Correa Claudio
Laboratorio de Sistemática y Conservación de Herpetozoos, Departamento de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Oceanográficas, Universidad de Concepción, Barrio Universitario S/N, Concepción, Chile Universidad de Concepción Concepción Chile.
Zookeys. 2021 Sep 24;1060:183-192. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1060.67904. eCollection 2021.
For 80 years, there were no sightings of the Andean frog, , due to the ambiguity with which its type locality was described ("warm spring near Ollagüe", northern Chile). The type specimens were collected during the International High Altitude Expedition to Chile (IHAEC) in 1935 and were subsequently described in 1938. In 2018 and 2020, two studies independently reported the rediscovery of the species, but they reached different conclusions about its identity and geographic distribution. In fact, the populations identified as in those studies are more phylogenetically related to other species than to each other, so they clearly do not belong to the same taxon. Although the study of 2020 is more in line with the geographic information of the description, it does not consider some bibliographic details and the transport limitations of the IHAEC. Here, based on a detailed analysis of the chronicles of the IHAEC and other bibliographic sources, I first refute the proposals of the 2018 and 2020 studies and then provide a possible solution. The combined information from the chronicles indicates that the type locality of is found at the sources of the Loa River, a different place from those identified in the two previous studies. By also incorporating geographic information of the time, I conclude that its true type locality is Miño, an abandoned mining camp located near the origin of the Loa River, where currently no populations of the genus have been described.
80年来，由于其模式产地描述模糊（“奥亚圭附近的温泉”，智利北部），一直没有安第斯蛙的目击记录。模式标本于1935年在国际智利高海拔探险队（IHAEC）期间采集，并于1938年随后进行了描述。2018年和2020年，两项研究分别独立报告了该物种的重新发现，但它们对其身份和地理分布得出了不同结论。事实上，在这些研究中被鉴定为该物种的种群在系统发育上彼此之间的关系比与其他物种的关系更远，所以它们显然不属于同一分类单元。尽管2020年的研究更符合描述中的地理信息，但它没有考虑一些文献细节以及IHAEC的运输限制。在此，基于对IHAEC编年史和其他文献来源的详细分析，我首先反驳了2018年和2020年研究的提议，然后提供了一个可能的解决方案。编年史中的综合信息表明，该物种的模式产地位于洛阿河源头，这与之前两项研究中确定的地点不同。通过纳入当时的地理信息，我得出结论，其真正的模式产地是米尼奥，一个位于洛阿河源头附近的废弃采矿营地，目前该属的种群在那里尚未被描述。
