Bufonidae Gray 1825

Family Bufonidae Gray, 1825

A recent study revealed high levels of species diversity within the bufonid genus Amazophrynella (Rojas et al. 2018), and described a new species for Suriname, French Guiana, and Amapá: Amazophrynella teko Rojas, Fouquet, Ron, Hernández-Ruz, Melo-Sampaio, Chaparro, Vogt, Carvalho, Pinheiro, Ávila, Farias, Gordo & Hrbek, 2018. According to their study, it is the only species distributed in Amapá. Vacher et al. (2020) also found only one species of Amazophrynella in their molecular survey, but they identified it as A. manaos Rojas-Zamora, Carvalho, Gordo, Ávila, Farias & Hrbek, 2014 or A. aff. manaos. We assume that the entries A. manaos and A. aff. manaos in their supplemental material is likely an inconsistent nomenclatural update throughout their species list. Both applied names (A. manaos and A. aff. manaos) of Vacher et al. (2020) are undoubtedly conspecific with A. teko. In this context, we treated the records of A. minuta and Amazophrynella sp. 1 from the Amapá National Forest as conspecific with A. teko as well.

For more than30 years, Atelopus hoogmoedi was considered a subspecies of Atelopus pulcher (Boulenger, 1882) (Lescure 1974, 1976) or Atelopus spumarius Cope, 1871 (Lescure et al. 1980; Lescure & Marty 2000; Lötters et al. 2002). However, Lötters & Schulte (2005) elevated the taxon to full species level and Noonan & Gaucher (2005) provided molecular support for their decision. The populations from Brazil distributed north of the Amazon River, including Amapá, are currently assigned to A. hoogmoedi (Costa-Campos & Carvalho 2018; Jorge et al. 2020; Silva et al. 2020). Thus, we considered the records of Atelopus barbotini Lescure, 1981 from Lima (2006a, 2006b) and A. spumarius from Queiroz et al. (2011) and Lima (2018) as A. hoogmoedi. According to Vacher et al. (2020), Atelopus flavescens Duméril & Bibron, 1841 is also expected to occur in Amapá. However, since the taxonomic status of the populations from Amapá remains partly ambiguous, we adopted only one of the names in our list (A. hoogmoedi). Although it is probable that A. flavescens occurs indeed in the state of Amapá, further taxonomic studies should clarify this matter.

Regarding the genus Rhinella, there are two species of the group of R. granulosa registered in Amapá: Rhinella granulosa (Spix, 1824) (Pereira-Júnior et al. 2013; Ferreira-Lima et al. 2017; Missassi et al. 2017; Lima 2018) and R. major (Costa-Campos & Freire 2019). However, Amapá is contained only within the distribution range of R. major, thus we considered records of R. granulosa to be R. major. Within the group of R. margaritifera, Rhinella martyi Fouquet, Gaucher, Blanc & Vélez- Rodriguez, 2007 is currently considered a junior synonym of Rhinella margaritifera (Laurenti, 1768) (Pereyra et al. 2021), and we considered the records of R. martyi (Silva-e-Silva & Costa-Campos 2018; Pedroso-Santos et al. 2019) as R. margaritifera. We then considered the records of R. margaritifera as Rhinella dapsilis (Myers & Carvalho, 1945), following the same study. Pereyra et al. (2021) recovered Rhinella castaneotica (Caldwell, 1991) paraphyletic, with the specimen from French Guiana more related to Rhinella proboscidea Spix, 1824 than to the probable R. castaneotica sensu stricto from the Brazilian state of Pará. Ferrão et al. (2022) analyzed specimens from both French Guiana and Amapá, recovering them monophyletic and as the sister group of R. castaneotica and Rhinella teotoniensis Ferrão, Souza, Hanken & Lima, 2022. We agree with their conclusions and consider the species from Amapá an unnamed species, which we treat as R. aff. castaneotica.