...

Herpetofauna, Ponte de Pedra Hydroelectric

by user

on
Category: Documents
4

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Herpetofauna, Ponte de Pedra Hydroelectric
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
Herpetofauna, Ponte de Pedra Hydroelectric Power Plant,
states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Nelson Jorge da Silva Jr. 1, 3
Carlos Eduardo Domingos Cintra 1
Hélder Lúcio Rodrigues Silva 1, 2
Marcio Candido Costa 1
Claudiano do Amaral Souza 1
Antônio Alves Pachêco Jr. 1
Fernanda Anziliero Gonçalves 1
1
Systema Naturae Consultoria Ambiental Ltda.
Rua 58 n 217, Jardim Goiás. CEP 74810-250. Goiânia, Goiás. Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]
o
2
Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas Biológicas. Departamento de Biologia. Universidade Católica de Goiás.
Avenida Universitária, 1440 – Setor Universitário. CEP 74605-010. Goiânia, Goiás. Brazil.
3
Universidade Católica de Goiás. Mestrado em Ciências Ambientais e Saúde.
Rua 232, no 128, 3º andar, Área V . CEP 74605-140. Goiânia, Goiás. Brazil.
Abstract
This paper presents a check list of amphibians and reptiles of the area under influence of Ponte de Pedra hydroelectric
power plant on Correntes River (municipality of Sonora), between the Brazilian states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Mato
Grosso. The list was the result of collecting efforts of a Faunal Program (inventory, rescue, and monitoring) carried out
between November 2003 and April 2005. The list comprises 2 orders (Gymnophiona and Anura), 7 families
(Caeciliidae, Bufonidae, Cycloramphidae, Hylidae, Leiuperidae, and Leptodactylidae) 14 genera, and 33 species of
amphibians and 3 orders (Testudines, Crocodylia, and Squamata), 20 families (Chelidae, Testudinidae, Alligatoridae,
Amphisbaenidae, Anguidae, Gekkonidae, Phyllodactylidae, Gymnophtalmidae, Hoplocercidae, Polychrotidae,
Scincidae, Teiidae, Tropiduridae, Anomalepididae, Leptotyphlopidae, Typhlopidae, Boidae, Colubridae, Elapidae, and
Viperidae), 51 genera, and 72 species of reptiles.
Introduction
The knowledge of vertebrate species composition
of a given area is an important factor in
conservation
projects.
Accordingly,
the
identification of amphibians and reptiles and the
study of their ecological characteristics are
decisive for the success of actions directed to
biodiversity conservation (Heyer et al. 1994). A
considerable amount of data related to richness
and composition of communities may be
assembled through appropriate bibliography and
field inventories. Herpetological inventories can
offer a wider vision of distributional patterns of a
large number of species which optimizes the
comprehension efforts of species distribution
related to different environmental variables.
A total of 825 species of amphibians (797 Anura,
27 Gymnophiona, and 1 Urodela) and 684 species
of reptiles (6 Crocodylia, 36 Chelonia, 61
Amphisbaenia, 228 Sauria, and 353 Serpentes) are
described for Brazil (SBH 2008 a,b). The frequent
description of new species suggests a much richer
diversity. A significant part of this biodiversity is
represented in regions under the influence of
Cerrado, corresponding to 141 species of
amphibians (42 endemic), 5 crocodilians, 10
chelonians, 16 amphisbaenians (8 endemic), 47
saurians (12 endemic), and 107 ophidians (11
endemic) (Colli et al. 2002, Souza 2005). The
communities complexity and heterogeneity found
in it various phytophysiognomies (Coutinho 1978,
Eiten 1972), as well as the influence of adjacent
biomes suggest the existence of species
geographical distribution patterns linked to these
formations (Brandão and Araújo 2001; Colli
2005).
518
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
Nowadays
the
vegetation
physiognomies
originally found in the Brazilian states of Mato
Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul have suffered
intense transformation due to anthropic actions,
especially agriculture and pasture (cattle
ranching). These environmental modifications
implicated in a process of landscape degradation
and fragmentation that resulted in the reduction of
population sizes, with possible local extinctions
(Primack 2002). The states of Mato Grosso and
Mato Grosso do Sul possess areas with typical
phytophysiognomies of Pantanal, Cerrado, and
Chaco (Prado and Gibbs 1993; Spichiger et al.
2004; Morrone et al. 2004), forming
environmental mosaics and ecotones extremely
important to understand faunal relationships. Both
state are located in a central area of a diagonal
strip of open formations, extending from the
Caatinga (on northeastern Brazil) until the Chaco
(Argentina) with several contacts among
Pantanal, Chaco, and Cerrado. This diagonal
strip of open areas houses an enormous diversity
of amphibians and reptiles, including endemic
species (Bucher 1980; Vanzolini 1988; Cabrera
1995; Duellman 1999; Colli et al. 2002; Souza
2005). Despite the biological and biogeographical
relevance this diagonal area has received little
attention in studies of regional scope.
This study presents herpetological information of
the Cerrado-Pantanal ecotones in the limits of the
South American open areas between Mato Grosso
do Sul and Mato Grosso states. The species list is
based on specimens collected during the Program
of Faunal Monitoring and Rescue of the Ponte de
Pedra hydroelectric power plant located in the
municipality of Itiquira, state of Mato Grosso.
Materials and Methods
The Ponte de Pedra hydroelectric power plant
(UHE Ponte de Pedra) is located on Correntes
River, municipality of Itiquira, between Mato
Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul states (17°36'31"
S and 54°49'40" W), with an estimated reservoir
of 14.5 km2 (Figure 1). The study area is in a
shallow valley of granitic rocks with a
vegetational mosaic of gallery forests, dense
Cerrado, open Cerrado, with an important
presence of veredas (swampy areas with unique
vascular vegetation). On most of the surrounding
areas the environment is fragmented with
agriculture practices (mostly sugar cane and soy
bean), with the best preserved areas located
adjacent to the power plant dam (downriver).
Figure 1. Location of UHE Ponte de Pedra on the
border of Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) and Mato
Grosso (MT) states
———————————
Field activities during the faunal inventory were
carried out between 11 November 2003 and 10
January 2004, and the post filling faunal
monitoring between 18 September 2004 and 10
April 2005. For monitoring we used pit-falls with
18L and 100L plastic buckets distributed in 20
collecting stations in 9 straight lines to a total of
180 traps per collecting station. Distance between
buckets was 3 meters, and 4 meters between lines.
Each collecting station was composed of 25
buckets of 100L and 155 buckets of 18L in an
sampling area of 1,824m2. We used 4 collecting
stations (totaling 720 numbered pit-falls) in
different phytophysiognomies (open cerrado,
dense cerrado, gallery forest). Traps were visited
4 times (at 8:00, 11:00, 14:00, and 17:00 hours)
daily. Animals were transferred to plastic bags or
vials with all pertinent collecting data (date, time,
and number of pitfall trap).
519
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
During the filling of the reservoir (1 April to 18
September 2004) we used three 6 meter aluminum
boats equipped with 40 HP outboard engines with
a crew of 1 biologist, 1 assistant, and 1 pilot each.
All vegetated areas and land were searched every
day, at least 4 times a day, including the reservoir
margins. Animals were collected using
herpetological hooks, nets, laces, and forceps, and
then transferred to plastic vials (several sizes),
plastic bags, and cloth bags until their final
destination in the biological laboratory at the
rescue base. The animals were then separated,
identified and registered as to margin and location
of collecting in the reservoir.
All collecting activities were legally permitted
accordingly to IBAMA 02001.005547/99-49
process and permits IBAMA 0150/2003 and
065/2004-CGFAU/LIC. All collected specimens
were deposited at the herpetological collection of
the Museu de Zoologia of the Universidade de
São Paulo (MZUSP).
Results and Discussion
We registered 33 species of amphibians from 14
genera, 7 families, and 2 orders. The most
representative families were Hylidae and
Leptodactylidae with 45.5 % (N=15) and 24.3 %
(N=8) of the total number of species, a normal
pattern for the Neotropical region (Duellman &
Trueb 1994), followed by Leiuperidae, with
18.2 % (N=6). The families Bufonidae,
Cycloramphidae, Microhylidae, and Caeciliidae
contributed to only one species (3.0 %) each
(Table 1).
The reptiles were represented by 72 species from
51 genera, and 20 families of the orders Chelonia,
Crocodylia, and Squamata. The order Squamata
was the most representative, with 95.8 % (N=69)
of the reptiles, followed by Chelonia with 2.8 %
(N=2), and Crocodylia with 1.4 % (N=1).
Amphisbaenians, lizards, and snakes (Squamata)
are the categories with higher taxonomic diversity
among reptiles. These forms occupy a great
variety of habitats and during the filling of the
reservoir they are represented with a very
expressive number of individuals. Among
Squamata the suborders were represented as
follows: Amphisbaenia – 1 family, 3 genera and 8
species; Sauria – 9 families, 17 genera and 23
species; and Serpentes – 7 families, 28 genera and
39 species (Appendix 1).
Most of amphibian species is associated to open
habitats (especially wetlands) and are generalists.
The only species found exclusively in forested
habitats was Osteocephalus taurinus (Figure 2).
Dendropsophus tritaeniatus is listed as endemic to
Cerrado (Strüssmann 2000) with a suggested
restricted distribution to SE Mato Grosso (Frost
2008). The species Leptodactylus gracilis and
Physalaemus bilingonigerus are typical of
Pantanal (Figure 2). These data are suggestive of
the ecotone Cerrado-Pantanal.
The Cerrado reptile species are in most cases
poorly represented in herpetological collections
making it difficult to produce reliable
distributional ranges. Several collected species
(Anolis
meridionalis,
Bachia
bresslaui,
Coleodactylus brachystoma, and Hoplocercus
spinosus – Figure 2) are related to this ecosystem
(Colli et al. 2002). The remaining species present
different distributional patterns: Mabuya bistriata
and Tupinambis quadrilineatus in the Amazon
realm (Ávila-Pires 1995); Tropidurus guarani,
Mabuya guaporicola, Liophis frenatus, Lygophis
meridionalis, and Philodryas mattogrossensis are
common in Cerrado and Chaco (Cei 1993, ÁvilaPires 1995, Strüssmann 2000); Cercosaura
schreibersii and Mabuya dorsivittata in Cerrado,
Chaco and Pampas (Ávila-Pires 1995); Mabuya
frenata, Tropidurus torquatus and Sibynomorphus
mikanii (Figure 2) in Cerrado and Atlantic Forest;
Amphisbaena
pretrei
e
Micrablepharus
maximiliani in Cerrado and Caatinga (Rodrigues
1996; Gans 1965); Tupinambis merianae and
Crotalus durissus (Figure 2) in all formations
south of the Amazon (Ávila-Pires 1995); Ameiva
ameiva in all of South America (Vitt and Colli
1994); and the cosmopolitan Hemidactylus
mabouia. However, the majority of species occur
in the South American open areas diagonal
(Caatinga-Cerrado-Chaco). Despite the results
presented here there are several taxa that
might represent range extensions or new forms yet
to be described owing to complex taxonomic
group.
520
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
Figure 2. Representative species of amphibians and reptiles from the UHE Ponte de Pedra. a. Hypsiboas lundii;
b. Hypsiboas multifasciatus; c. Osteocephalus taurinus; d. Leptodactylus mystacinus; e, Eupemphix nattereri; f,
Physalaemus biligonigerus; g, Coleodactylus brachystoma; h, Hoplocercus spinosus; i, Mabuya guaporicola; j,
Sibynomorphus mikanii; k, Liophis meridionalis; l, Crotalus durissus.
————————————————
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the UHE Ponte de Pedra staff especially Ivan Flausino da Cunha, Veríssimo Alves Neto, and Diego
Nicolas Seminara. We are deeply indebted to the field collecting crew of the faunal inventory and monitoring programs,
and the faunal rescue operation (Operação Tuiuiú).
————————————————
521
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
Literature cited
Ávila-Pires, T. C. S. 1995. Lizards of Brazilian
Amazonia (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoologische
Verhandelingen 1995:3-706.
Brandão, R. A. and A. F. B. Araújo. 2001. A
herpetofauna associada às matas de galeria no
Distrito Federal; p. 561-604 In: J. F. Ribeiro, C. E. L.
Fonseca, and J. C. Sousa-Silva (ed.), Caracterização e
Recuperação de Matas de Galeria. Planaltina.
Embrapa.
Bucher, H. 1980. Ecología de la fauna Chaqueña. Una
revisón. Ecosur 7(4):111-159.
Cabrera, M. A. 1995. Comparative composition of
turtle species in four natural regions of the Chacoan
domain, South America. An. Mus. Hist. Nat.
Valparaíso 23(1):41-52.
Cei, J. M. 1993. Reptiles del Noroeste, Nordeste y Este
de la Argentina. Museo Regionale di Scienze
Naturali. Torino. 949 p.
Colli, G. R., R. P. Bastos, and A. F. B. Araújo. 2002.
The character and dynamics of the Cerrado
herpetofauna; p. 223-241 In: P. S. Oliveira and
R. J. Marquis (ed.), The Cerrados of Brazil:
Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical
Savanna. Columbia New York. University
Press.
Colli, G. R. 2005. As origens e a diversificação da
herpetofauna do Cerrado; p. 247-264 In: A. Scariot, J.
C. Souza-Silva and J. M. Felfili (ed.), Cerrado Ecologia, Biodiversidade e Conservação. Brasília.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
Coutinho, L. M. 1978. O conceito de cerrado. Revista
Brasileira de Botânica 1(1):17-23
Duellman, W. E. and L. Trueb. 1994. Biology of
Amphibians. Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins
University Press. 670 p.
Duellman, W. E. 1999. Distribution patterns of
amphibians in South America; p. 255-327 In: W. E.
Duellman (ed.), Patterns of Distribution of
Amphibians. Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins
University Press. 633 p.
Eiten, G. 1972. The cerrado vegetation of Brazil. Bot.
Review 38(2):201-341
Frost, W. D. 2008. Amphibians species of the world.
Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/
herpetology/amphibia/. American Museum of Natural
History, New York, USA. Captured on 20 April
2008.
Gans, C., 1965. Redescription of Amphisbaena pretrei
Duméril and Bibron and of A. leucocephala Peters,
with a discussion of their relation and synonymy.
Amer. Midl. Nat. 84(2):387-407.
Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L.
C. Hayek and M. S. Foster. 1994. Measuring and
Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods
for Amphibians. Washington. Smithsonian Institution
Press. 364 p.
Morrone, J. J., S. A. Mazzucconi and A. O. Bachmann.
2004. Distributional patterns of Chacoan water bugs
(Heteroptera: Belostomatidae, Corixidae, Micronectidae and Gerridae). Hydrobiologia 523:159-173.
Prado, D. E. and P. E. Gibbs. 1993. Patterns of species
distributions in the dry seasonal forests of South
América. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 80:902-927.
Primack, R. B. 2002. Essentials of Conservation
Biology. Sunderland. Sinauer. 660 p.
Rodrigues, M. T. 1996. Lizards, snakes, and
amphisbaenians from the quaternary sand dunes of
the middle Rio São Francisco, Bahia, Brazil. Journal
of Herpetology 30: 513-523.
SBH – Sociedade Brasileira de Herpetologia. 2008a.
Lista de espécies de anfíbios do Brasil. Database
accessible
at
http://www.sbherpetologia.org.br/
checklist/anfibios.htm. Captured on 20 April 2008.
SBH – Sociedade Brasileira de Herpetologia. 2008b.
Lista de espécies de répteis do Brasil. Database
accessible at http://www2.sbherpetologia.org.br/
checklist/repteis.htm. Captured on 20 April 2008.
Souza, F. L. 2005. Geographical distribution patterns
of South American side-necked turtles (Chelidae),
with emphasis on Brazilian species. Rev. Esp. Herp.
19:33-46.
Spichiger, R., C. Calenge and B. Bise. 2004.
Geographical zonation in the Neotropics of tree
species characteristic of the Paraguay-Parana Basin.
Journal of Biogeography 31:1489-150.
Strüssmann, C. 2000. Herpetofauna; p. 153-189 In: C.
J. R. Alho (ed.). Fauna Silvestre da Região do Rio
Manso, MT. Brasília. Ministério do Meio Ambiente/
Eletronorte/Ibama.
Vanzolini, P.E. 1988. Distributional patterns of South
American Lizards; p.317-342 In Proceedings of a
Workshop on Neotropical Distribution Patterns (P. E.
Vanzolini & W. R. Heyer (ed.). Rio de Janeiro.
Academia Brasileira de Ciências.
Vitt, L. J. and G. R. Colli. 1994. Geographical ecology
of a Neotropical lizard: Ameiva
ameiva (Teiidae) in Brazil. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 72(11): 1986-2008.
Received August 2008
Accepted June 2009
Published online September 2009
522
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
Appendix 1. Amphibians and reptiles recorded in the region affected by Ponte de Pedra hydroelectric power
plant (municipality of Sonora, state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil). Habits according to Strüssmann (2000): AB =
arboreal species (species rarely seen on the ground); SAB = sub arboreal species (species inhabiting all
vegetational levels and very often seen on the ground; CR = cryptozoic species (species that use habitats under
rocks, fallen logs, or soil debris); TE = terrestrial (species that use habitats on the ground and occasionally on
lower vegetational strata); FO = fossorial (species inhabiting higher soil strata); SFO = semi fossorial (species
inhabiting higher soil strata but feed on the surface); SAQ = semi aquatic (species that feed primarily on the water
but also use terrestrial habitats); PA = paludicola (species associated to lagoons and swampy areas = wetlands).
TAXON
AMPHIBIA
GYMNOPHIONA
Caeciliidae
ANURA
Bufonidae
Cycloramphidae
Hylidae
Leiuperidae
Leptodactylidae
Microhylidae
REPTILIA
TESTUDINES
Chelidae
Testudinidae
SPECIES
MICROHABITAT
Siphonops paulensis Boettger, 1892
FO
Rhinella schneideri (Werner, 1894)
Proceratophrys sp.
Dendropsophus minutus (Peters, 1872)
Dendropsophus nanus (Boulenger, 1889)
Dendropsophus rubicundulus (Reinhardt & Lütken, 1862)
Dendropsophus tritaeniatus (Bokermann, 1965)
Hypsiboas albopunctatus (Spix, 1824)
Hypsiboas lundii (Burmeister, 1856)
Hypsiboas multifasciatus (Günther, 1859 "1858")
Hypsiboas punctatus (Schneider, 1799)
Hypsiboas raniceps Cope, 1862
Hypsiboas sp.
Osteocephalus taurinus Steindachner, 1862
Pseudis limellum (Cope, 1862)
Scinax fuscomarginatus (A. Lutz, 1925)
Scinax fuscovarius (A. Lutz, 1925)
Trachycephalus venulosus (Laurenti, 1768)
Eupemphix nattereri Steindachner, 1863
Physalaemus biligonigerus (Cope, 1861 "1860")
Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826
Pseudopaludicola falcipes (Hensel, 1867)
Pseudopaludicola mystacalis (Cope, 1887)
Pseudopaludicola saltica (Cope, 1887)
Leptodactylus furnarius Sazima & Bokermann, 1978
Leptodactylus fuscus (Schneider, 1799)
Leptodactylus gracilis (Duméril & Bibron, 1841)
Leptodactylus labyrinthicus (Spix, 1824)
Leptodactylus martinezi (Bokermann, 1956)
Leptodactylus mystacinus (Burmeister, 1861)
Leptodactylus ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Leptodactylus podicipinus (Cope, 1862)
Elachistocleis ovalis (Schneider, 1799)
TE
CR
SAB
SAB
SAB
SAB
SAB
AB
SAB
AB
AB
AB
AB
SAQ
SAB
SAB
AB
CR
CR
TE
PA
PA
PA
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
CR
Phrynops geoffroanus (Schweigger, 1812)
Chelonoidis carbonaria (Spix, 1824)
SAQ
TE
523
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
TAXON
CROCODYLIA
Alligatoridae
SQUAMATA
Amphisbaenidae
SPECIES
MICROHABITAT
Paleosuchus palpebrosus (Cuvier, 1807)
Amphisbaena alba Linnaeus, 1758
Amphisbaena anaemariae Vanzolini, 1997
Amphisbaena leeseri Gans, 1964
Amphisbaena mertensii Strauch, 1881
Amphisbaena pretrei Duméril & Bibron, 1839
Amphisbaena vermicularis Wagler, 1824
Cercolophia roberti (Gans, 1964)
Leposternon infraorbitale (Bertold, 1859)
Anguidae
Ophiodes sp.
Ophiodes striatus (Spix, 1824)
Phyllodactylidae
Phyllopezus pollicaris (Spix, 1825)
Sphaerodactylidae Coleodactylus brachystoma (Amaral, 1935)
Gymnophtalmidae Bachia bresslaui (Amaral, 1935)
Cercosaura ocellata Wagler, 1830
Cercosaura schreibersii Wiegmann, 1834
Colobosaura modesta (Reinhardt & Lütken, 1862)
Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt & Lütken, 1862)
Vanzosaura rubricauda (Boulenger, 1902)
Hoplocercidae
Hoplocercus spinosus Fitzinger, 1843
Polychrotidae
Anolis meridionalis Boettger, 1885
Polychrus acutirostris Spix, 1825
Scincidae
Mabuya bistriata (Spix, 1825)
Mabuya dorsivittata Cope, 1862
Mabuya frenata (Cope, 1862)
Teiidae
Ameiva ameiva (Linnaeus, 1758)
Cnemidophorus ocellifer (Spix, 1825)
Tupinambis merianae (Duméril & Bibron, 1839)
Tupinambis quadrilineatus Manzani & Abe, 1997
Tropiduridae
Stenocercus caducus (Cope, 1862)
Tropidurus guarani (Cope, 1862)
Tropidurus torquatus (Wied, 1820)
Anomalepididae
Liotyphlops beui (Amaral, 1924)
Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops koppesi Amaral, 1955
Leptotyphlops septemstriatus (Schneider, 1801)
Typhlopidae
Typhlops brongersmianus Vanzolini, 1976
Boidae
Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1758
Epicrates cenchria (Linnaeus, 1758)
Eunectes murinus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Colubridae
Apostolepis assimilis (Reinhardt, 1861)
Atractus albuquerquei Cunha & Nascimento, 1983
Chironius exoletus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Chironius flavolineatus (Boettger, 1885)
Clelia clelia (Daudin, 1803)
Echinanthera occipitalis (Jan, 1863)
Erythrolamprus aesculapii (Linnaeus, 1766)
Gomesophis brasiliensis (Gomes, 1918)
SAQ
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
TE
TE
AB
SAB
CR
TE
TE
CR
TE
TE
TE
SAB
AB
SAB/TE
SAB/TE
SAB/TE
TE
TE
TE
TE
SAB
AB
SAB/TE
SFO
SFO
SFO
SFO
TE
TE
SAQ
SFO
SFO
SAB
SAB
TE
TE
TE
SAQ
524
Check List 5(3): 518–525, 2009.
ISSN: 1809-127X
LISTS OF SPECIES
TAXON
Elapidae
Viperidae
SPECIES
MICROHABITAT
Helicops angulatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
SAQ
Helicops modestus Günther, 1861
SAQ
Leptophis ahaetulla (Linnaeus, 1758)
AB
Liophis frenatus (Werner, 1909)
TE
Liophis poecilogyrus (Wied, 1825)
TE
Liophis reginae (Linnaeus, 1758)
TE
Lygophis meridionalis (Schenkel, 1901)
TE
Mastigodryas bifossatus (Raddi, 1820)
TE
Oxyrhopus trigeminus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854
TE
Phalotris nasutus (Gomes, 1915)
TE
Philodryas mattogrossensis Koslowsky, 1898
TE
Philodryas nattereri Steindachner, 1870
TE
Philodryas olfersii (Lichtenstein, 1823)
TE
Philodryas patagoniensis (Girard, 1858)
TE
Pseudoboa nigra (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854)
TE
Sibynomorphus mikanii (Schlegel, 1837)
TE
Spilotes pullatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
SAB
Thamnodynastes pallidus (Linnaeus, 1758)
TE
Thamnodynastes rutilus (Prado, 1942)
TE
Thamnodynastes strigatus (Günther, 1858)
TE
Xenodon merremii (Wagler, 1824)
TE
Micrurus lemniscatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
SFO
Bothrops moojeni Hoge, 1966
TE
Bothrops neuwiedi Wagler, 1824
TE
Crotalus durissus Linnaeus, 1758
TE
————————————————
Appendix 2: Voucher specimens.
Amphibia: Dendropsophus nanus (MZUSP 140442–51); D. rubicundulus (MZUSP 140433); D. tritaeniatus
(MZUSP 140434); Eupemphix nattereri (MZUSP 140487); Hypsiboas albopunctatus (MZUSP 140475–86); H.
punctatus (MZUSP 140452–6); H. raniceps (MZUSP 140525–37); Hypsiboas sp. (MZUSP 140467);
Leptodactylus furnarius (MZUSP 140488–89, 140436–7); L. martinezi (MZUSP 140438–39, 140465–66,
140440–41); L. podicipinus (MZUSP 140493–10); Pseudis limellum (MZUSP 140512–24); Osteocephalus
taurinus (MZUSP 140490–92); Physalaemus cuvieri (MZUSP 140435); Pseudopaludicola falcipes (MZUSP
140511); Rhinella schneideri (MZUSP 140457–82); Scinax fuscovarius (MZUSP 140468–74); Trachycephalus
venulosus (MZUSP 140538–52). Reptilia: Ameiva ameiva (MZUSP 98636, 98746–51); Anolis meridionalis
(MZUSP 98633 –35); Atractus albuquerquei (MZUSP 17569–71); Bachia bresslaui (MZUSP 98769); Bothrops
moojeni (MZUSP 17530–31, 17540–43, 17563–68, 17588–95); B. neuwiedi (MZUSP 17544–45); Cercosaura
ocellata (MZUSP 98638–78); Clelia clelia (MZUSP 17533); Erythrolamprus aesculapii (MZUSP 17534–35);
Eunectes murinus (MZUSP 17547); Hoplocercus spinosus (MZUSP 98761–65); Liophis reginae (MZUSP
17572–73); Mabuya bistriata (MZUSP 98681–84); M. dorsivittata (MZUSP 98752–59); M. frenata (MZUSP
98685–95); Oxyrhopus trigeminus (MZUSP 17536–38); Philodryas nattereri (MZUSP 17553); P. olfersii
(MZUSP 17548–52); Polychrus acutirostris (MZUSP 98703–45); Thamnodynastes rutilus (MZUSP 17514–29,
17532, 17554–62, 17574–80, 17596–17613 ); Tropidurus guarani (MZUSP 98696–98702); Tupinambis merianae
(MZUSP 98680); Vanzosaura rubricauda (MZUSP 98637); Waglerophis merremii (MZUSP 17539, 17546).
525
Fly UP