Genus Excidobates:

courtesy to  :  www.dendrobase.de/index.php

Etymology
The genus name Excidobates comes from the Latin exido (= omitted, forgotten) and the Greek addition -bates (= Wanderer, runner). The first part of the name was chosen to refer to the enigmatic scientific history of the two contained species Excidobates mysteriosus and E. captivus . The second (Greek) part of the name is a common name component in the family Dendrobatoidea whereby it has a special meaning for the two species contained since both species were unambiguously attributable to any previous genus and in genetic analyzes tended depending on the method between the genera jump or "wander" (Twomey & Brown 2008). 

Taxonomy and systematics.
The genus Excidobates was set up in 2008 by Twomey & Brown. Type species is Dendrobates mysteriosus Myers 1982. So far, the genus contains only the two species E. captivus and E. mysteriosus . 
The taxonomic and systematic history of the genus was and is full of puzzles: As early as 1924, the two species of Harvey Bassler were collected in northwestern Peru. After that, the unwritten conserved museum specimens came more and more into oblivion. Although Silverstone discovered the types in a museum collection, he saw the species E. captivusin its revision of the genus Dendrobates but still as a variant of Dendrobates quinvevittatuson (Silverstone1975). It was only in 1982 that the specimens of Myers were recognized as distinct species and described as Dendrobates captivusand D. mysteriosus . However, since nothing was known about relationships, vividness and biology of the species and all knowledge came only from the preserved specimens, Myers chose the epithet "mysteriosus" for one of the two undescribed species. It was not until 1990 that Rainer Schulte was able to rediscover the Art D. mysteriosus and collect further information about the species (Schulte 1990). However, the species D. captivus remained missing. In 2007, the two American biology students Jason Brown and Evan Twomey were able to release the species D. captivusrediscover (Twomey 2007). Other puzzles continued to give up the species because of their unknown relationships. The species D. mysteriosus was considered to be particularly difficult because it was similar in morphology and genetics of any previously known species. The assessment of Schulte (1999) that the species with Oophaga histrionicawould prove to be unsustainable due to morphological and ethological differences. Grant et al. (2006) classed the species as Incerta sedis (not to be classified) because it was genetically assigned to different groups depending on the method used. Due to the lack of information, Grant et al. (2006), however, no independent new genus for the species. Myers predicted in 1982, on the basis of morphological features, a possible relationship of the species D. captivus and D. mysteriosus . Grant et al. (2006) did not follow this assessment, but suspected possible relationship to the species Adelphobates castaenoticusand A. quinvevittatusand set the species lack of further data first provisionally in the genus Adelphobates . However, Twomey & Brown (2008) were able to show that both species are genetically closely related and Myers predictions of 1982 are correct. Of their closest relatives of the genus Ranitomeya , both species differ sufficiently to justify the establishment of the new genus Exidobates . Species 

criteria
The genus contains small to medium-sized dendrobatids with an SVL of 16 - 27 mm. The species show no Dorsolateralstreifen ( usually present in Ranitomeya ). Genetically, the genus with 6.89% sequence divergence is good from the previously known RanitomeyaConserved species ( Oophaga / Dendrobates = 5.76%). Out of the Amazonian representatives of the sibling genus Ranitomeya , morphologically , Excidobates differs mainly due to the lack of blue-black reticule of the ventricle, the well-formed first finger and the existing signal spots on the ventral side of the thighs, while Ranitomeya has such spots only on the dorsal side of the thighs (Twomey & Brown 2008). The validity of the genus is therefore very likely. Whether other Amazonian species such as R. sirensis and R. rubrocephala which also no typical Ranitomeya- Have features of the genus can be assigned or own genus rank received must show further research.