Rhinella gildae, Vaz-Silva & Maciel & Bastos & Pombal, 2015

Vaz-Silva, Wilian, Maciel, Natan M., Bastos, Rogério P. & Pombal, José P., 2015, Revealing Two New Species of the Rhinella margaritifera Species Group (Anura, Bufonidae): An Enigmatic Taxonomic Group of Neotropical Toads, Herpetologica 71 (3), pp. 212-222 : 216-220

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-14-00039
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7714000
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CA6FE97F-FFC9-FFEF-FB99-482FFA41155A
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Rhinella gildae
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Rhinella gildae View in CoL View at ENA sp. nov.

( Figs. 6–7 View FIG View FIG ) Holotype. — MNRJ 23838 View Materials , adult male, São Pedro da Água Branca municipality (approximately 05 ° 05̍S, 48 ° 19̍̍W; 150 m asl), State of Maranhão, Brazil, collected on 28 October 1998 by G. V. Andrade and J.D. Lima .

Paratype. — MNRJ 23837 , adult male, collected with the holotype .

Diagnosis. —A species of the R. margaritifera group as defined by Pramuk (2006) based on the presence of an expanded posterior ramus of the pterygoid. Rhinella gildae sp. nov. is distinguished from other members of this group by the following combination of characters: (1) SVL (range = 69.6–76.4 mm, in males); (2) preorbital, supraorbital, and parietal crests poorly developed; (3) in dorsal view, supratympanic crest poorly developed and not exceeding the angle of jaws; (4) presence of tubercles on the dorsolateral line; (5) tympanum evident; (6) snout mucronate in dorsal view and nearly acute in profile, with prominent nostrils; (7) absence or very small vertebral apophyses; (8) foot webbing poorly developed; and (9) parotoid gland welldelimited, with small and elliptical shape without a lateral line of tubercles.

Comparisons with other species. — Rhinella gildae sp. nov. differs from R. sebbeni sp. nov. by its larger size with SVL ranging 69.6–76.4 mm, in males (vs. 48.5–59.7 mm), cephalic crests poorly developed (vs. well-developed), parotoid gland with lateral line of tubercles absent (vs. present), in dorsal view supratympanic crest not exceeding the angle of jaws (vs. supratympanic crest on the limit or exceeding the angle of jaws). From R. margaritifera , this new species is distinguished by having a poorly developed cephalic crest (vs. hypertrophied cephalic crests), absence or very small vertebral apophyses (vs. presence), and presence of bony protrusion at the angle of jaws (vs. bony protrusion slightly evident; see Lavilla et al. 2013). From R. acutirostris and R. alata , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by the evident bony protrusion at the angle of jaws (vs. absence), and absence of tubercles on the lateral of parotoid gland (vs. presence), and larger size of males of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 35.3 mm in R. acutirostris , and 36.8 mm in R. alata ; see Thominot 1884; Lötters and Köhler 2000; Santos et al. 2015. Further, R. gildae sp. nov. is distinguished from R. acutirostris by the development of the cephalic crest (vs. undeveloped), and larger size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (35.3 mm; Lötters and Köhler 2000).

From R. proboscidea , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by the presence of a line of tubercles continuous along lateral body side (vs. poorly evident), snout lacking a developed proboscis (vs. developed proboscis), and nearly acute snout in lateral view (vs. pointed). From R. roqueana , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by the presence of a line of tubercles continuous along lateral body side (vs. absence), tympanum evident (vs. barely distinct), snout in lateral view nearly acute (vs. nearly vertical), in dorsal view mucronate (vs. truncated), and absence or very small vertebral apophyses (vs. presence; Melin 1941). This new species differs from R. dapsilis by the presence of a line of tubercles along the posterior border of the parotoid gland that continues along the lateral side of body (vs. absence), snout lacking a developed proboscis (vs. developed proboscis), skin on dorsum poorly granulose (vs. smooth), and a bony protrusion at the angle of the jaws (vs. poorly developed; Myers and Carvalho 1945). Rhinella gildae sp. nov. is distinguished from R. castaneotica by larger size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 30.9–36.8 mm), tympanum evident (vs. not evident), and skin on dorsum poorly granulose (vs. smooth; Caldwell 1991). From R. stanlaii , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by poorly developed cephalic crests (vs. hypertrophied), postorbital crest well-developed (vs. poorly developed), snout in lateral view nearly acute (vs. protruding) and, size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 39.1–54.1 mm; Lötters and Köhler 2000).

From R. sclerocephala , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by the absence or very small vertebral apophyses (vs. presence), snout mucronate in dorsal view (vs. truncated), foot webbing poorly developed (vs. developed), and size of males 69.6– 76.4 mm (vs. 55.4–67.3 mm; Mijares-Urrutia and Arends 2001). This new species differs from R. scitula by its skin on dorsum poorly granulose (vs. extremely granulose), elliptical parotoid gland (vs. globose), and size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 36.8–46.1 mm; Caramaschi and Niemeyer 2003). From R. hoogmoedi , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by having a dorsum with poorly granulose skin texture (vs. rugose), absence or very small vertebral apophyses (vs. presence in some specimens), and size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 39.4–52.1 mm; Caramaschi and Pombal 2006). From R. paraguaŋensis , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by its snout nearly acute in lateral view (vs. rounded), rostral keel at the tip of snout poorly developed (vs. developed), larger size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 42.3–52.6 mm), and skin on dorsum weakly granulose (vs. rugose; Ávila et al. 2010). From R. lescurei , this new species differs by snout being nearly acute in lateral view (vs. pointed), size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 30.2–38.9 mm), the supratympanic crest being well-developed (vs. poorly developed), and vestigial webbing in toes (vs. developed; Fouquet et al. 2007a). From R. magnussoni , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by the well-developed supratympanic crest (vs. poorly developed), larger size of males 69.6– 76.4 mm (vs. 36.0– 45.3 mm), line of tubercles absent along the parotoid gland (vs. present), snout nearly acute in lateral view (vs. pointed), snout mucronate in dorsal view (vs. pointed), and skin on dorsum weakly granulose (vs. rugose; Lima et al. 2007). From R. martŋi , R. gildae sp. nov. is distinguished by the absence or very small vertebral apophyses (vs. presence), poorly developed cephalic crests (vs. well-developed), size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 49.5– 61.1 mm), snout in lateral view nearly acute (vs. slightly rounded; Fouquet et al. 2007a), vestigial webbing in toes (vs. developed; Fouquet et al. 2007a).

From R. ocellata , this new species is distinguished by developed cephalic crests (vs. undeveloped), granules on dorsal skin poorly developed (vs. more developed), snout mucronate in dorsal view and nearly acute in lateral (vs. rounded in dorsal and lateral view), rostral keel present at the tip of snout (vs. absent), dorsal color pattern lacking ocelli (vs. ocelli present on dorsal pattern; Leão and Cochran 1952; Caldwell and Shepard 1997). Rhinella gildae sp. nov. is distinguished from R. ŋunga by larger size of males 69.6– 76.4 mm (vs. 57.5–59.5 mm in males; Moravec et al. 2014), parotoid gland lacking lateral line of tubercles (vs. present), snout mucronate in dorsal view (vs. slightly pointed), bony protrusion evident at the angle of jaws (vs. not evident), vestigial webbing in toes (vs. developed), presence of tympanic membrane and tympanic annulus (vs. absent; see Moravec et al. 2014). Rhinella gildae sp. nov. differs from R. cristinae by larger size of males 69.6–76.4 mm (vs. 30.7– 34.3 mm) and presence of bony protrusion at the angle of jaws (vs. absent; Veléz-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Carranza 2002). From R. ceratophrŋs , this new species differs by the absence of triangular projecting dermal flaps on the eyelids and at the corners of mouth (vs. presence; Fenolio et al. 2012). From R. iserni , R. gildae sp. nov. differs by the absence or very small vertebral apophyses (vs. presence), and tympanum evident (vs. absent; Jimenez-de-la-Espada 1875; Caramaschi and Pombal 2006).

Description of the holotype. —Body robust; head wider than long, head length 86.4% of head width; head length 31.9% of SVL; head width 37% of SVL. Snout mucronate in dorsal view, with a rostral keel at the tip of snout; in profile, nearly acute. Rostrum slightly concave, a pair of bony protrusions between the supratympanic crests; canthus rostralis well-defined by canthal crests, curved; loreal region weakly concave. Nostrils lateral, protuberant, slightly directed dorsally and backwards, nearer to the tip of snout than to eyes; internarial distance shorter than the eye–nostril distance, eye diameter, upper eyelid width, and tympanum diameter; eye–nostril distance shorter than the eye diameter, vertical tympanum diameter; eye diameter shorter than the upper eyelid width and tympanum diameter; upper eyelid width 80.5% of interorbital distance. Canthal and supraorbital crests developed, parietal crest poorly developed and preorbital crest absent; supratympanic crests well-developed, forming conspicuous lateral edges. Tympanum large, longer than wide, with a distinct annulus; vertical tympanum diameter shorter than the eye diameter. In dorsal view, parotoid glands small, triangular; in lateral view, elliptical, continuous to the supratympanic crest; parotoid gland length larger than the supratympanic crest length. Continuous lines of tubercles along lateral torso, from the posterior border of parotoid gland to the groin. Absence of apophyses on dorsum. Lips with small numerous tubercles; eyes visible from below. Presence of a bony protrusion at the angle of jaws. Vocal sac not expanded externally and vocal slits present. Choanae small, ovoid, lateral, widely separated; medium size tongue, longer than wide, free and not notched posteriorly.

Forelimbs robust and slightly more robust than the arms. Hand with medium-sized fingers; slender fingers without webbing; fingers in ascending order of size, IV = II <I<III; lateral fingers with a line of spinulose tubercles. Finger tips not expanded, smooth, posteriorly delimited on the dorsal and ventral faces by a groove. Palmar tubercle large, ovoid, smooth; thenar tubercle small, nearly elongated, smooth. Subarticular tubercles developed, conical, unique, except by a double distal subarticular on Finger III. Many supernumerary tubercles of varied sizes, distinct, conical, irregularly distributed on the ventral surfaces of hand and fingers. Black spinulose nuptial pad on the inner dorsal surface of Finger I.

Hindlimbs short, robust. Tibia length slightly shorter than thigh length; tibia length 88.8% of thigh length and 39.0% of the SVL; thigh length 43.9% of SVL; sum of tibia and thigh lengths 83.0% of the SVL; tarsus-foot length longer than the tibia and thigh lengths, 52.2% of the SVL. Foot with short toes, moderately robust, in ascending order of size, I <II <V = III <IV; toe webbing poorly developed; external surfaces of the fifth toes, and free part of the third toes with a line of spinulose tubercles; webbing formula I1–2II1– 2 1/2 III2–4IV4 1/2 –2V. Tips of toes slightly expanded, smooth. Outer metatarsal tubercle small, ovoid, protruding; inner metatarsal tubercle medium-sized, approximately two times the outer, ovoid, with the distal border free. Subarticular tubercles small, conical, singular. Many supernumerary tubercles distinct, conical, unequal in size, approximately aligned on the ventral surfaces of foot and toes.

Skin on dorsum, flanks and limbs granulose, with many small tubercles, rounded, irregularly distributed without forming a defined pattern; tubercles on forelimbs smaller than hindlimbs; dorsal region poorly granulose. Ventral surfaces finely granulose.

Measurements of the holotype (in millimeters). — Snout–vent length 69.6; head length 22.3; head width 25.8; internarial distance 4.0; eye–nostril distance 6.2; eye diameter 6.8; upper eyelid width 7.8; interorbital distance 10.4; postorbital crest length 6.9; horizontal tympanum diameter 4.9; vertical tympanum diameter 6.3; parotoid gland length 14.7; hand length 17.4; thigh length 30.6; tibia length 27.2; foot length (tarsus + foot) 36.6.

Color of the holotype in preservative. —Dorsal and limbs gray brownish; a wide light gray medial dorsal band with a thin lateral line dark gray on its edge; a line gray on supraorbital and supratympanic crests; line of tubercles cream from parotoid glands to the groin; flanks below this tubercles line dark gray; superior lips and protrusion at the angle of jaw cream; a dark gray bar poorly visible on tibia, tarsus, and forearm. Mental region brown; gular region black. Venter cream with light gray blotches. Palm of hand cream; undersurfaces of foot and tarsus gray.

Variation. —Measurements (in mm) of the paratype are snout–vent length 76.4; head length 23.8; head width 27.3; internarial distance 5.1; eye–nostril distance 6.9; eye diameter 9.9; upper eyelid width 9.5; interorbital distance 11.8; postorbital crest length 5.7; horizontal tympanum diameter 5.3; vertical tympanum diameter 5.6; parotoid gland length 12.5; hand length 20.7; thigh length 34.2; tibia length 31.0; foot length (tarsus + foot) 42.7. General color of the paratype is more uniform. Palmar tubercle bigger than the holotype. The medial dorsal band narrower than the holotype. Presence of three very small dorsal apophysis. Coloration in life is unknown.

Etymology. —The specific name honors our friend and colleague Gilda V. Andrade (Universidade Federal do Maranhão) for her contributions to the knowledge of the ecology of Brazilian anurans, including the collection of the specimens used to describe this new species.

Geographic distribution. — Rhinella gildae sp. nov. is known only in São Pedro da Água Branca municipality (type locality; Fig. 5 View FIG ), State of Maranhão, northern Brazil .