SPHENOPHRYNE - American Museum of Natural History

44 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 253
Above, the hind legs are colored like the
middorsal region and below like the venter,
but with the brown more conspicuous. The
posterior surfaces of the thighs are a variable
mixture of brown and white markings.
James Menzies (personal commun.) noted
that in life, frogs from the Adelbert Mountains
were dark purple-brown dorsally with
numerous fine white spots on the flanks and
fewer dorsally, sometimes coalescing into
lateral bands. The venter was dark with large
white blotches.
VARIATION IN SIZE AND PROPORTIONS: The
seven specimens I examined range from 16.0
to 20.6 mm SVL. Four males are 17.4–20.6
mm (the smallest with vocal slits) and a
gravid female is 20.0 mm SVL. Published
information on the sizes of the type specimens
is confusing. Méhely¨ (1901) stated that
the largest was 24.5 mm long. In his key,
Parker (1934) stated ‘‘circa 28 mm.,’’ but in
his species account gave 20 mm. Regression
and proportion statistics are in tables 2 and 3.
ILLUSTRATIONS: Hand and foot, fig. 57D.
Méhely¨ (1901) illustrated the skull (pl. VI,
figs. 4, 5) and terminal phalanx of the 4th toe
(pl. X, fig. 7) of A. mehelyi (as Chaperina
fusca).
CALL: The call is unknown.
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SPECIES: Austrochaperina
mehelyi resembles the insular species
A. novaebritanniae, which led Tyler
(1967) to assign the New Britain frogs to
mehelyi. The two are close in size and in
most proportions and have similar color patterns,
although the abdomen of novaebritanniae
with uniform pale spots differs from the
reticulated venter of mehelyi. The internarial
distance of novaebritanniae is narrower than
that of mehelyi–IN/SVL maximum 0.108 in
novaebritanniae vs. minimum 0.112 in mehelyi,
and the legs average shorter. A plot of
TL/SVL and IN/SVL of the two species emphasizes
their distinctness (fig. 25). The finger
discs of the two are similar in width, but
they appear more acute than rounded in novaebritanniae
and are better developed.
HABITAT AND HABITS: The habitus of this
species—large eyes, small digital discs, moderately
long legs—is that of an active leaflitter
form rather than a burrower or a climber.
James Menzies (personal commun.) collected
specimens in ‘‘good secondary forest’’
Fig. 25. Comparison of relative tibia length
and internarial span in Austrochaperina mehelyi
(solid squares) and A. novaebritanniae (open
squares).
in the Adelbert Mountains. I visited one of
the localities for the species, Tumnang,
which is atop a ridge in steep, mountainous
terrain with rainforest where such has not
been degraded to grassland or gardens.
DISTRIBUTION: This species has so far been
found only at moderate elevations (1200–
1600 m) in the Adelbert Mountains and in
the mountains of the Huon Peninsula (fig.
28).
LOCALITY RECORDS AND SPECIMENS EXAM-
INED: PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Madang
Prov.: Mambimap, 1500 m, Adelbert Mtns.
(UPNG 7239–7241); near Kowat, 900 m,
Adelbert Mtns. (UPNG 8115–8119). Morobe
Prov. (all localities on the Huon Peninsula):
Tumnang, 1340 m (MCZ A28399, 28400);
Joangeng, 1220 m (MCZ A28406); Mindik,
1200–1600 m (BPBM 5288); Sattleberg
(Méhely¨, 1901).
REMARKS: I am not entirely satisfied that
the frogs I treat here are the same species that
Méhely¨ (1901) referred to Chaperina fusca
and that Parker (1934) later named Sphenophryne
mehelyi. The destruction of the type
specimens renders direct comparisons impossible,
and the descriptions of the same specimens
by Méhely¨ and Parker, although rea-