Comments on “The first record of Ceratophrys (Anura: Ceratophryidae) for the Upper Miocene of northwest Argentina and its paleoecological implications” by Gonzalo G. Bravo et al. (2025)

ZIMICZ, NATALIA; FABREZI, MARISSA; ARAMAYO, ALEJANDRO; BIANCHI, CARLOS; HONGN, FERNANDO; MONTERO-LÓPEZ, CAROLINA

JOURNAL OF SOUTH AMERICAN EARTH SCIENCES

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD

Año: 2025 vol. 165

0895-9811

In their article, Bravo et al. (2025) report the first record of Ceratophrys (Anura, Ceratophryidae) from the UpperMiocene of northwestern Argentina. They present their finding as both the first record from the Palo PintadoFormation (Late Miocene, Salta Province) and the first record for the Upper Miocene of northwestern Argentina.However, the authors fail to cite previous reports of Ceratophrys from the Palo Pintado Formation, including aspecimen recovered from sedimentary beds bracketed by two tuff layers that provide the most recent absoluteage constraints for the unit—evidence also overlooked by the authors. Moreover, they incorrectly assigned a Mio-Pliocene age to specimen FMNH P 14402, which actually derives from the Upper Miocene Andalhuala Formationin Catamarca Province. In addition, the stratigraphic provenance of the new specimen likely suggests a LowerPliocene instead an Upper Miocene one. Taken together, the finding by Bravo et al. (2025) represents the secondrecord of Ceratophrys for the Palo Pintado Formation and the third record for the Miocene-Pliocene of northwesternArgentina. Furthermore, the authors not only neglected to acknowledge the first record of Ceratophrysbut also failed to consider recently published alternative paleoecological interpretations of Ceratophrys occurrencesand updated paleoenvironmental scenarios for the Palo Pintado Formation. Consequently, both the article’stitle and several sections of its content appear to be incorrect and outdated.