Until the early 19th century, basically all studies on the Brazilian amphibian and reptile fauna were done by foreigners. At first, the Portuguese Crown kept the Colony closed to newcomers; eventually, with the coming of the Royal Family to Brazil in 1808, large expeditions of naturalists were allowed to enter the country to study its fauna and flora. The journeys then undertaken by Spix and Martius, and Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied, among others should be mentioned. However, the material collected was sent to Europe to be studied and practically nothing remained in Brazil. Initiatives for the training of researchers in Brazil were still incipient.
The 1920s represent the landmark for the early study of amphibians in Brazil, that is, if we disregard the unsuccessful initiative by João Joaquim Pizarro (1842-1906), who in 1876 presented his Batrachychthis. Therefore, Adolpho Lutz from the Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, and Alípio de Miranda-Ribeiro from the National Museum, can be considered the first Brazilians to study this group of animals and publish actively on the subject (for more on Miranda-Ribeiro, see Pombal, 2002). Between 1920 and 1939, Adolpho Lutz (1855-1940) published several papers on anuran amphibians, mainly those referring to the Southeast of Brazil, and had a short incursion into the study of snakes.
In Table 1 are the species of amphibians described by A. Lutz and their updated nomenclature. Thirty-seven of the 58 species he described are now recognized as valid, and one of them is considered incertae sedis (meaning that the genus for its classification is still unknown and in this particular case, it is also unknown if the species is valid). Nowadays, 63% of the names are still valid, which is a good proportion considering the knowledge available at that time.
The first descriptions of species by Adolpho Lutz were very short. Two of these papers were published in Comptes Rendus, in 1925; 24 new species were described in seven pages only. In fact, this was his strategy to assure priority on name applications, with the aim of complementing them later. However, this was never done and therefore, the descriptions seldom allow for association with natural populations, leading to nomenclatural problems, some of which only solved decades later (e.g., B. Lutz, 1973; Pombal & Cruz, 1999). Also in the 1920s, A. Lutz published genus reviews (e.g. Bufo and Leptodactylus), with detailed descriptions and illustrations of excellent quality. These works were comparable to the best ones produced around the world at that time.
Special attention should be paid to his three last works, which were published by his daughter, Bertha Lutz (1894-1976). The descriptions are very detailed and in addition to the morphology of adults, Lutz intentionally provided additional information on vocalization and on tadpoles, for instance. One of these publications was on the study of species of the genus Phyllomedusa — which, in current concept, includes Phasmahyla and Phrynomedusa (see A. Lutz & B. Lutz, 1939) —, where we can find a long study on tadpoles that includes their development and behavioural observations. In the same publication are Lutz’ observations on anurans bitten by mosquitoes and on phragmosis in anurans (phragmosis is the action of closing the entrance to a nest or burrow with the body itself; e.g., the closure of a bromeliad's central tubule by the anuran's head). This excellent piece of work was the first in a series of studies by Bertha Lutz with a behavioural bias. Some of her later studies are nowadays considered classis works.
Bertha Lutz continued her studies with specimens of the anuran collection assembled by her father. Some anurans had detailed species descriptions previously done by A. Lutz succinctly, and thus she added new information. Bertha Lutz described three species whose authorship she attributed to her father (B. Lutz, 1950; B. Lutz & Carvalho, 1958). For the two species, Phyllomedusa burmeisteri distincta and Aplastodiscus perviridis, authorship could not be given to A. Lutz because Bertha did not use the diagnoses nor the descriptions prepared by her father (she used only drawings made under the supervision of A. Lutz). Bertha presented more detailed descriptions based in more recent specimens collected after A. Lutz’ death. Bertha Lutz insists that her father had noticed that the species were unknown and that he had chosen their scientific names. This, however, is not a criterion to acknowledge authorship. On the other hand, a diagnosis prepared by A. Lutz was presented in the description of Paratelmatobius pictiventris (B. Lutz & Carvalho, 1958), hand-written, on the back of the aquarelle drawn under his supervision. In this case, the authorship must be A. Lutz in B. Lutz & Carvalho (1958). Unfortunately, the species had been described years before, by Doris M. Cochran (1898-1968), at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA, based on the same specimens as those A. Lutz used for his diagnoses (see Pombal & Haddad, 1999).
As far as the amphibians, besides his publications, Adolpho Lutz put together a good scientific collection now deposited at the National Museum, with specimens from different parts of the world, mainly from Southeast Brazil. Considering its age, the collection is fairly well preserved although some type specimens (specimens used for species characterization, thus of great importance for taxonomy) of several species described by him are in very poor condition. This situation hinders up-to-date taxonomic studies (the reasons behind this are unknown, but the specimens may not have been properly fixed when set for preservation).
In the mid-1930s, A. Lutz gave Doris M. Cochran one thousand specimens out of his collection, including type specimens that are still deposited at the Smithsonian Institution. These specimens, added to others Cochran collected during the expeditions in her five-month visit to Brazil were the bases for her important book on amphibians in Southern Brazil (Cochran, 1955).
As for the snakes, Adolpho Lutz published only two works. The first contained the description of the genus, Paraphrynonax A. Lutz & Mello, 1920 (now a synonym for Pseustes Fitzinger, 1843), and two other species now also invalid because they are synonyms for other older species, Paraphrynonax versicolor A. Lutz & Mello, 1920 [now a synonym for Pseustes sulphureus (Wagler, 1824)] and Xenodon hemileucurus A. Lutz & Mello, 1920 [now a synonym for Xenodon neuwiedii (Günther, 1863)]. In his second work, Lutz describes Elaps ezequieli A. Lutz & Mello, 1922 [now a synonym for Micrurus decoratus (Jan, 1858)] and Rhinostoma bimaculatum A. Lutz & Melo, 1922 [now a synonym for Phimophis iglesiasi (Gomes, 1915)].
At a time when research on the Brazilian fauna and particularly on amphibians were mainly produced by foreigners, Adolpho Lutz could be considered a pioneer. His importance can be assessed by the quality and reach of his studies to these days. However, of no lesser importance is his example for others of his time and for the next generations.
José P. Pombal Jr. & Ulisses Caramaschi
Departament of Vertebrates, Museu Nacional
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro