Phyllonastes lochites

Le résumé fourni par la source

While the systematic review of Phyllonastes by Ortega et al. (2025) was under revision, Brito-Zapata et al. (2024) described P. arutam from Comunidad de Río Blanco, Parroquia de Paquisha, close to the specimens identified as P. lochites by Harvey et al. (2013) and later used by Ortega et al. (2025). However, Ortega et al. (2025) did not include P. arutam in their analysis. Here, we update the 12S rRNA and 16S rRNA character matrix for the genus Phyllonastes using sequences originally published by Reyes-Puig et al. (2019), Reyes-Puig et al. (2020, 2021), von May et al. (2024), Brito-Zapata et al. (2024), and Ortega et al. (2025). The character matrix is available in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17944332. Substitution models and maximum likelihood tree inference were performed using W-IQ-TREE 2.3.4 (Trifinopoulos et al., 2016) under default settings. Branch support was evaluated using 2,000 ultrafast bootstrapping and SH-aLRT tests with 1,000 replicates (Guindon et al., 2010). We found that specimens identified as P. lochites by Ortega et al. (2025) belong to the clade described as P. arutam (Brito-Zapata et al. 2024) (Fig. 2). Locality, morphological, and phylogenetic evidence support the hypothesis that these populations do not correspond to P. lochites sensu stricto from the Río Piuntza type locality but rather represent P. arutam (Brito-Zapata et al., 2024). To further test this hypothesis, we examined high-resolution photographs of the holotype of P. lochites, confirming the absence of toe papillae as originally described by Lynch (1976). We also revised the specimens deposited at the Herpetological Collection of the Natural History Museum of Escuela Politécnica Nacional (EPN) cited by Ortega et al. (2025) and Harvey et al. (2013) and confirmed the presence of toe papillae in those individuals, consistent with the diagnosis of P. arutam (see Fig. 3). Moreover, P. lochites was described based on a single adult female measuring 14.9 mm (Lynch, 1976), whereas the populations referred to as P. lochites by Harvey et al. (2013) and Ortega et al. (2025) have an average adult size of 18.5 mm, closely matching the average size of P. arutam (18.6 mm; Brito-Zapata et al., 2024). Finally, and most importantly, our examination of the specimens referred to as P. lochites by Harvey et al. (2013) and Ortega et al. (2025) confirmed a phalangeal formula of 2-2-3- 3 in the hands, which differs from the original description of P. lochites (i.e., 2-2-3-2) and matches the formula observed in P. arutam (i.e., 2-2-3-3). Considering the combined spatial, phylogenetic, and morphological evidence, these findings clarify the identity and phylogenetic placement of P. arutam and demonstrate that the populations previously referred to as P. lochites by Harvey et al. (2013) and Ortega et al. (2025) in fact represent P. arutam. It is therefore urgently necessary to revisit the type locality of P. lochites to collect fresh material, enabling its inclusion in future phylogenetic studies and clarifying its evolutionary relationship within Phyllonastes. At present, the absence of molecular sequences from the holotype of P. lochites (KU 147070) represents an unavoidable limitation, preventing direct molecular comparisons with geographically and evolutionary close species. Obtaining and sequencing specimens from the type locality will be key to resolve the phylogenetic position of P. lochites and to avoid taxonomic uncertainty within the genus. We also suggest careful reassessment of type and referred specimens to ensure correct interpretation of diagnostic characters and to minimize the risk of continued taxonomic misidentifications. Phyllonastes lochites: ECUADOR: Morona Santiago: Río Piuntza, northern end of Cordillera del Condor (KU 147070, Holotype). Phyllonastes arutam: ECUADOR: Zamora Chinchipe: Loma Paquisha, Paquisha (EPN 11359–11364, 13365, 11366– 11367, 11369, 11371, 11373–11376, 11378–11379, 13609, 14253, 14255; specimens EPN 15320–15322, collected in the same area, were examined in this study but were not listed in Harvey et al. 2013); Yantzaza, Los Encuentros (EPN 13252, 13674); Zamora Chinchipe: Río Blanco, Paquisha (ZSFQ 1882, Holotype); (ZSFQ 1875, 1885, 1886, 6231, 6232, 6233, 6234, 6235, 6236, 6238, 6240, 6241, all paratypes).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.