8 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.Includes bibliographical references (p. 8)

Shelly, O.

Zweifel, Richard George, 1926-

American Museum of Natural History Scientific Publications

1b^ie'cauJMllsdllm1Covitat3esPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORYCENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK 24, N.Y.NUMBER 1785 AUGUST 2 2, 1956Notes on Microhylid Frogs, Genus Cophixalus,from New GuineaBY RICHARD G. ZWEIFELThe American Museum of Natural History has been fortunate toreceive several collections of reptiles from Northeast New Guinea fromthe Rev. 0. Shelly, S.V.D. Recently Father Shelly assembled a collec-tion of amphibians and reptiles in the Wahgi Valley region of the centralhighlands of New Guinea. Included in this collection were three speciesof microhylid frogs, one of them representing an undescribed form,which serve as the basis for the present note.Evidently the central highlands of New Guinea have a frog fauna witha high degree of endemism. Four of the five microhylid frogs (includingthe new species described herein) found in the region of the Hagen andBismarck Mountains are unknown elsewhere. The endemic species areAsterophrys wilhelmana, Cophixalus darlingtoni, C. parkeri, and C.shellyi. One species, Sphenophryne brevicrus, is found also in the moun-tains of Netherlands New Guinea, far to the west. A similar situationapparently prevails among the hylids. Loveridge (1945) described Hyladarlingtoni, H. angularis, and H. becki, all from Mt. Wilhelm, and For-cart (1953) described Nyctimystes flavomaculata from the same region.Three species of Hyla are known from this region and elsewhere: H.arfakiana, H. angiana, and H. montana. The only ranid known in thearea, Rana grisea, is widespread. Undoubtedly the fauna is not thor-oughly sampled.The frogs collected by Father Shelly were obtained at Kondiu. Thislocality is at an elevation of about 5000 feet in the Wahgi Valley acrossthe Wahgi River (northeast) from Kup, about 10 miles south and 152 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1785miles west of Mt. Wilhelm. An excellent description of the region and amap are presented by Mayr and Gilliard (1954, pp. 321-324, fig. 1).Cophixalus shellyi, new speciesCophixalus ateles, ZWEIFEL, 1956, p. 34.HOLOTYPE: A.M.N.H. No. 58551, adult female, collected in 1955 bythe Rev. 0. Shelly, S.V.D., at Kondiu, across the Wahgi River fromKup, elevation about 5000 feet, Northeast New Guinea.PARATYPES: A.M.N.H. No. 58552, from the type locality, andA.M.N.H. No. 58170, from Mt. Hagen, 8000 feet, about 55 miles east-southeast of the type locality.DIAGNOSIS: Differs from all species of Cophixalus except C. ateles inpossessing a -very short first finger, its length being less than one-half ofthe length of the second. Differs from C. ateles in the following ways:tympanum very indistinct; finger discs relatively smaller; side of headblack, sharply contrasting with dorsal and lateral body surfaces.DESCRIPTION OF TYPE SPECIMEN: No maxillary or vomerine teeth;maxillae not overlapping in front of the premaxillae (eleutherognathine);no clavicle or procoracoid; no omosternum, sternum cartilaginous; termi-nal phalanges T-shaped.The tongue is smooth and about three-quarters free behind. Thepalatal ridges are low and indistinct. Finger and toe discs slightly en-larged, the third finger disc larger than disc of the fourth toe. The thirdfinger disc is about twice the width of the penultimate phalanx, the fourthtoe disc little wider than the penultimate phalanx. Fingers in decreasingorder of length 3-4-2-1, toes 4-3-5-2-1. The first finger is less thanhalf of the length of the second, and bears no distinctly enlarged disc, itsslightly swollen tip being no wider than the penultimate phalanx. Sub-articular and metatarsal tubercles are very poorly developed, almostindistinguishable. The snout is obtusely pointed and very slightly longerthan the orbit, the ratio of snout length to orbit length being about 1.1.The canthus rostralis is not sharp, and the loreal region is nearly vertical.The interorbital space is wider than an upper eyelid. A very faint supra-tympanic fold is in evidence. The legs are relatively long; ratio of leglength to snout-vent length, 0.44. Snout-vent length, 16.5 mm.; tibialength, 7.2 mm.; head width, 5.8 mm.In preservative, the type is gray dorsally. There are an irregular darkinterocular mark and a faint lighter mid-vertebral line with a borderslightly darker than the ground color (fig. 1B). The side of the head isblack, in marked contrast to the dorsal surface of the head and body. The1956 ZWEIFEL: MICROHYLID FROGS 3dark color occupies all the side of the face and the end of the snout, andcontinues posteriorly to include part of the ear (fig. 1A). The anteriorsurface of the foreleg is dark, the color being continuous with that of theside of the head. The ground color of the flanks is the same as the dorsalground color; some darker spots are present. The back of the tarsal regionand the sole of the foot are dark. The under surfaces of the body and legsare mottled with dark gray on a lighter background.AFIG. 1. Cophixalus shellyi, new species. A. Side of head, paratype, A.M.N.H.No. 58552. B. Dorsal view, type specimen, A.M.N.H. No. 58551. Scale lineindicates 1 cm.VARIATION: All three specimens are females, so the presence or ab-sence of the vocal sac in this species is not yet known. The specimenfrom Mt. Hagen was darkened by preservative and stained with rust;hence the distinctive color pattern evident in the two specimens morerecently received was not detected when this specimen was referred to4 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1785C. ateles (Zweifel, 1956, p. 34). In color and pattern, the two well-pre-served specimens are very similar, though the vertebral line of the typeis not present in the other. The toe and finger discs are roughly the samesize in the two paratypes, the finger discs being slightly smaller than inthe type. The first finger is very small in all three specimens. The tym-panum is very indistinct in all. Its diameter is approximately 0.5 to 0.6that of the orbit, but indistinct outlines make the measurements (madewith an ocular micrometer in a binocular dissecting microscope) none toocertain. The snout length in the three specimens is 0.9, 1.1, and 1.2times the orbit length. The tibia length/snout-vent length ratio is 0.47,0.44, and 0.45. The specimens are very similar in size, two measuring16.5 mm. in snout-vent length, and one 15.0 mm.DISCUSSION: The very short first finger of shellyi should at once distin-guish it from all other species of Cophixalus except C. ateles Boulenger.This species was based on "several specimens" from Moroka in theBartholomew Range at an elevation of 2300 feet in the Territory ofPapua (Boulenger, 1898, p. 708). This locality is about 350 miles south-east of the type locality of C. shellyi.In the absence of specimens of ateles, I base my comparison of shellyiand ateles on the description of two cotypes given by Parker (1934, pp.172-173). All fingers of ateles except the first are said to have large,truncate discs. The illustration in Boulenger (1898, pl. 8, fig. 4A) showsdiscs approximately three times the width of the penultimate phalanx,while in shellyi the discs are two or less times as wide as the phalanx.However, Boulenger's figure may be misleading, because Parker (1934,p. 172) notes that the length of the first finger is incorrectly depicted inBoulenger's illustration. The tympanum of ateles is said to be distinct,while in shellyi it is scarcely discernible.Cophixalus ateles is described by Parker as follows: "Grey or palebrown above, the flanks and upper surfaces of the snout yellowish; thecolour of the flanks forms a more or less regular streak from the eye tothe groin which may be edged above by darker; a light cross-bar connect-ing the upper eyelids bordered behind by darker. A faint dark W-shapedmark may be present on the anterior part of the back and a light vertebralstripe may be present. Lower surfaces lighter, more or less profuselydusted with dark brown; forearm with a distinct brown annulus; analregion blackish." The difference in color between the upper surface of thesnout and the back, and between the flanks and the back is not seen inshellyi; there is no tendency for a streak from the eye to the groin, noris there a light interocular cross bar. The forearm of shellyi does not1956 ZWEIFEL: MICROHYLID FROGS 5have a distinct brown annulus. Conspicuously absent in the description ofateles is mention of the black mask of shellyi.It is not certain that the apparently diagnostic characters of C. shellyiwill continue to appear so when more specimens of shellyi and atelesbecome available, and it is possible that the relationship between thetwo may be closer than their present specific allocation implies. The dis-tinctness of the tympanum shows some variation in some other micro-hylids, finger and toe disc size varies, and in some species color patternis highly variable. Yet in others, structure and pattern are quite constant.The acquisition of more specimens, together with data on their habitatand appearance in life, is needed before the relationships of shellyi can bedetermined with satisfaction.Cophixalus darlingtoni LoveridgeCophixalus biroi darlingtoni LOVERIDGE, 1948, pp. 423-424.Cophixalus darlingtoni, ZWEIFEL, 1956, p. 44.In a footnote in my previous paper dealing with New Guinea micro-hylids, it was suggested that C. biroi darlingtoni was sufficiently distinctfrom C. biroi to deserve specific recognition. This suggestion was basedon my examination of nine specimens of darlingtoni out of a much largerseries from the type locality in the Museum of Comparative Zoology.The present specimens, 56 in number, are from about 25 miles to thewest of the type locality, Toromanbanau, and conform to the diagnosticcharacters of the form as based on Loveridge's original description.The relative lengths of the third and fifth toes will serve to distinguishC. darlingtoni from all known Cophixalus with the exception of C. varie-gatus and C. rostellifer. In these three species the fifth toe is longer thanthe third, while in all others the third is longer or the two are approxi-mately equal. In the vast majority of specimens of darlingtoni the fifthtoe is clearly longer than the third. While in a very few individuals thedifference is not so marked, the third is never longer than the fifth.Cophixalus rostellifer has an elongate snout, the length being at leasttwice the orbit length. The snout of darlingtoni is, at the longest, onlyvery slightly longer than the orbit. Cophixalus variegatus is a small spe-cies, maximum known length 18 mm. (as against 26 mm. in darlingtoni),and probably has relatively longer legs. In three specimens of variegatusthat I have measured, the tibia length/snout-vent length ratio is 0.34,0.36, and 0.40 (mean 0.367). This contrasts with a mean of 0.301 +0.003 for adult darlingtoni (see below).6 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1785The relative lengths of the orbit and snout, expressed as the ratio ofsnout length to orbit length, range from 0.85 to 1.11, mean 0.99, in 27specimens. Probably some effect of ontogenetic variation is present, butwhen such small distances on small specimens are dealt with, variationis largely obscured by error in measurement. However, ontogenetic varia-tion in leg length is evident. Among the measurements of 35 individuals,the 10 smallest individuals have a tibia length/snout-vent length meanof 0.333 (0.029-0.37), while the 10 largest specimens have a mean ofFIG. 2. Cophixalus darlingtoni Loveridge. The light interorbital line appears tobe a fairly constant feature of an otherwise highly variable pattern. A.M.N.H.No. 58545, Kondiu near Kup, Wahgi Valley, Northeast New Guinea. Scale lineindicates 1 cm.0.297 (0.26-0.33). The first group includes specimens ranging from 13.2to 20.2 mm. in length, the larger group 23.1 to 26.5 mm. For all speci-mens 20 mm. or greater in body length, the mean is 0.301 ± 0.003, range0.26-0.34, n = 26. This is not significantly different from the mean of0.306 + 0.004 given for nine specimens in my previous paper (Zweifel,1956, table 4, p. 39). Relative leg length is a valuable tool in distinguish-ing between various forms of Papuan microhylids. For example, whenthe present lot of specimens was dealt with, a single individual of1956 ZWEIFEL: MICROHYLID FROGS 7Cophixalus parkeri was confused with the many darlingtoni until itsrelative leg length (0.38) was noted to be somewhat greater than otherspecimens in its size group, whereupon a more careful examination re-vealed its other distinctive characters.The color pattern of C. darlingtoni is highly variable. A thin mid-vertebral line is present in some individuals, absent in others. A fewhave a broad light stripe in this region. The dorsal ground color rangesfrom deep plumbeous to pale yellowish tan in different individuals. Darkermarkings are present, and are often arranged as continuous or pairedlateral blotches. One marking is very consistent: this is a pale, golden,FIG. 3. Cophixalus parkeri Loveridge. A.M.N.H. No. 58547, Kondiu near Kup,Wahgi Valley, Northeast New Guinea. Scale line indicates 1 cm.interocular line. Among 56 specimens, the mark is absent only threetimes and is indistinct in seven other instances. Where obscure, it isbecause the line is broken, diffuse, or indistinguishable from the groundcolor. An indistinct ocellus is often present in the groin. The venteris pale and nearly immaculate in some specimens, clouded with gray inothers. (See fig. 2.)8 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1785Cophixalus parkeri LoveridgeCophixalus variegatus parkeri LOVERIDGE, 1948, pp. 425-426.Cophixalus parkeri, ZWEIFEL, 1956, p. 44.This species has been known from only two specimens, the type fromMt. Wilhelm, and the second individual from Mt. Hagen, 70 miles tothe west. The specimen collected by Father Shelly is from an inter-mediate location.The Kondiu and Mt. Hagen specimens differ from Loveridge's descrip-tion of the type in that the first finger is not "much shorter than thesecond," but is more than half of its length. However, on examination ofthe type specimen, I find the first finger to be half of the length of thesecond and not at all like the very small first finger of C. shellyi andC. ateles. The Kondiu specimen agrees in general with the color and pat-tern of the type and, in particular, agrees in possessing a broad, lighttransverse bar uniting the eyelids (fig. 3). The presence of this mark inthe Mt. Hagen specimen is suggested, but owing to discoloration and ruststain, the pattern can only dimly be distinguished. The relative leg lengthof the Kondiu specimen is the same as that of the Mt. Hagen specimen;tibia length/snout-vent length = 0.38.BIBLIOGRAPHYBOULENGER, G. A.1898. An account of the reptiles and batrachians collected by Dr. L. Loriain British New Guinea. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genoa, ser. 2, vol. 18, pp.694-710.FORCART, LOTHAR1953. Amphibien und Reptilien von Neuguinea, mit der Beschreibung einesneuen Laubfrosches, Nyctimystesflavomaculata n. sp, Verhandl. Naturf.Gesell. Basel, vol. 64, pp. 58-68.LOVERIDGE, ARTHUR1945. New tree-frogs of the genera Hyla and Nyctimystes from New Guinea.Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 58, pp. 53-58.1948. New Guinean reptiles and amphibians in the Museum of ComparativeZoology and United States National Museum. Bull. Mus. Comp.Zool., vol. 101, pp. 305-430.MAYR, ERNST, AND E. THOMAS GILLIARD1954. Birds of central New Guinea. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 103,pp. 315-374.PARKER, H. W.1934. A monograph of the frogs of the family Microhylidae. London,British Museum (Natural History), viii + 208 pp.ZWEIFEL, RICHARD G.1956. Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 72. Microhylid frogs fromNew Guinea with descriptions of new species. Amer. Mus. Novitates,no. 1766, pp. 1-49.

Microhylid frogs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

American Museum of Natural History Scientific Publications