Craugastor montanus
Creators: name: Jameson, Tom J. M.
name: Streicher, Jeffrey W.
name: Manuelli, Luigi
name: Head, Jason J.
name: Smith, Eric N.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Amphibia
Anura
Craugastoridae
Craugastor
Craugastor montanus

description: <i>Craugastor montanus</i> (Taylor 1942) <i>Microbatrachylus montanus</i> Taylor 1942:67. Holotype female (USNM 115507) from ‘‘Mount Ovando, Chiapas, Mexico.’’ [Examined]. <i>Eleutherodactylus sartori</i> Lynch 1965:10. [Replacement name]. <i>Craugastor montanus</i> (Taylor): Crawford and Smith 2005:536. <b>Diagnosis.</b> —Based on holotype (Fig. 1E). Aspecies of <i>Craugastor</i> distinguished by the following combination of characters: (1) moderate adult size (holotype, SVL <i>¼</i> 24.5 mm); (2) ossification of most of skeleton in adults; (3) presence of posterolateral projection of frontoparietal; (4) presence of vomerine odontophores; (5) presence or absence of raised tubercles on eyelids; (6) supratympanic fold moderate to poorly developed; (7) face flank barred with or without canthal stripe, 1–2 particularly dark bars below eye; (8) one (or two fused) postrictal tubercles; (9) gular region with pale spotting; (10) dorsal surface blotched or unicolored pale; diffuse interorbital bar, small suprascapular spots; sometimes with two dark rump spots (11) middorsal ridge present; (12) dorsum smooth with only few fine tubercles; (13) body flank darker anteriorly (post axillary), slightly shagreened to smooth; (14) inguinal gland present and axillary gland present in adults; (15) when leg adpressed to body, heel reaches snout tip or beyond; (16) outer tarsal ridge with 0–2 small and round tubercles close to heel, no raised fringe; (17) finger and toe tips round, finger tips slightly or not expanded, toe tips expanded; (18) inner metatarsal tubercle larger than outer metatarsal tubercle. <b>Comparisons.</b> — <i>Craugastor montanus</i> can be differentiated from <i>C. candelariensis, C. cueyatl, C. hobartsmithi,</i> and <i>C. portilloensis</i> by equal sizes of the inner and outer metatarsal tubercles (unequal sizes in <i>C. montanus</i>). It can be differentiated from <i>C. bitonium</i> and <i>C. pygmaeus</i> by the absence of a posterolateral projection of the frontoparietal (present in <i>C. montanus</i>). It can be differentiated from <i>C. polaclavus</i> and <i>C. rubinus</i> by the absence of vomerine odontophores (present in <i>C. montanus</i>). It can be differentiated from <i>C. mexicanus, C. omiltemanus,</i> and <i>C. saltator</i> by the general shape of its skull (Fig. 12). It can be differentiated from <i>C. mexicanus</i> by the condition of supratympanic folds in adults; moderate to poorly developed in <i>C. montanus</i> versus developed in <i>C. mexicanus</i>. It can be differentiated from <i>C. omiltemanus</i> by ventral skin texture in life; smooth to granular in <i>C. montanus</i> versus areolate in <i>C. omiltemanus</i>. It can be differentiated from <i>C. saltator</i> by relative leg length; crus 53–59% SVL in <i>C. montanus</i> versus 62–73% SVL in <i>C. saltator</i>. <b>Description.</b> —In previous literature, described as moderately sized (males average 16.2 mm SVL, females average 24.0 mm SVL); Finger Ishorter than Finger II; three palmar tubercles; testes black; inner metatarsal tubercle larger than outer metatarsaltubercle (Lynch 2000). Lynch (2000:133) redescribed <i>C. montanus</i> (as <i>E. sartori</i>) owing to ‘‘errors in Taylor’s (1942) original description that were repeated by Lynch (1965, 1970)’’. <b>Distribution.</b> —This species is known from intermediate to high elevations (~ 2000 m) of the Sierra Madre de Chiapas in the state of Chiapas, Mexico (Lynch 2000), and adjacent regions of the Department of San Marcos, Guatemala (Crawford and Smith 2005). This region contains a complex mixture of dry forests, mixed forests, cloud forests, and pine– oak forests. <b>Phylogenetics.</b> —In the concatenated analysis, <i>C. montanus</i> was recovered as the sister taxon of all other members of the <i>C. mexicanus</i> series (ML <i>¼</i> 66, BAYES <i>¼</i> 0.99; Fig. 3). It also had this placement in the mtDNA-only analysis (Fig. 4), but not in the nDNA analysis where it was found with weak support to be the sister taxon of a clade containing all taxa except <i>C. mexicanus</i> and <i>C. omiltemanus</i> (ML <i>¼</i> 33, BAYES <i>¼</i> 0.73; Fig. 5). This differs from the phylogenetic placement of <i>C. montanus</i> (as <i>E. sartori</i>) in the nDNA-only analysis of Crawford and Smith (2005). In terms of genetic distances (Table 4), <i>C. montanus</i> was most similar to <i>C. polaclavus</i> (5.7%) followed by similarity with <i>C. mexicanus</i> (6.1%). <b>Remarks.</b> —The skull of <i>C. montanus</i> is similar to <i>C. hobartsmithi</i> and <i>C. pygmaeus,</i> with more posteriorly placed anterior suture of the frontoparietal and prootic than in other species. The skull of <i>C. montanus</i> was also described by Lynch (2000) as <i>E. sartori</i>. Lynch (1965) created the neonym, <i>Eleutherodactylus sartori,</i> because <i>Eleutherodactylus montanus</i> was preoccupied by a West Indian species. This is the most southernly distributed species in the <i>C. mexicanus</i> series. <i>Craugastor montanus</i> likely co-occurs with <i>C. pygmaeus</i>. The type locality of <i>C. greggi</i> (Bumzahem 1955) is Volcan Tajumulco in San Marcos, Guatemala near where we sampled <i>C. montanus</i> for our molecular analysis (Fig. 6). Although <i>C. greggi</i> was placed in the <i>C. laticeps</i> series of Hedges et al. (2008), it is allied to the <i>C. mexicanus</i> series by having Finger Ishorter than Finger II. This affinity was noted in the original description: ‘‘ <i>Eleutherodactylus greggi</i> seems to agree most closely with the member of the <i>Eleutherodactylus mexicanus</i> group...’’ (Bumzahem 1955:119). However, <i>C. greggi</i> was differentiated from <i>C. montanus</i> (<i>¼ E. sartori</i>) by Lynch (2000) on the basis of fusion between the last presacral vertebrae and sacrum (not fused in <i>C montanus</i>). Nonetheless, our preliminary examinations of the holotype of <i>C. greggi</i> (Fig. 28) and collections from the Sierra de Chiapas suggest that future research is needed to confirm <i>C. greggi</i> can be differentiated from <i>C. montanus</i> because the taxa are united by multiple characters including (but not limited to) adult body size, presence of vomerine odonotophores, presence of posterolateral projection of frontoparietal, gular region with pale spotting, finger lengths, toe lengths, unequal sizes of the inner and outer metatarsal tubercles, and geographic distribution.
description: Published as part of <i>Jameson, Tom J. M., Streicher, Jeffrey W., Manuelli, Luigi, Head, Jason J. &amp; Smith, Eric N., 2022, Miniaturization in Direct-Developing Frogs from Mexico with the Description of Six New Species, pp. 1-48 in Herpetological Monographs 36 (1)</i> on page 29, DOI: 10.1655/0733-1347-36.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6518587
description: {"references": ["Taylor, E. H. 1942. New tailless Amphibia from Mexico. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 28: 67 - 89.", "Lynch, J. D. 1965. A Review of the Eleutherodactylid Frog Genus Microbatrachylus (Leptodactylidae). Chicago Academy of Science, USA.", "Crawford, A. J., and E. N. Smith. 2005. Cenozoic biogeography and evolution in direct-developing frogs of Central America (Leptodactylidae: Eleutherodactylus) as inferred from a phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35: 536 - 555.", "Lynch, J. D. 2000. The relationships of an ensemble of Guatemalan and Mexican frogs (Eleutherodactylus: Leptodactylidae: Amphibia). Revista de La Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales 24: 129 - 156.", "Lynch, J. D. 1970. Taxonomic notes on some Mexican frogs (Eleutherodactylus: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica 26: 172 - 180.", "Bumzahem, C. B. 1955. A New species of frog of the genus Eleutherodactylus from Guatemala. Copeia 1955: 118 - 119.", "Hedges, S. B., W. E. Duellman, and M. P. Heinicke. 2008. New World Direct-Developing Frogs (Anura: Terrarana): Molecular Phylogeny, Classification, Biogeography, and Conservation. Magnolia Press, New Zealand."]}