Hyperolius cf. parallelus Günther, 1858

Parrinha, Diogo, Calado, Francisco M. G., Marques, Mariana P., Bauer, Aaron M. & Ceríaco, Luis M. P., 2025, Echoes of a lost museum: Revision of the herpetological collections sent by Barbosa du Bocage from the Lisbon Museum to the British Museum of Natural History, Vertebrate Zoology 75, pp. 353-404 : 353-404

Hyperolius cf. parallelus Günther, 1858 *

Specimens.

Angola: Duque de Bragança : BMNH 1864.10.28.11 –13 , Benguella : BMNH 1867.7.23.24 [ syntype of Hyperolius insignis Bocage, 1867 ; Fig. 14 ] , “ W. Africa ” [= Huíla]: BMNH 1872.2.15.4 [ syntype of Hyperolius huillensis Bocage, 1873 ; Fig. 15 ] , “ W. Africa ”: BMNH 1872.2.15.5 .

Comments.

The first specimens ( BMNH 1864.10.28.11 –13), collected by Bayão at Duque de Bragança, were presented to the British Museum in 1864 and identified by Günther as Hyperolius marmoratus ( AHMB /CE/G76 ), leading Bocage (1866 a) to report numerous specimens under that name. A subsequent specimen ( BMNH 1867.7.23.24 ; Fig. 14 ) from Benguela was presented on 13 July 1867 as Hyperolius insignis ( NHMA /DF/ZOO/200/1/195 , NHMA /DF/GüntherColl/16/1/112 ), a species described by Bocage in the same year based on numerous specimens collected by Anchieta in Benguela ( Bocage 1867 b). This specimen, which generally agrees with that depicted by Bocage (1867 b), was cited by Günther (1868 b) as Rappia insignis and later by Boulenger (1882 b) as Rappia marmorata , who noted it “ as typical of Hyperolius insignis ”. Although not noted elsewhere in the British Museum records, this specimen was certainly part of the type series and is here recognized as a syntype of Hyperolius insignis , adding to a surviving syntype in the Museum für Naturkunde ( ZMB 6462) recently reported by Tillack et al. (2021). Although Perret (1976) reported two syntypes from São Salvador do Congo and Novo Redondo (currently M’banza-Kongo and Sumbe, respectively, both destroyed by fire), these were reported by Bocage (1887 a) years after the original description and should not have been considered part of the type series. Both surviving syntypes in the British Museum and ZMB bear the locality “ Benguella ” noted in the original description.

According to the register, two additional specimens sent by Bocage were accessioned in 1872 as Hyperolius huillensis from “ W. Africa ”, a species described by Bocage in the following year based on four specimens collected by Anchieta at Huíla ( Bocage 1873 a). Boulenger (1882 b) reported one specimen in the British Museum as Rappia marmorata , noting it “ as typical of Hyperolius huillensis ”. A list of amphibians sent to London is available on a letter from Bocage dated 24 May 1869 ( NHMA /DF/ZOO/200/1/189 ), where two Hyperolius specimens are noted: “ No. 1. Hyperolius huillensis nov. sp. ” and “ No. 2. Hyper. sp.? ” (Fig. 4 ). These specimens correspond to BMNH 1872.2.15.4 and 1872.2.15.5 (Fig. 15 ), which still bear the labels with the respective numbers mentioned in the letter (i. e., “ 1 ” and “ 2 ”). Although Perret (1976) identified four syntypes in the Lisbon Museum, the fact that Bocage sent a specimen to London identified as “ Hyperolius huillensis nov. sp. ” provides compelling evidence that it was used by him to conceptualize and describe the species, even though the formal description was only published some years later ( Bocage 1873 a), and we thus recognize BMNH 1872.2.15.4 as a syntype of Hyperolius huillensis . While we tentatively include BMNH 1872.2. 15.5 in the material referred to Hyperolius cf. parallelus , neither Bocage nor Boulenger (1882 b) reached a conclusive determination and the true identity of the specimen remains ambiguous. Since Bocage (1895 a) regarded both insignis and huillensis as varieties of Rappia marmorata , he did not mention these taxa in his catalogue of type material in the Lisbon Museum ( Bocage 1897). As noted by Marques et al. (2018) and Santos et al. (2021), the taxonomy of the Angolan members of the Hyperolius parallelus group is still unstable, and the proper identification of types of the numerous nominal taxa described and still associated with the group may prove critical for future taxonomic assessments.

Figures

Figure 4. Extract of letter from Bocage to Günther dated 24 May 1869 (NHMA / DF / ZOO / 200 / 1 / 189) mentioning specimens sent via R. B. Sharpe, including “ Hyperolius huillensis nov. sp. ” and “ Bufo benguellensis nov. sp. ”, years before the descriptions were published.

Figure 14. Syntype of Hyperolius insignis (BMNH 1867.7. 23.24). Photos by DP.

Figure 15. Syntype of Hyperolius huillensis (BMNH 1872.2. 15.4). Photos by DP.