The amphibians of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: an updated and commented list Thiago Arnt Dorigo¹³; Davor Vrcibradic²⁴ & Carlos Frederico Duarte Rocha¹⁵ ¹ Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Instituto de Biologia (IBRAG), Departamento de Ecologia (DECOL). Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. ² Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde (CCBS), Instituto de Biociências (IBIO), Departamento de Zoologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. ³ E‑mail: [email protected] ⁴ ORCID: 0000‑0002‑6355‑3441. E‑mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) ⁵ ORCID: 0000‑0003‑3000‑1242. E‑mail: [email protected] Abstract. The amphibian fauna of the state of Rio de Janeiro, in southeatern Brazil, is characterized by high species richness and rates of endemism, and is still insufficiently known. A first list of amphibian species with occurrence in the state was published in 2004 and reported 166 taxa, but since then many new records, descriptions of new taxa, and revalidations and synonymizations of species have consistently improved the knowledge about the state’s amphibian biodiversity. Thus, a re‑ view and update of that list was deemed necessary. We herein present an updated and commented list of amphibian species occurring in the state of Rio de Janeiro based on a survey of the literature. We recorded the occurrence of a total of 201 species of amphibians (197 anurans and four caecilians) in Rio de Janeiro, with 54 of them (ca. 27%) considered to be endemic of the state. Our study presents an increase in species richness of 21% since the publication of the previous list, indicating a consistent advance in knowledge of the composition of the amphibian fauna in the state. In spite of its relatively small territorial exten‑ sion (total area ca. 43,800 km²), the state of Rio de Janeiro contains nearly 20% of the amphibian species known to occur in Brazil and around 40% of those occurring in the Atlantic Forest biome. Thus, that state constitutes an important reservoir of amphibian biodiversity in the Atlantic Forest biome and in Brazil, as a whole. Key-Words. Anura; Atlantic Forest; Conservation; Gymnophiona; Species list. INTRODUCTION et al., 2009; Nascimento & Campos, 2011). The first list of amphibians reported to occur in the state of The Brazilian Atlantic Forest is one of the world’s Rio de Janeiro was published by Rocha et al. (2004), most threatened biomes, with only ca. 12% of its who listed 166 species. Since then, there has been original forest cover remaining nowadays (Ribeiro an increase in species inventories performed et al., 2009), and is considered one of the world’s 35 throughout the state, improving the knowledge biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier, 2005). The state about the composition and distribution of the of Rio de Janeiro, with around 43,800 km² of total state’s amphibian fauna (e.g., Almeida‑Gomes et al., area and situated between 20‑24°S and 45‑41°W, 2008, 2010, 2014; Carvalho‑e‑Silva et al., 2008; Silva is the Brazilian state that preserves the greatest et al., 2008; Siqueira et al., 2011a, b; Salles et al., proportional percentage (20.3% of its territory) 2009; Silva‑Soares et al., 2010; Vrcibradic et al., of Atlantic Forest remnants (Bergallo et al., 2009). 2011; Martins et al., 2012, 2014; Telles et al., 2012; A combination of the state’s geographic location Bittencourt‑Silva & Silva, 2013; Pontes et al., 2015). with its heterogeneous landscape (ranging from Additionally, several species have been added to sea‑level to mountain peaks over 2,000 m high) the state’s amphibian list, either through reports of favors the occurrence of multiple phytophysiog‑ new occurrence records (e.g., Vrcibradic et al., 2006; nomies (mangroves, restingas, umbrophilous for‑ Silva‑Soares et al., 2009; Silveira et al., 2010; Caram ests, semi‑deciduous forests, high‑altitude fields, et al., 2011; Pederassi et al., 2015), or through de‑ and inselbergs). This, in turn, maintains high rates scriptions, revalidations or reassessments of taxa of biodiversity and endemism for different groups (e.g., Carvalho‑e‑Silva & Carvalho‑e‑Silva, 2005; of the fauna and flora (Jenkins & Pimm, 2006; Caramaschi & Pombal, 2006; Canedo & Pombal, Nascimento & Campos, 2011). 2007; Pombal et al., 2008; Prado & Pombal, 2008; Regarding its amphibian fauna, the state of Rio Silva & Alves‑Silva, 2008; Carvalho‑e‑Silva et al., de Janeiro houses a remarkable diversity as well 2009, 2010; Targino et al., 2009; Pombal, 2010; as a high number of species endemic to the state Pombal & Izecksohn, 2011; Weber et al., 2011; (Rocha et al., 2005; Cruz & Feio, 2007; van Sluys Silva & Alves‑Silva, 2011; Nunes et al., 2012; Silva & Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2018; v.58: e20185805 ISSN On‑Line: 1807‑0205 http://doi.org/10.11606/1807‑0205/2018.58.05 ISSN Printed: 0031‑1049 ISNI: 0000 0004 0384 1825 www.revistas.usp.br/paz www.scielo.br/paz Pap. Avulsos Zool., 2018; v.58: e20185805 Dorigo et al.: Amphibians of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2/11 Ouvernay, 2012; Dias et al., 2013; Caramaschi et al., 2013; (EN), vulnerable (VU), critically endangered (CR), or ex‑ Pimenta et al., 2014; Hepp et al., 2015). tinct (EX). Classification of species in these categories Within the last twelve years or so there has been a at both the global and national levels followed IUCN considerable increase in studies with molecular phylo‑ (2016) and the Official National List of Species of the genetics of amphibians, resulting in extensive nomen‑ Fauna Threatened with Extinction (issued in 2014 by the clatural changes at the familial, subfamilial and generic Brazilian Ministry of Environment – MMA), respectively. levels (e.g., Faivovich et al., 2005; Frost et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2006; Hedges et al., 2008; Guayasamin et al., 2009; Wilkinson et al., 2011; Padial et al., 2014; Castroviejo‑ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fisher et al., 2015). Considering such changes, together with the aforementioned increase in the amount of infor‑ Based on our literature survey and on the previous list mation regarding the amphibian fauna of Rio de Janeiro of Rocha et al. (2004), we compiled a list of 201 species after more than a decade since the list of Rocha et al. of amphibians (197 belonging to the Order Anura and (2004) came out, we think that list needs to be reevalu‑ four to the Order Gymnophiona) reported to occur in the ated and updated. Thus, we here present a revised and state of Rio de Janeiro, of which 54 (26.9%) are consid‑ updated list of the amphibian species reported to occur ered endemic to the state (Table 1). A total of 40 species in the state of Rio de Janeiro. were added to the amphibian list of Rocha et al. (2004), whereas five (Allobates carioca, Bokermannohyla clep‑ sydra, Cycloramphus lutzorum, Ischnocnema gr. lactea, MATERIALS AND METHODS and I. nigriventris; see below) were removed from the list based on our revision. The present updated list thus rep‑ The current knowledge about the composition and resents an increase of 21% in the number of species re‑ species richness of amphibians occurring in the state of ported for the state of Rio de Janeiro after thriteen years. Rio de Janeiro, in southeast Brazil, was evaluated based This evidences a consistent improvement in knowledge on a survey of the literature. Extensive searches were car‑ of the composition and richness of the amphibian fauna ried out on the websites Web of Science of the Institute of the state, driven by an increase in local faunal invento‑ for Scientific Information (http://apps.isiknowledge.com) ries and in systematic studies during the last decade. The and Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com.br) using description of 26 new amphibian species known to occur the following combinations of key words: “Anura* and in the state of Rio de Janeiro within the 2004‑2015 peri‑ Rio de Janeiro”, “amphibia* and Rio de Janeiro”, “herpeto* od, as well as the discovery of species that still remain and Rio de Janeiro”, “new and anura and Rio de Janeiro”. to be formally described (e.g., Siqueira et al., 2011a, b; Additionally, databases of the sites Amphibian Species Bittencourt‑Silva & Silva, 2013) reinforce the notion that of the World (http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/ many amphibian species inhabiting the Atlantic Forest amphibia) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation remain unknown (Pimm et al., 2010). of Nature: www.iucnredlist.org), as well as issues of the Most of the new records added herein to the previ‑ journal Herpetological Review were also mined for re‑ ous list of Rocha et al. (2004) represent descriptions of cords. All the above sources were searched between new species or revalidations of taxa previously in syn‑ June 2014 and December 2015, and searches were di‑ onymy, as well as new occurrence records for the state. rected towards works published from 2004 onwards. We However, two of the new additions to the list represent avoided including undescribed species or taxa of uncer‑ “old” (pre‑2004) records that have been apparently over‑ tain taxonomic status (i.e., treated in the literature as “sp.”, looked by Rocha et al. (2004): Scinax angrensis (as noted “aff.” or “cf.”) in our list, except in a few particular cases by Carvalho‑e‑Silva et al., 2008), a species that is actually (see Results and Discussion). Scientific nomenclature endemic to the state, and Brachycephalus hermogenesi, used throughout the present work follows Frost (2017), whose occurrence in the municipality of Paraty had been unless stated otherwise (see below). reported in the original description (Giaretta & Sawaya, Duellman et al. (2016) recently reviewed the sys‑ 1998). tematics of the speciose family Hylidae and proposed a Scinax x‑signatus (Spix, 1824) is a problematic taxon, number of taxonomic changes.