SPHENOPHRYNE - American Museum of Natural History

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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-
2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPHRYNE 45 sonably thorough, lack critical measurements. In most respects the specimens I examined agree with the descriptions of mehelyi: size (though Parker was inconsistent, see above); eye and snout proportions; tympanum size; sizes of digital discs; ventral coloration (virtually identical with the illustration in Méhely¨; pl. 12, fig. 3). Relative leg length cannot be assessed accurately, but both authors describe the tibia-tarsal joint as reaching the eye, which suggests a relatively long-legged frog, as are those examined. Differences include: interorbital space twice eyelid width (about 1.3 in my specimens); uniform brown above (all examined have many small, dark brown spots). The differences notwithstanding, I think it best to refer these specimens to mehelyi. The alternative of treating mehelyi as a synonym of A. polysticta seems less desirable (see that species account for comments). With new material available, I conclude that a specimen from near Lae that I referred to mehelyi (Zweifel, 1980) was incorrectly attributed. I describe it herein as Austrochaperina parkeri. Austrochaperina novaebritanniae, new species Figure 26 Sphenophryne mehelyi: Tyler, 1967: 188 (initial published reference to A. novaebritanniae). HOLOTYPE: AMNH A83058, collected on August 28, 1969, by Harold Cogger (Alpha Helix Expedition) about 12 miles (19 km) from Rabaul, East New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea, on the road to Keravat. PARATYPES: All localities in East New Britain Province. AMNH A83053–83057, A88569 (C&S), AMS R29243, 29246, 29251, 29253–29255, 29259, 29266, 29268, 29272, 29279, 29282, 29285, 29286, 29296, 29305, 29313, 29314, 29317, 29318, 29324, 29328, 29329, 29331, 29333, 29334, 29343– 29346, 29349, 29351, 29352, 29355, 29361– 29363, 29366, 29368, 29370–29372, all with same data as holotype; AMNH A79870– 79872, MCZ A73085, 73086, BMNH 1968.525, collected by D. Morgan at Keravat in March and July 1966; ZMUC R9151– 9164, collected on the Noona Dan Expedi- Fig. 26. Austrochaperina novaebritanniae, AMS specimen, not individually identified. Harold Cogger photo. tion (Wolff, 1966), May 10–22, 1962, at Yalom, 1000 m (425S, 15147.5E). ETYMOLOGY: The species name is a Latin substantive in the genitive, formed from the adjective novus and the noun Britannia, meaning ‘‘of New Britain,’’ and refers to the species’ provenance. DIAGNOSIS: A small species, males to 19 and females to 21 mm SVL, with finger discs slightly broadened and a dorsal color pattern of tiny white spots on a dark background, the venter similar but with slightly larger spots. DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: Adult female, gravid, with the following measurements and proportions: SVL 18.2, HW 6.5, TL 8.5, EY 2.1, EN 1.35, IN 1.9, HD 3.7, FT 7.8, third finger disc 0.45, fourth toe disc 0.70, TY 0.8; TL/SVL 0.467, HW/SVL 0.357, EY/SVL 0.115, EN/SVL 0.074, IN/SVL 0.104, EN/IN 0.710, HD/SVL 0.203, FT/SVL 0.429, TY/ EY 0.405, third finger disc/SVL 0.025, fourth toe disc/SVL 0.036. Snout bluntly rounded seen from above, rounded and slightly projecting in profile; nostrils lateral, slightly visible from above, widely spaced and closer to tip of snout than to eye, appearing almost terminal in lateral view; loreal region flat with a moderate slope, canthus rostralis rounded, not at all angular; eyes lateral, relatively large, upper lid about 75% of interorbital space; tympanum small, less than one-half eye diameter, outline of annulus scarcely visible. Relative lengths of fingers 3 2 4 1, first about
Page 1 and 2: PARTITION OF THE AUSTRALOPAPUAN MIC
Page 3 and 4: 2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 43: 2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 95 and 96:
2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
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?