Leptopelis anchietae

Leptopelis anchietae (Bocage, 1873)

Specimen.

Angola: Caconda: BMNH 1887.3.23.1 .

Comments.

Bocage (1873 a) described Hylambates anchietae based on a single specimen from “ l’intérieur de Mossamedes ”, and later recorded it from “ Huilla, Caconda et Quindumbo ” (Bocage 1895 a). At that time, “ l’intérieur de Mossamedes ” corresponded to the inland areas of southwestern Angola, encompassing present day Namibe, Huíla and Cunene provinces. Perret (1976) examined the types in the Lisbon Museum and considered a juvenile specimen from Huíla (MB T.13 -233) to be the holotype. Even though Bocage (1873 a) mentioned a single specimen in the original description, Perret (1976) referred additional material from Caconda to the type series: two juveniles and an adult male as “ Cotype I ” (MB T.13 -234) and an adult female as “ Cotype II ” (MB T.236). It is possible that these “ cotypes ” were available to Bocage at the time of description, but the strict reference to a single individual in the description precludes them of being considered part of the type series. Although Boulenger (1882 b) included the species in his Catalogue, there were no specimens in the British Museum at that time. Only a few years later Bocage sent a specimen to the British Museum, noted in a letter dated 19 March 1887 (NHMA /DF/ZOO/235/1/1/1/76) as “ 1. Un individu de l’ Hylambates Anchietae de Caconda (Angola) ”. Interestingly, a specimen at the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle, Genève (MHNG 953.11) has a label written by Bocage with the information “ Hyl. Anchietae, Caconda (Angola), 1. ” (LMPC pers. obs.). The specimen in question, collected by Frederick Creighton Wellman (1870–1960) at “ Chiyaka District ”, was exchanged from the British Museum (originally BMNH 1908.5.15.20), suggesting that the label was likely misplaced while both specimens were still in London. While Bocage (1873 a) undoubtedly based his description on a single specimen, it is plausible to assume that the specimen from Caconda sent to the British Museum would have been part of what Perret (1976) considered as “ cotypes ”, even if this claim has no nomenclatural value.