SPHENOPHRYNE - American Museum of Natural History

More documents

Recommendations

Info

42 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 253 Fig. 24. Distribution of two Austrochaperina species in New Guinea. Solid circles, A. basipalmata; triangles, A. macrorhyncha. cleay Museum 56], MCZ A10773, ZMA 5747–5750); Hellwig Mtns., 2500 m (ZMA 5754); Henvelbivak, Lorentz River, 800 m (FMNH 100117 [formerly in E. H. Taylor collection], ZMA 5751–5753); Mimika River (BMNH 1913.10.31.248); about 35 km (airline) NNE Timika airport, 1500 m (BPBM 13860–13862); Wapoga Alpha Camp, 1100 m, 308.67S, 13634.423E (QM J67251, MZB 3564). REMARKS: The holotype of A. macrorhyncha is a juvenile (on the basis of size), is in less than good condition, and was taken at a place remote from localities of samples of presumably related species. These circumstances create a problem in defining which, if any, of the known species populations should be associated with the name macrorhyncha. If basipalmata of the north-coast ranges can be excluded on the basis of its possession of toe webbing, there are two population samples to be considered: (1) frogs from the Idenburg River region of Irian Jaya, north of the central dividing range (assigned to macrorhyncha by Zweifel, 1956; here referred to derongo) and some 600 km from the type locality; (2) the syntype series of Chaperina punctata (placed by Parker, 1934, in the synonymy of macrorhyncha) from the Lorentz River region south of the central range in Irian Jaya, also 600 km from the type locality. These samples are augmented by specimens from Wapoga Alpha Camp and near Timika, about 300 km closer to the type locality. 7 The two samples in question are of modest size (14–15 specimens) and moderately well distributed by body size. Therefore, the method of choice is comparison of the measurements of the holotype with those predicted for a frog of its size by the regressions of the two competing samples. The resemblance of the holotype to the augmented punctata sample is striking. In HW, TL, EY, EN, and IN, the difference between the holotype and the predicted measurement (rounded to 0.1 mm) ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 mm, and is 0.0 in two instances (EY and EN). The finger disc measurement is smaller than predicted (0.7 vs. 0.9 mm), but the toe disc measurements are identical (1.0 mm). The Idenburg River sample predictions 7 The specimen from Mimika River (see Specimens Examined) is in execrable condition and useless for comparative purposes.
2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPHRYNE 43 are also close to those of the holotype, but deviate more, from 0.5 to 0.3 mm; only the finger disc is closer to the holotype’s dimension. The principal diagnostic differences between the Idenburg and augmented punctata samples are the larger eyes and longer legs of the latter. In both these characters the holotype is closer to the measurements predicted for the punctata sample—eye size identical, tibia length 0.1 mm shorter; comparable figures for the Idenburg prediction are 0.3 and 0.5 mm. Given the difficulty of obtaining accurate digital disc measurements from specimens in poor condition, I am inclined to dismiss the seemingly contradictory indication of finger disc size. Accordingly, I agree with continuing punctata as a synonym of macrorhyncha, and regard the Idenburg sample as representing a population of A. derongo. Austrochaperina mehelyi (Parker), new combination Chaperina fusca: Méhely¨, 1901: 207, 257. Sphenophryne fusca: van Kampen, 1923: 109 (part, New Guinea specimens only). Sphenophryne mehelyi Parker, 1934: 156 (type locality, ‘‘Sattelberg, New Guinea’’ [Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea]; holotype, MNH 2414/11, collected by Ludwig Biró [no date given, but see below], destroyed in 1956). Zweifel, 1980: 411 (part). TYPE MATERIAL: Parker based the description on two specimens cataloged under MNH 2414/11, designating the female as holotype and the male as paratype. Both were destroyed in the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Neither Méhely¨ (1901) nor Parker (1934) indicated a date of collection, but from the account of Biró’s travels in Wichmann (1912), it appears the types were taken either during July–December 1898 or March–August 1899. DIAGNOSIS: A small species (maximum known SVL about 21 mm) with finger discs equal to or scarcely broader than penultimate phalanges, relatively long legs (TL/SVL mean 0.45) and moderate eye–naris distance (EN/SVL mean 0.072). These features in combination will distinguish mehelyi from its congeners. (However, see account of A. polysticta.) MORPHOLOGY: Size small, largest male 20.6 SVL, largest female 20.0, though a slightly greater maximum is probable. Head slightly narrower than the relatively slender body. Snout rounded, slightly projecting; nostrils lateral, scarcely or not visible from above; canthus rostralis rounded, loreal region a steep slope. Eyes relatively large, slightly less to slightly more than snout length, corneal outline notably projecting as viewed from beneath; eyelid width about three-fourths interorbital distance. Tympanic annulus scarcely distinguished externally, slightly less to slightly more than half eye diameter; ear emphasized by paler color. Relative lengths of fingers 3 4 2 1, fourth little longer than second, first greater than half of second; fingertips disclike with terminal grooves but not or scarcely broader than penultimate phalanges; subarticular and palmar elevations hardly evident. Toes unwebbed, relative lengths 4 3 5 2 1, first less than half length of second, all with rounded, grooved discs, only that on first toe not clearly broader than penultimate phalanx; subarticular elevations indistinct, inner metatarsal elevation small, low, rounded, no outer elevation. Skin smooth above and below except for a postocular-supratympanic fold indistinct in some specimens. COLOR AND PATTERN: The snout, loreal region, and upper lip of preserved specimens are purplish brown with a few light spots on the lip and sometimes a trace of a light canthal line. The top of the head and middorsal region are brown with numerous small, irregular, darker brown spots. In some specimens the brown ground color continues onto the flanks whereas in others an ill- defined dorsolateral band of paler, grayer ground interrupts, below which the lateral region is darker brown spotted and blotched with white. An irregular dark brown streak above and behind the tympanum merges with the lateral brown of the body. The tympanum itself is yellowish brown. The chin and chest are dark brown with light spots that are discrete or coalesce into blotches. This pattern gives way abruptly to a pale venter marked with a coarse network of brown (Méhely¨: 1901, pl. XII, fig. 3). The front legs are brown above with a few light spots, and beneath they are brown with white markings.
Page 1 and 2: PARTITION OF THE AUSTRALOPAPUAN MIC
Page 3 and 4: 2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 41: 2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 93 and 94:
2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
show all

SPHENOPHRYNE - American Museum of Natural History

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?