Hyalinobatrachium mashpi Guayasamin &amp; Brunner &amp; Valencia-Aguilar &amp; Franco-Mena &amp; Ringler &amp; Medina Armijos &amp; Morochz &amp; Bustamante &amp; Maynard &amp; Culebras 2022, new species
Creators: name: Guayasamin, Juan M.
name: Brunner, Rebecca M.
name: Valencia-Aguilar, Anyelet
name: Franco-Mena, Daniela
name: Ringler, Eva
name: Medina Armijos, Anderson
name: Morochz, Carlos
name: Bustamante, Lucas
name: Maynard, Ross J.
name: Culebras, Jaime
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Amphibia
Anura
Centrolenidae
Hyalinobatrachium
Hyalinobatrachium mashpi

description: <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> new species LSID: 0815B7E6-33FB-42D9-A367-4FB50885C256 Suggested English name: Mashpi Glassfrog <b>Suggested Spanish name:</b> Rana de Cristal de Mashpi <b>Holotype.</b> CJ11642, adult male from San Vicente River (0.16334 N, 78.86736 W; 1,040 m a.s.l.), Mashpi Reserve, Pichincha Province, Ecuador, collected by Jaime Culebras and Carlos Morochz on 28 September 2019. <b>Paratopotypes.</b> CJ11643–44, adult males with same data as holotype. <b>Paratypes.</b> MZUTI-3921, adult male from Amagusa River (0.15469 N, 78.85322 W; 1,137 m a.s.l.), Amagusa Reserve, Pichincha Province, Ecuador, collected by Carlos Morochz and Lucas Bustamante on 14 December 2014. CJ11645, adult male from tributary of the Mashpi River (0.11463 N, 78.88307 W; 1,126 m a.s.l.), Tayra Reserve, Pichincha Province, Ecuador, collected by Jaime Culebras on 28 October 2019. <b>Generic placement.</b> The new species is placed in the genus <i>Hyalinobatrachium Ruiz-Carranza &amp; Lynch (1991)</i>, as modified by <i>Guayasamin et al. (2009)</i>, on the basis of morphological and molecular data. The molecular phylogeny (Fig. 2) places the new species within the genus <i>Hyalinobatrachium</i> with high confidence. Phenotypically, the main diagnostic traits of <i>Hyalinobatrachium</i> are: (1) completely transparent ventral parietal peritoneum; (2) digestive tract and bulbous liver are covered by iridophores; (3) absent humeral spines; (4) white bones in life; (5) males call from the undersides of leaves; (6) females place the eggs on the undersides of leaves; (7) males provide extended parental care; and (8) tympanum with an orientation that places it almost on a horizontal plane (instead of a more lateral plane as observed in other glassfrog genera). All the aforementioned characteristics are present in <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. We note that we have observed males on the same leaves as egg clutches for continuous days, but additional studies are necessary to confirm that these observations actually represent extended paternal care. <b>Diagnosis.</b> <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. is distinguished from other species in the genus mainly by its dorsal coloration (<i>i.e</i>., head with light yellow spots that may form an interorbital bar; dorsum lime green with small light yellow spots) and by its transparent pericardium (<i>i.e</i>., red heart visible in ventral view). <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. is most similar to <i>H. aureoguttatum, H. talamancae</i>, <i>H. valerioi, H. vireovittatum</i>, and the new species described below. Differences among these species are indicated in Table 1 and Figs. 3–5. The new species is morphologically cryptic with <i>Hyalinobatrachium nouns</i> sp. nov. (described below); however, the two new species exhibit a considerable genetic distance (16S; 4.6–4.7%), which is particularly remarkable given that they are found at relatively close geographic proximity (straight distance = 18.9 km), but separated by the Intag-Guayllabamba river valley. <b>Characterization.</b> The following combination of characters are found in <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov.: (1) dentigerous process of the vomer lacking teeth; (2) snout truncate in dorsal view and slightly protruding in lateral view; (3) tympanum oriented almost horizontally; tympanic annulus barely visible, hidden under skin; tympanic membrane differentiated, with coloration similar to that of surrounding skin; (4) dorsal skin shagreen; (5) ventral skin areolate; cloacal ornamentation absent, paired round tubercles below vent absent; (6) parietal peritoneum and pericardium translucent (in life, red heart visible in ventral view); liver, viscera and testes covered by iridophores; (7) liver bulbous; (8) humeral spines absent; (9) hand webbing formula: I (2 + –2 1/2)—(3 – –3) II (2–2 –)—(3 + –3 1/4) III (2–2 +)—(1 3/4 –2) IV; (10) foot webbing moderate; webbing formula: I 1 + —(2–2 +) II (1–1 1/3)—2 1/4 III (1 1/3 –1 1/2) —(2 + –2 1/4) IV (2 1/2 –2 1/3)—1 V; (11) fingers and toes with thin lateral fringes; ulnar and tarsal folds absent; (12) nuptial excrescence present as a small pad on Finger I (Type V), prepollex not enlarged; prepollical spine not projecting (spine not exposed); (13) when appressed, Finger I longer than II; (Continued) <b>Note:</b> Sources of traits are indicated in the last column. (14) diameter of eye about 2 times wider than disc on Finger III; (15) coloration in life: dorsal surfaces lime green with small light yellow spots; (16) coloration in preservative: dorsal surfaces creamish white, with minute lavender melanophores; (17) eye coloration in life: iris yellow to golden-yellow; pupil surrounded by lavender ring; (18) melanophores absent from fingers and toes, except Toes IV and V; (19) males call from underside of leaves; advertisement call consisting of single pulsed note, with duration of 0.37–0.46 s, peak frequency at 5.25–5.60 kHz, maximum frequency at 5.46–5.81 kHz, and minimum frequency at 4.62–4.92 kHz; (20) males attend egg clutches located on the underside of leaves overhanging streams; clutch size of 31 or 32 embryos (<i>n</i> = 2); (21) SVL in adult males 19.7–20.9 mm (mean = 20.5; <i>n</i> = 5); females unknown; and (22) enameled tubercles absent from sides of head. <b>Description of the holotype</b>. CJ11642, adult male with SVL 20.6 mm. Head wider than long (head width 39% of SVL; head length 78% of head width). Snout truncate in dorsal view and slightly protruding in lateral view. Loreal region concave, nostrils slightly protuberant, elliptical; internarial region concave; canthus rostralis not well defined. Eyes small, directed anterolaterally, eyes about 50 <b> Ǫ</b> relative to midline (where anterior-facing eyes would be 90 <b> Ǫ</b> relative to midline). Tympanum barely visible, oriented almost horizontally; tympanic membrane differentiated and pigmented as surrounding skin. Dentigerous processes on vomers absent; choanae large, oval, separated widely (distance about the same as between nostrils); tongue round, white in preservative, anterior 4/5 attached to mouth; posterior border of tongue widely notched; vocal slits present, extending along floor of mouth lateral to tongue; enameled glands absent from lower part of upper jaw. Ulnar fold absent; humeral spine absent. Relative length of fingers: II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III; finger discs rounded, about the same size as discs on toes, disc on Finger III 42% of eye width; hand webbing reduced between Fingers I–III, moderate between Fingers III and IV, with formula I 2 + —3 – II 2 – —3 1/5 III 2 + —1 3/4 IV. Prepollex concealed; subarticular tubercles round, faint; few small supernumerary tubercles present, palmar tubercle round, of moderate size and difficult to see, thenar tubercle ovoid; nuptial excrescences present as a small pad on external edge of Finger I (Type V). Hind limbs slender, tibia length 55% of SVL; tarsal fold absent; discs of toes round; inner metatarsal tubercle small, outer metatarsal tubercle round, both very difficult to distinguish. Webbing formula of feet: I 1 + —2 II 1—2 1/4 III 1 1/2 —2 + IV 2 1/2 —1 V. In preservative, dorsal skin creamish white, with minute dark lavender melanophores (only visible under the stereomicroscope); dorsal skin shagreen; skin on venter areolate; cloacal opening at level of upper thighs, small and non-enameled cloacal warts present. Parietal peritoneum and pericardium translucent (in life, the red heart is visible ventrally); urinary bladder lacking iridophores; liver, viscera, and tested fully covered by iridophores. Kidneys rounded, approximately bean-shaped; liver bulbous. <b>Coloration in life.</b> Dorsal surfaces apple green to yellowish green with diffuse yellow spots; head with light yellow spots that may form an interorbital bar. Melanophores absent from fingers and toes, except Toes IV and V. Ventrally, parietal peritoneum and pericardium transparent, with a red heart always visible. Gall bladder and urinary bladder covered by translucent peritonea; hepatic and visceral peritonea covered by white iridophores; ventral vein red. Iris yellow, with numerous minute lavender spots. Bones white. <b>Coloration in preservative</b>. Dorsal surfaces creamish white dotted with minute dark lavender melanophores; venter uniform cream, with partial translucence; pericardium translucent; visceral peritoneum covered by iridophores. Iris white with minute lavender melanophores. Melanophores absent from hands and feet, except from some few present on dorsal surfaces of Toes IV and V. <b>Measurements of holotype (in mm)</b>. CJ11642, adult male. SVL = 20.6, femur length = 11.4, tibia length = 11.3, foot length = 9.6, head length = 6.2, head width = 8.0, interorbital distance = 2.4,eye diameter = 2.6, tympanum diameter = 0.6, arm length = 4.2, hand length = 6.3, Finger I length = 4.6, Finger II length = 4.1, width of Finger III = 1.1. <b>Vocalizations</b> (Figs. 6, 7). We measured call variables from two individuals, each from a different locality, Mashpi Reserve (CJ11642; call code LBE-C-051) and Tayra Reserve (CJ11645; call code LBE-C-052). The call of <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. (Fig. 6) <b>Note:</b> For each variable, data range is followed by the mean and standard deviation in parentheses. consists of a single pulsed (amplitude-modulated) note, which starts with one lower-frequency pulse followed by ~9 more consistent pulses at a slightly higher dominant frequency. We analyzed variables from both individuals: four calls from CJ11645 and eight calls from CJ11642. Calls in our field recordings had a duration of 0.373–0.461 s (mean = 0.425 ± 0.027 SD, <i>n</i> = 12). Time between calls ranged from 10.07–17.48 s (mean = 12.80 ± 2.166 SD, <i>n</i> = 10); intervals between <i>H. mashpi</i> calls were longer when a sympatric glassfrog (<i>Espadarana prosoblepon</i>) called in the interim period. Peak frequency was 5.25–5.6 kHz (mean = 5.38 kHz ± 0.12 SD; <i>n</i> = 12), with a maximum frequency of 5.46–5.81 kHz (mean = 5.38 kHz ± 0.11 SD; <i>n</i> = 12) and a minimum frequency of 4.62–4.92 kHz (mean = 4.79 kHz ± 0.10 SD; <i>n</i> = 12). We compared the calls of <i>H. mashpi</i> sp. nov. to those of phenotypically and/or genotypically similar species within the same genus: <i>H. adespinosai, H. aureoguttatum</i>, <i>H. pellucidum</i>, <i>H. tatayoi</i>, and <i>H. valerioi</i> (Table 2). The call of <i>H. adespinosai</i> is a single pulsed (amplitude-modulated) note, consisting of ~12 pulses (mean call duration = 0.54 s ± 0.007 SD, <i>n</i> = 10). Time between calls ranged from 10.87–30.04 s (mean inter-call interval = 20.12 s ± 8.77 SD). Mean peak/fundamental frequency was 4.94 kHz (±0.07 SD; range = 4.87–5.04 kHz), with a mean maximum frequency of 5.11 (±0.08 SD; range = 5.0–5.25 kHz) and a mean minimum frequency of 4.57 (±0.15 SD; range = 4.32–4.75 kHz). The call of <i>H. aureoguttatum</i> (Fig. 6; Table 2) consists of a very short, single tonal note (mean call duration = 0.082 s ± 0.002 SD, <i>n</i> = 24). Time between calls ranged from 1.99–5.20 s (mean inter-call interval = 3.24 s ± 0.79 SD, <i>n</i> = 23). Mean peak/fundamental frequency was 6.86 kHz (±0.25 SD; range = 6.55–7.41 kHz; <i>n</i> = 24 calls). Two harmonics are present. We measured call variables from individuals recorded in Canandé (0.5112 N, 79.1343 W; 457 m), Esmeraldas Province, Ecuador, in December 2018 by AVA (LBE- 053–55), and in Mashpi Lodge Reserve (0.17057 N, 78.888 W; 721–723 m) in March 2019 by RMB (LBE-056, 057). The call of <i>H. chirripoi</i> is a single pulsed (amplitude-modulated) note, consisting of ~12 pulses (mean call duration = 0.255 s ± 0.03 SD, <i>n</i> = 2). Since our recording only included two bouts of calling, we were unable to include <i>H. chirripoi</i> in the DAPC analysis. The interval between the two calls was 84.3 s. Peak/fundamental frequency was 4.48 kHz, with a maximum frequency of 4.99–5.77 kHz and a minimum frequency of 4.16–4.21 kHz. We measured call variables from one individual recorded in Reserva Itapoa (0.51307 N, 79.134 W; 321 m), Esmeraldas Province, Ecuador, in July 2016 by JC (LBE-019). The call of <i>H. pellucidum</i> consists of a short, single tonal note (mean call duration = 0.129 s ± 0.009 SD, <i>n</i> = 41). Time between calls ranged from 1.67–5.35 s (mean inter-call interval = 2.94 s ± 0.79 SD). Mean peak/fundamental frequency was 5.70 kHz (±0.06 SD; range = 5.60–5.86 kHz), with a mean maximum frequency of 6.0 (± 0.06 SD, range 5.86–6.14 kHz) and a mean minimum frequency of 5.16 (±0.07 SD, range 5.05–5.32 kHz). We measured call variables from one individual (USNM 286708) recorded at Río Azuela, Napo Province, Ecuador, by Roy McDiarmid on February 23th, 1979. The call of <i>H. tatayoi</i> consists of a short, single tonal note (mean call duration = 0.143 s ± 0.04 SD, <i>n</i> = 26). Time between calls ranged from 2.05–21.68 s (mean inter-call interval = 7.64 s ± 4.92 SD). Mean peak/fundamental frequency was 4.82 kHz (±1.77 SD; range = 4.45–5.11 kHz), with a mean maximum frequency of 5.14 (±0.17 SD, range 4.83–5.40 kHz) and a mean minimum frequency of 4.24 (±0.34 SD, range 3.30–4.61 kHz). We measured call variables from four individuals recorded in Jama Coaque Reserve (0.108264 S, 80.117701 W; 700 m), Manabí Province, Ecuador, in March 2019 by RMB. The call of <i>H. valerioi</i> (Fig. 6) consists of a single tonal note (mean call duration = 0.079 s ± 0.01 SD, <i>n</i> = 70). Time between calls ranged from 1.76–8.00 s (mean inter-call interval = 4.27 s ± 1.2 SD). Mean peak frequency was 6.77 kHz (±0.19 SD; range = 6.46–7.24 kHz). Harmonics are likely present but are difficult to discern in the available recordings. We measured call variables from three individuals recorded in Costa Rica (Limón and Rincón de Oso) by Roy McDiarmid. We used the following recordings from the Macaulay Library at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology: ML212787, ML212788, and ML213430. Results from the discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) revealed that the calls of <i>H. mashpi</i> sp. nov. cluster separately, and are thus acoustically distinct from <i>H. adespinosai, H. aureoguttatum</i>, <i>H. pellucidum</i>, <i>H. tatayoi</i>, and <i>H. valerioi</i> (Fig. 7). Overlap occurred between <i>H. aureoguttatum</i> and <i>H. valerioi</i> clusters, as well as between <i>H. tatayoi</i> and <i>H. adespinosai</i> clusters. This suggests that the calls of these pairs may not be adequate for species identification alone; more field recordings with genetic verification of <b>Note:</b> Most variation (99.9%) was retained by three principal components. the calling species are thus recommended for future studies. Nearly all (99.9%) of the variance was retained by three principal components. Table 3 lists the eigenvalues and variable loadings of each principal component. <b>Natural history.</b> Most individuals of <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. were found on the underside of leaves among riverine vegetation (Figs. 8, 9). These frogs are difficult to observe because they are found 3–14 m above ground along steep creeks. Males have been observed calling in the months of April, May, June, August, September, October and November. Males that were guarding egg clutches while calling were observed during the rainy season (18 February 2019; 7 May 2021) and dry season (October 2014, June 2015, and August 2021). Examined egg clutches contain 31–34 eggs (<i>n</i> = 3). A female with mature eggs visible through the skin was observed on 27 May 27 2015. <b>Distribution</b> (Fig. 10). <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. is only known from the following localities in the Mashpi river basin, Pichincha Province, Ecuador: (i) Mashpi Lodge Reserve (San Vicente River, 1,040–1,101 m; Laguna River, 1,069 m); (ii) Amagusa Reserve (Amagusa River, 1,137 m; Mashpi Chico River, 1,130 m); and (iii) Tayra Reserve, 976–1,126 m. Unidentified and closely related frogs from Colombia (Departamento de Risaralda, MAR 2147; Departamento de Valle del Cauca; MAR 2222; Fig. 2) may prove to be conspecifics of <i>H. mashpi</i>. <b>Evolutionary relationships</b>. Our phylogenetic analyses (Fig. 2) reveal <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> sp. nov. as sister to undetermined haplotypes from the Colombian Andes (MAR 2147, 2222) and a new species from the Toisán Mountain Range, described below. Other closely related taxa are endemic to Central America: <i>H. vireovittatum</i> and <i>H. talamancae</i> (Fig. 2). <b>Etymology.</b> The specific epithet <i>mashpi</i> is used as a noun in apposition and refers to the Mashpi area in northwestern Ecuador. There are several conservation efforts to preserve the last patches of forest remaining in Mashpi (<i>e.g</i>., Mashpi Lodge Reserve, Tayra Reserve, Amagusa Reserve, Mancomunidad del Chocó Andino, Chocó Andino Biosphere Reserve). <i>Mashpi</i> is a Yumbo word that means ‘friend of water’, an apt description of this glassfrog, which depends on healthy streams for its reproduction. <b>Conservation status.</b> We recommend that <i>Hyalinobatrachium mashpi</i> be listed as Endangered, following IUCN Red List criteria B1ab(iii): extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5,000 km 2; known to exist at no more than 5 localities; and continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in area, extent, and/or quality of habitat. The main threats for this species are habitat loss and contamination due to cattle ranching, agriculture, and mining activities (see Discussion).
description: Published as part of <i>Guayasamin, Juan M., Brunner, Rebecca M., Valencia-Aguilar, Anyelet, Franco-Mena, Daniela, Ringler, Eva, Medina Armijos, Anderson, Morochz, Carlos, Bustamante, Lucas, Maynard, Ross J. &amp; Culebras, Jaime, 2022, Two new glassfrogs (Centrolenidae: Hyalinobatrachium) from Ecuador, with comments on the endangered biodiversity of the Andes, pp. 1-34 in PeerJ 10</i> on pages 6-19, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13109, http://zenodo.org/record/6377348
description: {"references": ["Ruiz-Carranza PM, Lynch JD. 1991. Ranas Centrolenidae de Colombia I. Propuesta de una nueva clasificacion generica. Lozania 57: 1 - 30.", "Guayasamin JM, Castroviejo-Fisher S, Trueb L, Ayarzaguena J, Rada M, Vila C. 2009. Phylogenetic systematics of Glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) and their sister taxon Allophryne ruthveni. Zootaxa 2100: 1 - 11 DOI 10.11646 / zootaxa. 2100.1.1.", "Savage JM. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of CostaRica: a herpetofauna between two continents, between two seas. Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK: The University of Chicago Press, 934.", "Castroviejo-Fisher S, Guayasamin JM, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Vila C. 2014. Neotropical diversification seen through glassfrogs. Journal of Biogeography 41 (1): 66 - 80 DOI 10.1111 / jbi. 12208.", "Kubicki B. 2006. Rediscovery of the green-striped glass frog Hyalinobatrachium talamancae (Anura Centrolenidae) in Costa Rica. Brenesia 66: 25 - 30.", "Kubicki B. 2007. Glass Frogs of Costa Rica / Ranas de Vidrio de Costa Rica. Costa Rica: Editorial INBio."]}