Bioacoustics of Adenomera andreae

Locality VI . 20 March 2002 . EBRG 4664–65 (adult male and adult female, respectively) . Species assignment. The taxonomy of the former genus Adenomera is confusing (Heyer 1973, 1977; De la Riva 1995). In Venezuela , two species were reported in that genus, A. andreae and A. hylaedactyla , which are difficult to distinguish morphologically. Frost et al (2006) place Adenomera in the synonymy of Leptodactylus . We tentatively assign our specimens to L. andreae because of habitat (rainforest versus open areas typical of A. hylaedactyla ), and expanded toe tips (slender toes in A. hylaedactyla ). Gorzula and Señaris (1999) pointed out that black bones are visible through the skin on the toes in A. hylaedactyla , although J.D. Lynch (in litt.) is confident that this character does not correspond with that species; the black bones are also visible in our specimens. Vocalization. We heard calls from 1700 h to dusk in the foothills of Sarisariñama. Males called from forest litter near a creek in rainforest. The call, recorded at 26ºC, consists of one note, repeated approximately every second; the notes have duration of 60 ms, a dominant frequency of 5200 Hz, and a lower harmonic with the fundamental frequency at 1400 Hz ( Fig. 12 ). Recordings of this species from French Guiana ( Lescure and Marty 2000 ) and from Bolivia ( Márquez et al . 1995 ) agree with our recording, but disagree with that from Peru ( Angulo and Icochea 2003 ), in which the dominant and fundamental frequencies are the same, at 2370 Hz. In contrast, the call of A. hylaedactyla consists of three notes per second ( Márquez et al . 1995 ). 1. As one reviewer of the work stated, the name bullfrog is not proper to such small frog as Adenomera andreae , as it has been widely used for centuries to big North American frogs ( Lithobates catesbeianus ). We just follow Frank and Ramus (1995) although are clear that many of the proposed names by these authors are not proper.