Callulops neuhaussi
Creators: name: Kraus, Fred
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Amphibia
Anura
Microhylidae
Callulops
Callulops neuhaussi

description: Callulops neuhaussi (Vogt)
Figs. 2C, D
Manthophryne neuhaussi Vogt, 1911: 425.
Hylophorbus neuhaussi van Kampen, 1923: 144.
Phrynomantis neuhaussi Noble, 1926: 20 [by implication].
Asterophrys doriae Parker, 1934: 65.
Xenorhina doriae Zweifel, 1972: 53.
Phrynomantis doriae Burton, 1986: 415 [by implication].
Callulops doriae Dubois, 1988: 3 [by implication].
Holotype. ZMB 22156, maturing female, collected by Dr. Richard Neuhauss, Sattelberg, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea.
Diagnosis. Callulops neuhaussi is distinguished from all other members of the genus by its unique combination of modest size (maturing female SV = 59.4 mm); all fingers lacking circum-marginal grooves; relatively long leg (TL/SV = 0.46); pustulose dorsum; EN same length as IN (EN/SV = 0.074, IN/SV = 0.072, EN/IN = 1.02); slightly swollen loreal region; relatively large eye (EY/SN = 0.76); basal subarticular tubercle of 4th toe absent; dorsum light brown with few rows of ocelli having small pale centers and narrow black margins; limbs dark brown; groin, hidden surfaces of legs and feet, and tops of thighs blotched with yellow; venter yellow-brown, darker on chin and throat.
Comparisons with other species. Callulops neuhaussi differs from all other species of the genus except C. doriae by its yellow-brown dorsum spotted with brown/black and by the large yellow or orange blotches on the hidden surfaces of the hindlimbs. From C. doriae, C. neuhaussi differs in having a longer leg (TL/SV = 0.46 vs. 0.38–0.42 in C. doriae), EN same length as IN (EN/SV = 0.074 vs. 0.055 –0.061 in C. doriae, EN/IN = 1.02 vs. 0.80–0.96 in C. doriae), larger head (HW/SV = 0.41 vs. 0.32–0.37 in C. doriae, HL/SV = 0.30 vs. 0.25–0.28 in C. doriae), small ocelli dorsally (vs. scattered brown flecks and spots in C. doriae) largely arrayed in a few rows (vs. irregularly scattered across the dorsum in C. doriae), and tan dorsal ground color (vs. dirty yellow in C. doriae) with noticeably darker limbs and posterior body (vs. same color as dorsum in C. doriae).
Description of holotype. A female with convoluted oviducts containing many small oocytes. Specimen desiccated, with mid-ventral incision and cross-slits across the pectoral region, skin reflected; skin reflected away from maxillae, premaxillae, and mandibles; mandibles broken; skin reflected from center of skull from snout to behind level of tympana (Fig. 2C); small rectangle of skin removed from left side. Head wide (HW/SV = 0.41), wider than long (HL/HW = 0.73), with swollen loreal region, slightly inflated immediately anterior to eye, concave posterior to naris; upper lip inflated; canthus absent; nostrils oblong, dorsoventrally compressed, directed laterally, closer to tip of snout than to eyes; internarial distance equal to distance from naris to eye (EN/IN = 1.02; IN/SV = 0.72; EN/SV = 0.74); snout slightly rounded, truncate when viewed from above (Fig. 2C); eyes small (EY/SV = 0.071); eyelid less than half interorbital distance; tympanum clearly demarcated, smaller than eye (TY/EY = 0.86; TY/SV = 0.061), annulus bordered posteriorly and dorsally by heavy supratympanic fold that extends from behind eye to posterior of tympanum, where it bends sharply to end in front of forearm insertion below level of jaw; supratympanic fold a clearly demarcated ridge ventrally but evenly continuous with dorsal skin. Dorsum, sides, and tops of limbs heavily pustulose and glandular; ventral surfaces smooth anteriorly, granular on abdomen and under thighs. Fingers unwebbed, somewhat shriveled, thick, all bearing discs without terminal grooves; relative lengths 3>4≈2>1. Finger discs slightly wider than penultimate phalanges (3rdF/SV = 0.027). Subarticular tubercles large, well developed, covering much of phalangeal surfaces; inner and outer metacarpal tubercles low, large, and oval; medial large, semicircular. Toes unwebbed, all bearing discs, but shriveled, so impossible to determine if terminal grooves were originally present; relative lengths 4>3>5>2>1. Toe discs barely wider than penultimate phalanges (4thT/SV = 0.034), slightly wider than those of fingers (3rdF/4thT = 0.81). Subarticular tubercles well developed, rounded, only two on fourth toe, none present at junction of metatarsal and proximate phalanx on fourth toe; inner metatarsal tubercle a narrow, prominent oval; outer a poorly defined skin thickening at best. Legs short (TL/SV = 0.46).
In preservative, dorsal ground color medium yellow brown, darker dorsolaterally, especially in sacral region; below this darker dorsolateral region sides approximately same ground color as mid-dorsum (Fig. 2C). Ocelli small, with small black margin around a small yellow center, in two rows dorsally and another 3–4 rows on each side. Legs with darker-brown ground; top of thighs with an even dark-brown field. One large orange-yellow inguinal blotch; front of thighs with 4–5 smaller blotches of same color on a dark-brown field; rear of thighs and hidden surfaces of shanks with many orange-yellow spots on dark-brown ground. Axillae with paler yellow blotch or two with poorly defined margins, less distinct than inguinal blotches. Tops of limbs medium brown (forelimbs) or darker brown (hindlimbs), speckled with yellow. Head paler brown, especially on snout, but possibly due to bleaching. Venter paler yellow brown than dorsum, darker on chin and throat (Fig. 2D), where it is flecked with yellow; palmar surfaces pale yellow brown; plantar surfaces brown with yellow flecks.
Measurements of holotype (in mm). —SV = 59.4, TL = 27.5, HW = 24.4, HL = 17.8, IN = 4.3, EN = 4.4, SN = 5.5, EY = 4.2, TY = 3.6; 3rdF = 1.62, 4thT = 2.01.
Color in life. Notes on color in life are not available, but in the original description Vogt (1911) noted the dorsal ground color to be tan or light brown (hellbraun) and the legs and posterior body to be blackish brown (schwarzbraun). Inasmuch as this color description came within a few years of the animal’s collection (sometime between 1908–1910) it can be taken as a truer reflection of the color in life than the yellow-brown and brown colors that now characterize these regions on the specimen. Vogt’s observation that the limbs and posterior body were darker than the dorsum still holds for the specimen more than a century later (Fig. 2C), but the colors have obviously faded from those that Vogt observed.
Etymology. The species was named by Vogt (1911) for the collector of the holotype, Dr. Richard Neuhauss.
Range. Known with certainty only from the type locality (Fig. 4), although that locality is likely to be an imprecise reference to the general area around Sattelberg given the standards for recording collection data at the time it was obtained.
Ecological notes. Vogt (1911) noted that the specimen secreted a golden exudate from the dorsal warts, which presumably serves an anti-predatory function. The exudate was likely white in life―as seen in other members of this species complex―but changed to yellow upon preservation, which I have observed in other species.
Remarks. This species is only known from the holotype. The poor state of preservation of the holotype makes this species difficult to confidently describe in the detail that would be desired. In particular, the exact colors of this species in life and details of its digital morphology would be useful to know with certainty. Consequently, the color details I use in the Diagnosis come from Vogt (1911), which are a more reliable indication of this frog’s true color than the more faded colors it now has (Fig. 2C, D). The specimen’s poor state would seem to be due to a combination of initial preservation with a too-strong preservative that left the specimen hardened and somewhat brittle and the dissections done by T. Vogt for his original description of the specimen. Further, it has shrunken over the past century: Vogt (1911) gave a SV for the specimen of 65 mm; I now get 59.4 mm.
Van Kampen (1923) apparently did not examine this specimen, but he stated that his description of the sole specimen of this species was “completed by information from Mr. Vogt”, and this would seem to be the source of his statement that the toes were webbed, which Vogt (1911) did not mention. If this statement were true it would be a unique feature to distinguish this species from all other members of Callulops. I am skeptical that the statement is true, but I cannot verify it because the severely dehydrated nature of the feet (Fig. 2C, D) makes it impossible to determine. If the feet were as dehydrated at the time of Vogt’s examinations, it is certainly possible that the thin, dehydated skin around the toes could have been mistaken for webbing. Resolution of this matter requires additional specimens.
description: Published as part of Kraus, Fred, 2019, A revision of Callulops doriae (Anura: Microhylidae), with descriptions of four new species, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 4612 (1) on pages 9-10, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4612.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3233535