Craugastor saltator
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 saltator

description: <i>Craugastor saltator</i> (Taylor 1941) <i>Eleutherodactylus saltator</i> Taylor 1941:89. Holotype female (FMNH 100116) from ‘‘Omilteme, Guerrero, Mexico.’’ [Examined]. <i>Eleutherodactylus mexicanus</i>: Lynch 2000:134. [Misidentification]. <i>Craugastor saltator</i> (Taylor): Crawford and Smith 2005:536. <b>Diagnosis.</b> —Based on holotype and three additional specimens. Aspecies of <i>Craugastor</i> distinguished by the following combination of characters: (1) large adult size (maximum SVL <i>¼</i> 44 mm); (2) full ossification of skeleton in adults but under a different ontogenetic sequence than other members of the series (Table 3), where the sphenethmoid, humeral interior epiphyses, and tibiofibular epiphyses do not ossify during stage 3, the fontopareital-prootic suture does not offset posteriorly during stage 4, and the epicorocoids do not ossify during stage 6; (3) presence of posterolateral projection of the frontoparietal; (4) presence of vomerine odontophores; (5) presence or absence of raised tubercles on eyelids; (6) supratympanic fold developed; (7) face flank, labium barred or dark with a cream stripe above; canthal stripe complete or broken; (8) one or two postrictal tubercles; (9) gular region with trace of mid-pale stripe; (10) dorsal surface unicolored, blotched, or with wide middorsal stripe bordered by cream-colored stripes, dark interorbital bar, sometimes with small suprascapular and/or rump spots; (11) middorsal ridge present; (12) dorsum smooth or slightly tuberculate; (13) body flank unicolored, rarely supratympanic stripe extending to area behind insertion of arm, making anterior area darker; finely shagreened; (14) inguinal gland present and axillary gland present in adults; (15) when leg adpressed to body, heel reaches beyond snout; (16) outer tarsal ridge with 0–5 extremely small, flat, and round tubercles, no raised fringe or ridge; (17) finger and toe pads round and expanded; (18) inner metatarsal tubercle larger than outer metatarsal tubercle. <b>Comparisons.</b> — <i>Craugastor saltator</i> can be differentiated from <i>C. bitonium, C. cueyatl, C. hobartsmithi, C. pygmaeus,</i> and <i>C. rubinus</i> by the absence of vomerine odontophores (present in <i>C. saltator</i>). It can be differentiated from <i>C. candelariensis</i> and <i>C. portilloensis</i> by equal sizes of the inner and outer metatarsal tubercles (unequal sizes in <i>C. saltator</i>). It can be differentiated from <i>C. omiltemanus</i> by ventral skin texture in life; smooth to granular in <i>C. saltator</i> versus areolate in <i>C. omiltemanus</i>. It can be differentiated from <i>C. montanus</i> and <i>C. polaclavus</i> by shorter relative leg sizes with a crus ratio of 50–58% SVL (long relative leg sizes of 62–73% SVL in <i>C. saltator</i>). <i>Craugastor saltator</i> is most similar to <i>C. mexicanus;</i> however, they do not overlap in geographic range (see <i>C. mexicanus</i> account for additional information). <b>Description.</b> —Detailed description in Taylor (1942). Described as large-bodied, long-legged, with pigmented testes, unequal inner and outer metatarsal tubercle sizes, large vomerine odontophores, and generally smooth dorsal skin (Taylor 1941); with less population-level chromatic variation than its relative <i>C. mexicanus</i> (Lynch 2000). Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Herpetological-Monographs on 04 May 2022 Holotype (FMNH 100166) large female (SVL <i>¼</i> 44 mm; Fig. 36) with relative finger lengths III&gt; IV&gt; II&gt; Iand relative toe lengths IV&gt; III&gt; V&gt; II&gt; I. Asubadult individual used in the molecular analysis, UTA A- 66120 (Fig. 36) had the following characteristics: SVL <i>¼</i> 14.5 mm; tympanum width <i>¼</i> 1.2 mm; naris–snout length <i>¼</i> 0.7 mm (4.7% SVL); eye–nostril distance <i>¼</i> 1.5 mm (10.3% SVL); relative finger lengths III&gt; IV&gt; II&gt; I; relative toe lengths IV&gt; III&gt; V&gt; II&gt; I; unlike adult specimens, inner metatarsal tubercle and outer metatarsal tubercle near equal in length. <b>Distribution.</b> —Known only from the high-elevation pine–oak forests of Guerrero in the Sierra Madre del Sur (Fig. 6). <b>Phylogenetics.</b> —We were only able to sequence mtDNA data for <i>C. saltator,</i> so only it was included in the concatenated and mtDNA analyses. In the concatenated analysis, it was recovered as the sister taxon of <i>C. omiltemanus</i> with limited support (ML <i>¼</i> 44; BAYES <i>¼</i> 0.74; Fig. 3). In the mtDNA-only analysis, support for this relationship was lower in the ML analysis but higher in the BAYES analysis (ML <i>¼</i> 33, BAYES <i>¼</i> 0.82; Fig. 4). In terms of genetic distances (Table 4), <i>C. saltator</i> was most similar to <i>C. mexicanus</i> (5.1%), followed by similarity to <i>C. omiltemanus</i> (5.6%). <b>Remarks.</b> —The skull of <i>C. saltator</i> is similar to that of <i>C. mexicanus</i> and <i>C. omiltemanus,</i> with more anteriorly placed anterior suture of the frontoparietal and prootic than in other species. Taylor (1941:91) makes multiple references to <i>C. saltator</i> and <i>C. omiltemanus</i> (as <i>Eleutherodactylus calcitrans</i>) being similar and states that these two species can be differentiated by the ‘‘very long limb, and the reduced inner metatarsaltubercle [of <i>C. saltator</i>].’’ Lynch (2000) noted that <i>C. saltator</i> is actually far more similar to <i>C. mexicanus</i> from adjacent Oaxaca and subsequently synonymized <i>C. saltator</i> with <i>C. mexicanus</i> (see Methods, Taxonomic History). Despite the finding of Crawford and Smith (2005), which were used to revalidate <i>C. saltator,</i> at one point in our study one of us (JWS) was convinced by Lynch’s (2000) argument that <i>C. saltator</i> should be a junior synonym of <i>C. mexicanus</i>. The basis for this suspicion was (1) a specimen collected by J.D. Godman from Omilteme, Guerrero (the type locality) identified by J.D. Lynch as <i>C. saltator</i> on 13 January 1972 (BMNH 1901.12.19.24) is similar in morphology to <i>C. mexicanus</i>; (2) the nDNA analysis of Crawford and Smith (2005) found <i>C. mexicanus þ C. saltator</i> to be monophyletic; and, (3) we did not observe range overlap between <i>C. mexicanus</i> and <i>C. saltator</i> (Fig. 6), which may be consistent with a single large-bodied, long-legged species inhabiting the Sierra Madre del Sur. However, as in Crawford and Smith (2005), our mtDNA phylogenetic results did not recover <i>C. mexicanus þ C. saltator</i> as monophyletic (Fig. 3) and the specimens of <i>C. saltator</i> we examined had on average larger body sizes and differing toe length formulae than did <i>C. mexicanus</i> (Figs. 10 and 11; Table 6). As such, we continue to recognize <i>C. saltator</i> as a distinct species pending further taxonomic investigation. <i>Craugastor saltator</i> likely co-occurs with <i>C. bitonium, C. pygmaeus,</i> and <i>C. omiltemanus</i> in the Sierra Madre del Sur of Guerrero. It may overlap with <i>C. mexicanus</i> in eastern Guerrero and western Oaxaca (Fig. 6).
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 pages 37-38, DOI: 10.1655/0733-1347-36.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6518587
description: {"references": ["Taylor, E. H. 1941. Some Mexican frogs. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 54: 87 - 94.", "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.", "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.", "Taylor, E. H. 1942. New tailless Amphibia from Mexico. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 28: 67 - 89."]}