identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D85941E36DBB1EFF4F6D3BFFC9FB38.text	03D85941E36DBB1EFF4F6D3BFFC9FB38.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Boana cinerascens (Spix 1824)	<div><p>A brief taxonomic history of Boana cinerascens (Spix, 1824)</p><p>Despite some attempts to clarify the taxonomic status of several populations of species in the Boana punctata group, the species boundaries, and geographical ranges of most taxa remain controversial. The identification of species in this group has been largely based on external morphology, which can be misleading due to the similar morphology and variable color pattern in many species of the group (Hoogmoed 1979; Kok 2006; Kok &amp; Kalamandeen 2008). Below, we summarize the complex taxonomic history involving Boana cinerascens, a species described almost two centuries ago, but for which the species limits and geographical range remain largely uncertain. Boana cinerascens was originally named as Hyla cinerascens by Spix (1824), with its description based on specimen(s) deposited at Zoologische Staatssammlung München (ZSM 2498/0 according to Duellman 1977), from “pagum Ecga prope flumen Teffe” (= Tefé, State of Amazonas, Brazil, according to Vanzolini [1981, 1996]). The specimens were collected probably around November and December 1819, during the visit of the Bavarian explorers Johann Baptist Spix and Karl Friedrich Philipp Martius to the region.</p><p>In the original description, Spix (1824) does not mention how many specimens he examined, and only one was illustrated (Spix 1824, plate VIII, figure 4; reproduced in Fig. 1A). Peters (1872) mentions only one specimen (“badly preserved and discolored”) in his study about the amphibians collected by Spix deposited in the Zoologische Staatssammlung München. However, two syntypes were reported by subsequent authors (Cochran 1955; Duellman 1977; Glaw &amp; Franzen 2006) —both syntypes are now apparently lost (Duellman 1977; Glaw &amp; Franzen 2006). It is important to note that Hoogmoed and Gruber (1983) suggested that it is likely that Spix used only one specimen and the second one was included after the ZSM catalogue was produced (between 1872 and early twenty century). Peters (1872) considered Hyla cinerascens as a synonym of Hyla albomarginata, justifying that the examined syntype was “a very poorly preserved copy of H. albomarginata Spix ”. Lutz (1951a; b [1949]), however, considered unlikely that Spix’s species was conspecific with the Atlantic Forest species H. albomarginata, and therefore treated H. cinerascens as a distinct species. Furthermore, this synonymy was considered doubtful by several authors such as Duméril and Bibron (1841), Lutz (1951; 1973), Bokermann (1966).</p><p>Hyla granosa was described by Boulenger (1882) based on a series of specimens from scattered localities around Amazonia: Guyana, Demerara Falls (The Natural History Museum – BMNH 1947.2. 12.931), Santarém, Brazil (BMNH 1947.2.12.94–96); Interior of Brazil (BMNH 1947.2.12.97–98); and Ecuador, Canelos (BMNH 1947.2.12.99). Two of these specimens (BMNH 1947.2.12.99 and BMNH 1947.2.12.97) were illustrated by Boulenger (1882, plate XXIV, figures 2 and 3, following Hoogmoed [1979], reproduced here in Fig. 1B and 1C, respectively). In the original description, Boulenger (1882) suggested that males and females might show remarkable differences in color pattern (“males with a few scattered white dots on the head and back; females with a cross-streak between the eyes, a streak from the nostril, and a few spots on the back, forearms, and tibiae, purple; upper eyelid rose, as in H. punctata ”). However, no sympatric specimens of the opposite sex were available in his sample. Lutz (1951a;b [1949]) noted that Boulenger’s type series may have more than one form under the same name—she suggested, that the plain form could be called Hyla inornata and, by implication, that the patterned form should retain</p><p>1 Numbers represent the current collection numbers at the BMNH. the name Hyla granosa . However, this proposal was an informal suggestion without nomenclatural value and no type specimen was designated for Hyla inornata . Although it could be inferred that she was referring to the animal illustrated in Boulenger (1882: BMNH 1947.2.12.99), we agree with Duellman (1974) that the name Hyla inornata Lutz, 1951 [1949] must be considered a nomen nudum, because there is no designed type for this name.</p><p>Hyla ornatissima was named and described by Noble (1923), based on a single female specimen from Meamu, Mazaruni R., British Guiana, currently Guyana (AMNH 13491). Lutz (1951a; b [1949]) suggested H. ornatissima might be identical to H. granosa, but did not formally synonymize them.</p><p>Hyla granosa gracilis was named and described by Melin (1941) based on two male syntypes from Rio Uaupés (north of Ipanoré), Brazil (both specimens catalogued with same number in Naturhistoriska Museet, Göteborg, Sweden, NHMG 467) (Fig. 2), according to Duellman (1974).</p><p>Rivero (1961) briefly reviewed the taxonomy of the aforementioned taxa, and considered Hyla ornatissima a synonym of H. granosa . He also suggested that the name Hyla granosa gracilis is unnecessary and rejected the diagnostic characters provided by Melin (1941), synonymizing H. g. gracilis with H. granosa . The status of H. granosa gracilis was further discussed by a series of papers that dealt with the species, but do not mention each other (likely because each author was unaware of the work of others). Cochran &amp; Goin (1970) explicitly considered H. granosa gracilis as synonym of Hyla punctata . Rivero (1972) formally proposed that H. granosa gracilis should be considered a synonym of H. granosa .</p><p>Duellman (1974), in his taxonomic reassessment of several Neotropical hylids, once again reviewed the status of the taxa mentioned above. He designated one of the syntypes of H. granosa as lectotype (BMNH 1947.2.12.99, from Canelos, Pastaza, Ecuador). It is worth mentioning that Cochran &amp; Goin (1970) restricted the type-locality of Hyla granosa to Demerara Falls, Guyana, without indicating a lectotype. Only one of Boulenger’s specimens was collected at that locality (BMNH 1947.2.12.93). However, Duellman (1974: 8) explicitly designated a lectotype (BMNH 1947.2.12.99), and consequently, the type-locality of H. granosa became Canelos, Ecuador. When reassessing the status of H. granosa gracilis, Duellman (1974) concurred with Rivero (1972) that the taxon was to be considered a synonym of H. granosa, and consequently neither a synonym of H. punctata (as suggested by Cochran &amp; Goin 1970), nor a subspecies of H. granosa (as suggested by Lutz 1951a; b [1949], 1973).</p><p>The status of most species was reviewed again by Hoogmoed (1979). Based on morphological, ecological, and acoustical evidence, he removed Hyla ornatissima from the synonymy of Hyla granosa . Hoogmoed (1979) did not comment on the status of H. cinerascens . A few years later, Hoogmoed and Gruber (1983), in a systematic review of Spix’s material, considered that Hyla granosa Boulenger, 1882 was a junior synonym of Hyla cinerascens Spix, 1824 but made the following remark: “As H. granosa is a well-established name (Hoogmoed, 1979) it seems undesirable to replace it by a name which for a long time has been considered a synonym of a superficially similar species and of which the type has been destroyed. We therefore will propose the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress H. cinerascens Spix, 1824 in order to stabilize the nomenclature of this taxon”. The formal petition to ICZN was never submitted and the name Hyla granosa continued to be widely used for another 20 years, until Barrio-Amorós (2004) and Frost et al. (2006) used the name Hyla cinerascens for the taxon until then known as H. granosa . The use of H. cinerascens was widely followed and the name has become the standard for what was once known as H. granosa .</p><p>The status of the species treated above has remained unchanged, except for generic reallocations. Faivovich et al. (2005) placed them in Hypsiboas, and Dubois (2017) corrected the generic name to Boana (by implication). As per our interpretation of historical literature, Boana cinerascens (Spix, 1824) is a valid name, and Boana granosa (Boulenger, 1882) and Boana granosa gracilis (Melin, 1941) are junior synonyms of it.</p><p>Three recent expeditions to the Rio Negro and Rio Solimões regions (State of Amazonas, Brazil) of Amazonia yielded important material that allowed us to revisit the taxonomic issues mentioned above.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D85941E36DBB1EFF4F6D3BFFC9FB38	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sturaro, Marcelo José;Costa, João Carlos Lopes;Maciel, Adriano O.;Lima-Filho, Geraldo R.;Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M.;Mejia, Daniela Pareja;Ron, Santiago R.;Peloso, Pedro L. V.	Sturaro, Marcelo José, Costa, João Carlos Lopes, Maciel, Adriano O., Lima-Filho, Geraldo R., Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M., Mejia, Daniela Pareja, Ron, Santiago R., Peloso, Pedro L. V. (2020): Resolving the taxonomic puzzle of Boana cinerascens (Spix, 1824), with resurrection of Hyla granosa gracilis Melin, 1941 (Anura: Hylidae). Zootaxa 4750 (1): 1-30, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4750.1.1
03D85941E366BB17FF4F69BCF9D1FCA0.text	03D85941E366BB17FF4F69BCF9D1FCA0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Boana cinerascens (Spix 1824)	<div><p>Boana cinerascens (Spix, 1824)</p><p>(Figs. 3, 6–7)</p><p>Hyla cinerascens Spix, 1824: 35 (Syntypes: ZSM 2498/0 [two specimens], type-locality: “Ecgá prope flumen Teffe” (= Tefé, state of Amazonas, Brazil, according to Vanzolini [1981, 1996], both lost, according to Duellman [1977], Hoogmoed &amp; Gruber [1983], and Glaw &amp; Franzen [2006]); Lutz 1951a “1949”: 315; Lutz 1951b “1949”: 331; Duellman 1977: 26; Barrio-Amorós 2004: 13; Glaw &amp; Franzen 2006: 166.</p><p>Hyla granosa Boulenger, 1882: 358 (BMNH 1947.2.12.99 [formerly 80.12.5.181] (type-locality: Ecuador: Canelos), according to Condit [1964], designated lectotype by Duellman [1974: 8], restricting the type-locality to Canelos by lectotype designation); Lutz 1951a “1949”: 310; Lutz 1951b “1949”: 326; Hoogmoed, 1979: 5 (partly); Hoogmoed &amp; Gruber (1983): 366; Galatti et al, 2007: 83.</p><p>“ Hyla inornata ” (nomen nudum) Lutz 1951a “1949”: 311; Lutz 1951b “1949”: 328.</p><p>Hypsiboas cinerascens Duellman et al., 2016 (partly).</p><p>Boana cinerascens Dubois, 2017: 28 .</p><p>Neotype (MPEG 40282, field number PLVP 402). An adult male, from Tefé (03°16’47”S and 64°45’09”W), Amazonas, Brazil (Fig. 10), collected by Adriano Oliveira Maciel, Marcelo J. Sturaro and Pedro L. V. Peloso, on January 15, 2017 (Fig. 6–7).</p><p>Diagnosis. Based on the molecular phylogenetic analysis, Boana cinerascens should be considered a member of the B. punctata group. Boana cinerascens is defined, morphologically by the following combination of characters: (1) medium sized Boana (SVL males 32.3–37.5, mean 34.9 mm, N = 8); (2) snout truncate in both dorsal and lateral views; (3) skin on dorsum granular; (4) forearm moderately hypertrophied; (5) prepollex small and nonprotruding as a prepollical spine; (6) mental gland present; (7) in life, dorsum green with small yellow spots and numerous reddish-brown dots (melanophores); (8) in preservative, dorsum cream with numerous white spots, and numerous brown and reddish-brown small dots (melanophores); (9) dorsolateral stripe absent; (10) subgular, single vocal sac.</p><p>Description of the neotype. An adult male, SVL 32.3 mm. Head wider than long (HW/HL = 1.18), widest at corner of the mouth; snout truncate in both dorsal and lateral views; interorbital distance more than two and a half times the distance between the nostrils (IOD/IND = 2.57) (Fig. 6A); eye diameter slightly greater than eye-nostril distance (ED/END = 1.05); canthus rostralis indistinct, rounded in cross-section; nostrils protuberant, nearly elliptical, directed dorsolaterally; internarial area slightly concave, interorbital area flat, loreal area concave. Eyes large and protuberant, directed laterally, larger than tympanum diameter (ED/TD = 1.77); pupil horizontally elliptical; nictitating membrane transparent without any trace of reticulation, its border with brown spots (Fig. 7A).</p><p>Supratympanic fold present; tympanum small (TD/ED = 0.56), round, completely covered by skin but tympanic annulus evident. Vocal sac subgular, single, extending slightly over the forearms. Choanae small, elliptical, not concealed by palatal shelf, larger than vomerine odontophores; a pair of vomerine odontophores present (four vomerine teeth on right side, six on left side); tongue cordiform, nearly one fourth of posterior end free; vocal slits present, extending diagonally from lateral base of tongue (anterior third) almost to angle of jaw.</p><p>Arms robust, moderately hypertrophied; axillary membrane absent (Fig. 6B). Lateral margins of arm and forearm with small tubercles, but not forming a fringe; finger tips round; finger disks present on all fingers, disk on FI smallest; relative lengths of fingers I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; subarticular tubercles round, narrower than finger width; subarticular tubercles on FI and FIV of nearly the same size, larger than those of FII and FIII; supernumerary tubercles present; inner metacarpal tubercle flat, elliptical; prepollex small with prepollical spine not protruding out of skin; outer metacarpal tubercle small, heart shaped. Hand webbing between FI and FII absent, present but not extensive between FII–FIII and FIII–FIV. Webbing formula I–II2-–3-III 2½–2+IV on both sides. Details of hand shown in Figure 7B.</p><p>Legs long and slender, lacking appendages (e.g. fringes, folds, or tubercles). Ankle without appendices or tubercles. All toes well developed, disks present on all toes, disks on TI and TII smallest; relative lengths of toes I &lt;II &lt;V &lt;III &lt;IV. Subarticular tubercles round; inner metatarsal tubercle flat, slightly elliptical; outer metatarsal tubercle hardly visible, elliptical. Webbing formula: I 2-–2+II1+–2½III1+–3-IV2+–1V on left foot and I2-–2+II1- –2½III1+–3-IV2+–1+V on right foot. Details of foot shown in Figure 7C. Skin on dorsum, head, dorsal surfaces of limbs, flanks, and groin granular; skin on chest, belly and undersurfaces of thigh areolate; oval mental gland; skin on vocal sac granular; skin on ventral parts of fore limb and tibia smooth. Cloacal opening directed posteriorly; cloacal region with tubercles.</p><p>Measurements of the neotype (in mm): SVL = 32.3; HL = 11.3; HW = 13.3; ED = 3.9; ELW = 2.4; IOD = 7.2; IND = 2.8; END = 3.7; THL = 18.6; TBL = 16.8; FL = 23.0; TD = 2.2.</p><p>Color in preservative. Dorsum cream with white spots, and brown and reddish-brown small melanophores (Fig. 6A). Flanks predominantly cream with brown and reddish-brown melanophores on upper region. Inguinal region, anterior, and posterior region of thighs cream. Thigh dorsally cream with white spots and brown and reddish-brown small melanophores; anteriorly and posteriorly cream. Upper arms, forearms, and tibiae dorsally cream with white spots and brown and reddish-brown small melanophores. Gular region cream with light-brown melanophores. Chest and belly translucent cream, with light-brown melanophores and white visceral peritonea covering the organs visible. Ventral surface of forearms and hindlimbs cream with light brown spots. Ventral surface of hands and feet cream (Fig. 6B).</p><p>Color in life. Dorsum yellowish green with light yellow spots and brown and reddish-brown small melanophores. Flanks predominantly yellow with brown and light yellow blotches and reddish-brown melanophores on upper region. Inguinal region, anterior and posterior region of the thighs light lemon green. Dorsal surface of thighs, forearms, and tibiae same as dorsum (Fig. 3). Gular region, chest and belly translucent light lemon green.</p><p>Advertisement call. Calls from one adult male (MPEG 40290) from PNJ, Novo Airão, Amazonas, Brazil (02°18’04”S, 62°28’07”W) and one adult male (MPEG 40282, neotype) from Tefé, Amazonas, Brazil (Fig. 8). Specimens were calling perched 3 m above the ground near the edge of the river. The call of the PNJ specimens consists of one to two notes (mean duration of 0.034 s, SD=0.0016) separated by short intervals (mean inter-note interval = 0.11 s). The advertisement call has a mean duration of 0.19 s (SD = 0.05) with an average dominant frequency of 1814 Hz (SD = 96.99), mean rise time of 0.095 s (SD = 0.026), and mean frequency bandwidth of 1616.96 Hz (SD = 17.25) (Fig. 8). The call from Tefé consists of two to three notes (mean duration of 0.037 s, SD = 0.0019) separated by short intervals (mean inter-note interval = 0.12 s). The advertisement call has a mean duration of 0.26 s (SD = 0.080) with an average dominant frequency of 1874 Hz (SD = 127.31), mean rise time of 0.13 s (SD = 0.041), and mean frequency bandwidth of 1762 Hz (SD = 17.09) According to Hoogmoed (1979), Crawford &amp; Jones (1933), firstly described the call of Hyla granosa as a medium-pitched “pink”, however for him this call was more similar to that of H. punctata and for him, specimens of both species were confused. He provided sonograms of calls of both species from Suriname, without comments on temporal or spectral parameters. Later, the advertisement call of Hyla granosa was described by Duellman (1978) as a two- to four-note call, usually: “boop-boop-boop”. The duration of the notes was 0.078 seconds and the average dominant frequency was 1390 Hz. Subsequently, De la Riva et al. (1997) described the call as a series of two to seven short notes that decrease in intensity, with one average dominant frequency of 1327 Hz. Calls from studies in Ecuador (Pareja et al., unpublished) show values close to those found by Duellman and De la Riva et al.; the dominant frequency varies between 1560.41 Hz up to 1839.50 Hz. Boana cinerascens from the Guyanes has a call of 1–2 notes with a dominant frequency between 1260–2500 Hz (Lescure and Marty, 2000). The call of Boana cinerascens differs from the other advertisement calls of the group: Boana jimenezi´ s advertisement call is composed of 3–4 notes with a dominant frequency at 3010–3488 Hz., and Boana punctata calls with 5–15 notes and a dominant frequency between 689–1540 Hz (Hödl, 1977; Lescure and Marty, 2000; Marquez et al., 1993; Señaris and Ayarzaguëna, unpublished data). Finally, the mating call of Boana sibleszi usually consists of one note, occasionally two, with the dominant frequency at 1680–2231 Hz. Information regarding the advertisement calls of the Boana punctata group are summarized in Table 1.</p><p>.</p><p>aData only for advertisement call presented</p><p>bData only for the three-note call presented</p><p>cData only for short advertisement call presented</p><p>Distribution. Boana cineracens is known with certainty from the type locality Tefé, Amazonas, Brazil; Parque Nacional do Jaú, Novo Airão, Amazonas, Brazil; and Canelos, Ecuador (Fig. 10). This species occurs syntopically with B. gracils and may occur more widely.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D85941E366BB17FF4F69BCF9D1FCA0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sturaro, Marcelo José;Costa, João Carlos Lopes;Maciel, Adriano O.;Lima-Filho, Geraldo R.;Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M.;Mejia, Daniela Pareja;Ron, Santiago R.;Peloso, Pedro L. V.	Sturaro, Marcelo José, Costa, João Carlos Lopes, Maciel, Adriano O., Lima-Filho, Geraldo R., Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M., Mejia, Daniela Pareja, Ron, Santiago R., Peloso, Pedro L. V. (2020): Resolving the taxonomic puzzle of Boana cinerascens (Spix, 1824), with resurrection of Hyla granosa gracilis Melin, 1941 (Anura: Hylidae). Zootaxa 4750 (1): 1-30, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4750.1.1
03D85941E361BB0AFF4F6F1CF81AFCC4.text	03D85941E361BB0AFF4F6F1CF81AFCC4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Boana gracilis (Melin 1941)	<div><p>Boana gracilis (Melin, 1941), revalidated, new combination</p><p>(Figs. 2, 4, 9)</p><p>Hyla granosa gracilis Melin 1941: 21; Lutz 1951 a [1949]: [map].</p><p>Hyla granosa Rivero 1961: 100; Rivero 1972: 182; Duellman 1974: 8; Hoogmoed 1979: 5 (partly, material from Canaripó); Galatti et al., 2007 (only Fig. 5 which shows a specimen from PNJ).</p><p>Hyla punctata Cochran &amp; Goin 1970: 224 .</p><p>Hypsiboas granosa Faivovich et al., 2005: 85 .</p><p>Hypsiboas cinerascens Frost et al., 2006: 65; Pyron &amp; Wiens 2011: 570; Faivovich et al., 2013: 50; Duellman et al., 2016 (partly); Pinheiro et al., 2019</p><p>Boana cinerascens Frost, 2019: [website].</p><p>Diagnosis. Based on the molecular phylogenetic analysis, Boana gracilis should be considered a member of the B. punctata group. Boana gracilis is diagnosed morphologically by the following combination of characters: (1) medium sized Boana (SVL males 33.7–37.2, mean 35.9 mm, N = 26); (2) snout truncate in both dorsal and lateral views; (3) skin on dorsum granular; (4) forearm slightly hypertrophied; (5) prepollex small prepollical spine not protruding out of skin; (6) mental gland present; (7) number of vomerine teeth up to 10; (8) lacking small tubercles on postaxial side forearm and supernumerary tubercles on hand; (9) round subarticular tubercles on fingers I and IV, by not having supernumerary tubercles on hands; (10) in life, dorsum predominantly yellowish-green with large yellow blotches, scattered reddish-brown dots (melanophores) and reddish-brown irregular blotches within the white blotches (most of the examined specimens), a reddish-brown transversal interorbital bar (expanded on eyelid); (11) in preservative, dorsum cream with large white blotches and scattered brown small melanophores, and brown irregular blotches within the white blotches (most of the examined specimens); a brown transversal interorbital bar (expanded on eyelid); (12) dorsolateral stripe absent; (13) subgular, single vocal sac.</p><p>Comparisons with congeners in the Boana punctata group. Because of the phylogenetic position of this taxon, we limit the comparisons to species in the B. punctata group. We made the comparisons by direct examination of preserved specimens, photographs (especially for color in life) and/or the literature. Character states for the species under comparison are given in parentheses. Boana gracilis differs from B. alemani in dorsal color pattern (in preservative: cream with dark spots; color in life unknown) and its larger size (SVL 30.5 mm). Boana gracilis differs from B. atlantica in dorsal color pattern (in preservative: white with yellow dorsolateral stripes and sparse spots; in life: green with reddish brown dorsolateral stripes and sparse spots) and its smaller size (male SVL&gt; 37 mm) (examined specimens and Caramaschi &amp; Velosa 1996; Haddad et al. 2013). Boana gracilis differs from B. cinerascens by its higher number of vomerine teeth (up to 10 vs. up to six in B. cinerascens), by lacking small tubercles on postaxial side forearm (present), and supernumerary tubercles on hand (present), dorsal color pattern (in preservative: cream with scattered, very small, white spots; in life: green, with sparse small white spots). Boana gracilis differs from B. hobbsi in dorsal color pattern (cream with few and sparse dark brown spots and two dorsolateral dark brown stripes) and its small size (holotype B. hobbsi SVL = 42.5 mm) (examined specimen, and Cochran &amp; Goin 1970). It differs from B. picturata (Boulenger, 1899) in dorsal color pattern (in preservative: cream with reticulate violet blotches margined by purplish red) and much smaller size (SVL&gt; 47mm in all examined specimens). Boana gracilis differs from B. punctata in dorsal color pattern (in preservative: cream with sparse white spots and, in most individuals, dorsal lateral white and red stripes) (examined specimens and photo of the holotype provided in Milto &amp; Barabanov 2011). It differs from B. sibleszi in dorsal color pattern (sexual dimorphism [Hoogmoed, 1979], in life: green speckled by white or brown, with or without yellow dorsolateral stripes; in preservative: cream speckled by brown and a transversal brown bar between eyes), mental gland (absent) (Cole et al. 2013; Hoogmoed, 1979; Kok &amp; Kalamandeen 2008; Rivero 1972). Boana gracilis and B. sibleszi are not sister species in our phylogeny (Fig. 5). Boana gracilis differs from B. jimenezi by the shape of the subarticular tubercles on fingers I and IV (bifid), by not having supernumerary tubercles on hands (present), by the presence of a mental gland (absent) and dorsal color pattern (in life: pale green with numerous small tan or reddish-brown chromatophores, with or without dorsolateral white stripes; in preservative: cream with numerous small chromatophores, with or without immaculate white dorsolateral stripes) (Señaris &amp; Ayarzagüena 2006).</p><p>Description. SVL adult males 32.7–37.2 mm (35.4 ± 1.4; N = 22) and SVL adult females 28.1–33.2 mm (30.4 ± 2.1; N = 4). Head as wide as long (HW/HL = 0.88–1.13, 1.04 ± 0.05; N = 26), widest at corner of the mouth; snout truncate in both dorsal and lateral views; interorbital distance more than two and a half times the distance between the nostrils (IOD/IND = 2.44–3.72, 2.84 ± 0.33; N = 26); eye diameter slightly smaller than eye–nostril distance (ED/END 0.80–1.17, 0.99 ± 0.09; N = 26); canthus rostralis indistinct; nostrils protuberant, nearly elliptical, directed dorsolaterally; internarial area slightly concave, interorbital area flat, loreal area concave. Eyes large and protuberant, directed laterally, larger than tympanum diameter (ED/TD 1.52–2.31, 1.76 ± 0.18; N = 26); pupil horizontally elliptical; nictitating membrane transparent without any trace of reticulation, its border with brown spots.</p><p>Supratympanic fold barely evident; tympanum small (TD/ED 0.43–0.66, 0.58 ± 0.05; N = 26), round, completely covered by skin with tympanic annulus barely evident. Vocal sac subgular, single, extending slightly over the forearms. Choanae small, elliptical, not concealed by palatal shelf, larger than vomerine odontophores; a pair of vomerine odontophores present with 4–10 (7.5 ± 1.5; N = 17) vomerine teeth on right side; tongue cordiform, nearly one fourth of posterior end free; vocal slits present, extending diagonally from lateral base of tongue (anterior third) almost to angle of jaw.</p><p>Arms slender, only slightly hypertrophied; axillary membrane absent. Lateral margins of upper arm and fore- arm without tubercles or fringes; finger tips round; finger disks present on all fingers, disk on FI smallest; relative lengths of fingers: I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; subarticular tubercles round, narrower than finger width; subarticular tubercles on FIV larger than those of FI–III; supernumerary tubercles absent; inner metacarpal tubercle flat, elliptical, outer metacarpal tubercle absent; prepollex small prepollical spine not protruding out of skin; outer metacarpal tubercle small, almost round, barely distinguishable. Webbing between FI and FII absent, present but not extensive between FII–FIII and FIII–FIV. Variation in finger webbing: II (2 - –2)–(2½–3 +) III (2 + –2½)–(2–2 +) IV.</p><p>Legs long and slender, lacking appendages (e.g., fringes, folds, or tubercles). Ankle without appendices or tubercles. All toes well developed, disks present on all toes, disk on TI and TII smallest; relative lengths of toes: I &lt;II &lt;V &lt;III &lt;IV. Subarticular tubercles round, single; inner metatarsal tubercle flat, slightly elliptical; outer metatarsal tubercle hardly visible. Variation in foot webbing formula: I 2 - –(2–2 +) II (1–1 +)–(2–2 +)III(1–1 +)–(2–2 +) IV (2–2 +)–(1– 1 +) V. Skin on dorsum, head, dorsal surfaces of limbs, flanks and groin granular; skin on chest, belly and undersurfaces of thigh areolate; oval mental gland; skin on vocal sac granular; skin on ventral parts of fore limbs and tibiae smooth. Cloacal opening directed posteriorly; cloacal region with tubercles.</p><p>Color in preservative (Fig. 9). Dorsum cream with large white blotches, with brown and reddish-brown small melanophores. Many individuals with a brown transverse interorbital bar (expanded on eyelid). Dorsum may have large brown spots. Flanks predominantly cream with brown and reddish-brown melanophores on upper region. Inguinal region, anterior and posterior region of the thighs cream. Thigh dorsally cream with white blotches and brown and reddish-brown small melanophores; anteriorly and posteriorly cream. Upper arms, forearms, and tibiae dorsally cream with white blotches and brown and reddish-brown small melanophores—commonly showing a high- er concentration of melanophores forming spots and stains. Gular region cream with light-brown melanophores. Chest and belly translucent cream, with light-brown melanophores, and white visceral peritonea covering the organs visible. Ventral surface of forearms and hindlimbs cream with light brown spots. Ventral surface of hands and feet cream.</p><p>Color in life (Fig. 4). Dorsum yellowish green with light yellow blotches, with or without concentrations of brown and reddish-brown small melanophores (Fig. 4); region between eyes with brown blotches. Flanks predominantly yellow; light yellow blotches and reddish-brown melanophores on upper region. Inguinal region, anterior and posterior region of the thighs light lemon green. Dorsal surface of thighs, forearms and tibiae as same as dorsum (Fig. 4). Gular region, chest and belly translucent light lemon green.</p><p>Distribution. Boana gracilis is known with certainty from the type locality “Rio Uaupes (north of Ipanoré), Brazil; the Municipality of Novo Airão (Parque Nacional do Jaú, and Parque Nacional de Anavilhanas), State of Amazonas, Brazil; Canaripó, Venezuela (Hoogmoed 1979), San José de Chipiro, boca del río Ventuari, Venezuela, Macuruco, confluencia Orinoco-Ventuari, Venezuela; and from Iwokrama, Guyana (Fig. 10). This species occurs syntopically with B. cinerascens and may occur more widely.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D85941E361BB0AFF4F6F1CF81AFCC4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sturaro, Marcelo José;Costa, João Carlos Lopes;Maciel, Adriano O.;Lima-Filho, Geraldo R.;Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M.;Mejia, Daniela Pareja;Ron, Santiago R.;Peloso, Pedro L. V.	Sturaro, Marcelo José, Costa, João Carlos Lopes, Maciel, Adriano O., Lima-Filho, Geraldo R., Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M., Mejia, Daniela Pareja, Ron, Santiago R., Peloso, Pedro L. V. (2020): Resolving the taxonomic puzzle of Boana cinerascens (Spix, 1824), with resurrection of Hyla granosa gracilis Melin, 1941 (Anura: Hylidae). Zootaxa 4750 (1): 1-30, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4750.1.1
