SPHENOPHRYNE - American Museum of Natural History

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.