Sclerophrys funerea

Sclerophrys funerea (Bocage, 1866) *

Specimens.

Angola: Benguela: BMNH 1872.2.15.3 [syntype of Bufo benguelensis Boulenger, 1882; Fig. 12] , “ W. Africa ” [= Caconda]: BMNH 1883.7.26.27 .

Comments.

Bocage (1866 b) described Bufo funereus based on a juvenile specimen from Duque de Bragança and later recorded additional specimens from Caconda (Bocage 1882 b, 1895 a). Even though Bocage (1895 a) clearly referred to the specimen from Duque de Bragança as the type of the species, Perret (1976) considered two specimens from Caconda as “ cotypes ”, demonstrating that the author had a different and peculiar concept of “ type ”. Boulenger (1882 b) described Bufo benguelensis based on three specimens, including one from Benguela sent by Bocage some years earlier (BMNH 1872.2.15.3). Even though it was formally described by Boulenger (1882 b), the name was used by Bocage earlier in a letter from 24 May 1869 (NHMA /DF/ZOO/200/1/189), where he identified the specimen as “ 4. Bufo benguellensis nov. sp. ” (Fig. 4). Furthermore, this was the name stated in the register when the specimen was accessioned a decade before Boulenger’s (1882 b) publication (Fig. 3), and the label on the specimen jar identifying it as Bufo benguelensis attributes the nomen authorship to Bocage (DP pers. obs.). In an addendum to the same work, Boulenger (1882 b) referred benguelensis to the synonymy of funereus based on an additional specimen sent by Bocage for comparison (BMNH 1883.7.26.27) (AHMB /CE/G93, NHMA /DF/ZOO/200/21/38). Although the second specimen bears only the locality “ W. Africa ”, it was most likely collected by Anchieta at Caconda considering that, in addition to the type of funereus from Duque de Bragança and the type of benguelensis sent to the British Museum, Bocage (1882 b, 1895) only recorded the species from Caconda. Interestingly, Bocage (1866 b, 1882 b, 1895 a, 1897) never directly reported the species from Benguela, even though he acknowledged Boulenger’s benguelensis as a synonym of funereus . Considering that no specific locality is stated in the letter where Bocage mentions the specimen, it is possible that Boulenger may have inferred the locality from Bocage’s name benguelensis, and the specimen actually originates from Caconda, at the time considered part of the “ interior of Benguella ”. While we assume that the type locality of Bufo benguelensis could be questionable, this scenario is merely speculative.