SPHENOPHRYNE - American Museum of Natural History

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 253 and boundaries shown in King and Ranck (1982: 19). Where alternate (parenthetical) names are given, I have used the primary (older) one unless an alternative is well established (see table 1). In the same publication, another useful map (p. 17) compares province boundaries as of 1950 and 1980. Many museum records for specimens from Papua New Guinea specify villages that appear only on the most detailed maps. Fortunately, there exists an excellent series of topographic maps for all of Papua New Guinea (Papua New Guinea 1:100,000 survey) upon which, with diligence, many of the more obscure villages can be located. An additional complication, however, is that villages do not always remain on the same spot, sometimes moving with slash and burn agriculture. I have converted distances and elevations given in miles and feet in original records to kilometers and meters. GENERA I have pointed out in the introduction that the genus Sphenophryne as defined and diagnosed by Parker (1934) is not a defensible monophyletic group. The sole diagnostic character—the structure of the pectoral girdle—is a primitive state shared by the species Parker recognized as well as by others subsequently described. In my investigation of the species currently assigned to Sphenophryne as well as of undescribed species that fit the diagnosis used since Parker (1934), I have found no derived character that serves to unite all these species and validate Sphenophryne as a monophyletic clade. The diversity of the assemblage is greater than had been appreciated, but the species still do not fall into trenchant groups, either by criteria of shared derived characters or by traditional methods involving unpolarized similarities. I have, nevertheless, chosen to recognize four genera, for all of which the literature provides names. I think that the arrangement I adopt has a fair likelihood of grouping related species together and thus improves on the current situation. There is no implication, however, that the four genera recognized are RECORDINGS SYSTEMATICS The tape recordings of frog calls used in this research came from a variety of sources, so differences in tape recorders and changes introduced in copying tapes are potential sources of variation. However, none of the calls compared differ in such subtle ways that these sources of error would be significant. The audiospectrograms and waveforms illustrated were produced on a Kay 5500 DSP Sona-Graph. I made my analyses of calls— measurements of rates, note and call durations, dominant frequencies—with the aid of the CECIL computerized speech analysis system (Hunt, 1993). Originals or copies of the tape recordings used are, with one exception, stored and cataloged in the Department of Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History (details are in the species accounts or tables). more closely related to one another than they are to any other genyophrynine genera. KEY TO GENERA The user of this key should first determine whether the specimen in question has elongate clavicles that extend from the scapula to near the midline of the pectoral girdle. If not, the specimen belongs to a genus other than one of those treated here. If the clavicles are as described, it should be verified that there is no bony omosternum. If such is found, the specimen is likely to be a ranid and not a microhylid. Ranids of the genus Platymantis are especially likely to be confused with microhylids. This key is intended to apply to adult frogs; juveniles may differ in critical body proportions. 1. A single pointed tubercle on each eyelid; tips of digits (except 1st finger) broadened into flattened discs broader than penultimate phalanges, disc on 3rd finger broader than that on4thtoe .............. Sphenophryne No eyelid tubercle; fingers without terminal discs or if discs present, that on 4th toe broader or rarely equal to that on 3rd finger ................................. 2
2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPHRYNE 9 2. Tips of fingers pointed or rounded but not flattened into discs with distinct terminal grooves .................. Oxydactyla Fingers and toes (except sometimes the 1st digit) with discs usually broader than the penultimate phalanges and with a distinct terminal groove .................... 3 3. Fingers and toes with distinct rather than low, rounded subarticular elevations; legs long, minimum mean TL/SVL 0.49 Liophryne Subarticular elevations indistinct to scarcely evident; TL/SVL rarely as large as 0.49 . . . ..................... Austrochaperina Genus Austrochaperina Fry Austrochaperina Fry, 1912: 87. Type species by original designation, Austrochaperina robusta Fry, 1912. Sphenophryne: Nieden, 1926: 43 (Austrochaperina placed in synonymy of Sphenophryne). Parker, 1934: 152. CONTENT: Twenty-three species; four of them endemic to Australia, one shared between Australia and New Guinea, and 18 endemic to New Guinea (including one in New Britain). The New Guinean species are Austrochaperina adamantina, new species; Austrochaperina aquilonia, new species; Austrochaperina archboldi, new species; Austrochaperina basipalmata (van Kampen); Austrochaperina blumi, new species; Austrochaperina brevipes (Boulenger); Austrochaperina derongo, new species; Austrochaperina gracilipes Fry; Austrochaperina guttata, new species; Austrochaperina hooglandi (Zweifel); Austrochaperina kosarek, new species; Austrochaperina macrorhyncha (van Kampen); Austrochaperina mehelyi (Parker); Austrochaperina novaebritanniae, new species; Austrochaperina palmipes (Zweifel); Austrochaperina parkeri, new species; Austrochaperina polysticta (Méhely¨); Austrochaperina rivularis, new species; Austrochaperina yelaensis, new species. See below for the Australian endemics. DIAGNOSIS: A genus of genyophrynine microhylid frogs (sensu Zweifel, 1971, and Burton, 1986) with the following combination of morphological characters: clavicles long and slender, reaching from scapula almost to midline of pectoral girdle; tips of fingers and toes (except sometimes the 1st) flattened and disclike with terminal grooves and typically broader than the penultimate pha- lanx, the disc of the 3rd finger narrower or no broader than that on the 4th toe; subarticular elevations low and rounded, almost undetectable in some species. MORPHOLOGY: Adults of the several species range in maximum size from about 20 to 50 mm SVL. These are for the most part rather generalized frogs, lacking the adaptations to a semifossorial existence seen in Oxydactyla or those fitting Liophryne to rapid movement on the surface of the forest floor. Two species have toe-webbing, the only instances of this in any of the four genera treated. HABITS AND HABITAT: I have only meager information on habits. Six species (two New Guinean and four Australian) are known to call from within leaf-litter on the forest floor, while another calls from exposed positions on grass stems in more open country. None is known to ascend to higher positions in shrubs or trees, and the morphology of most species suggests that the leaf-litter habitat is the common one. However, four species deviate from all other New Guinean microhylids in having riparian habits along small streams. DISTRIBUTION: Most of New Guinea from near sea level to more than 2000 m, but mostly at middle elevations, with outlying species on Yela Island southeast of mainland New Guinea, on New Britain, and possibly on the Aru Islands of the Sahul Shelf (see Genus and Species inquirenda). In Australia, three species occupy rainforest regions of northern Queensland, and two others occupy seasonally dry regions of the Cape York Peninsula and Northern Territory. McDonald (1992) updated distribution records for three rainforest species. NEW NAME COMBINATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN SPECIES Inasmuch as the four endemic Australian species are not treated in individual species accounts in this paper (see Zweifel, 1985b), it is convenient here to propose formally the new and revived combinations: Austrochaperina adelphe (Zweifel, 1985), new combination; Austrochaperina fryi (Zweifel, 1962), new combination; Austrochaperina pluvialis (Zweifel, 1965), new combination; Austro-
Page 1 and 2: PARTITION OF THE AUSTRALOPAPUAN MIC
Page 3 and 4: 2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 7: 2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 59 and 60:
2000 ZWEIFEL: PARTITION OF SPHENOPH
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
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?