Bufo regularis pardalis Hewitt 1935

Conradie, Werner, Branch, William R. & Watson, Gillian, 2015, Type specimens in the Port Elizabeth Museum, South Africa, including the historically important Albany Museum collection. Part 1: Amphibians, Zootaxa 3936 (1) : -

Bufo regularis pardalis Hewitt 1935

Records of the Albany Museum, 4(2): 288.

Current name: Amietophrynus pardalis ( Hewitt, 1935)

Lectotype: PEM A837 (formerly AMG 7248); Gleniffer, Kei Road, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa; G.A. Ranger, date unknown (potentially early August 1934).

Allolectotype: PEM A838 (formerly AMG 7248); same details as lectotype.

Remarks. Amietophrynus pardalis and rangeri are very similar in appearance and occur in microsympatry, such that both have the same type locality. It was Ranger’s observations on his farm of a difference in breeding season between the two toads that led Hewitt to describe two new taxa. However, due to their very similar morphologies, Hewitt described them as sympatric subspecies, with no geographical separation, and noted (p. 283): “These two Gleniffer forms are clearly closely allied, and their status as geographical subspecies may seem somewhat arbitrary”. At the time Hewitt was struggling to make sense of a bewildering diversity of toads in southern Africa, many of which were considered simply regional variants of a wide-ranging Bufo regularis ( Boulenger 1881) . The latter is now restricted to north of the equator, with the regularis complex in the subcontinent now split into seven species ( Tandy & Keith 1972). Many of Hewitt’s comments in the type description show that he was aware of the complexity of the situation, and he was prescient in predicting that the differences in vocalization between the two taxa noted by Ranger at Gleniffer would direct future taxonomic studies (p. 284 – “it is quite probable however that the call-note character may prove to have greater systematic value than the shape of the parotoids”).

Unfortunately, Hewitt’s poor documentation of type material and the presence of large numbers of additional topotypic material (some included in the type bottle) complicate resolution of the original type material in both this, and the next species. The original type description notes “ Types: an adult male and female ..., collected when spawning”. However, it can be inferred that Hewitt had additional material from Gleniffer based on his comments: “A sub-adult male...” and “In old females...” (p. 290). The type bottle on transfer to PEM included four specimens consisting of two AMG series (AMG 7248 and 7270). In the type description Hewitt clearly refers to two collecting events, one in August and one in November. We thus assign the lower number (AMG 7248) to the type series. Measurements of the male and female are given (p. 283), and conform to two of the specimens in the AMG 7248 series. Thus we propose that PEM A837 (male) be designated as a lectotype and PEM A838 (female) as an allolectotype. Other specimens in the series must be treated as additional material. Both the lectotype and allolectotype have a medial incision with posterior and anterior horizontal incisions to reveal intestines. Hewitt provides the gape width of an adult male and refers to a sub-adult male received in November, but neither could be identified among the additional material. Poynton (1964) elevated the taxon to a full species ( Bufo pardalis ), whilst Frost et al. (2006) placed this and other large African bufonids in the new genus Amietophrynus .