populations (including adjacent Nicaragua populations) likely represent an undescribed species. Mendelson et al. (2011, 18–19) discussed at length that the “misidentification” of that northeastern Honduran specimen by previous workers resulted in their recovering a paraphyletic I. valliceps . The Mendelson et al. (2011) apparent misidentification of that specimen further confuses the issue.

Incilius luetkenii (Boulenger 1891, 455)

Incilius porteri (E) (Mendelson, Williams, Sheil & Mulcahy 2005, 17). McCranie (2009) and McCranie & Castañeda (2007) did not recognize this nominal form as a valid species because of the basic problems with I. ibarrai and I. coccifer discussed above. The Mendelson et al. (2005, 2011) genetic data supports recognition of I. porteri, but those authors have yet to provide convincing morphological data to support their genetic data.

Incilius valliceps (Wiegmann 1833, col. 657)

Rhaebo Cope 1862, 358 (1 species)

Rhaebo haematiticus (Cope 1862, 157)

Rhinella Fitzinger 1826, 39 (1 species)

Rhinella marina (Linnaeus 1758, 211)