Oreophrynella macconnelli (Boulenger 1895)

Barrio-Amorós, César L., Rojas-Runjaic, Fernando J. M. & Señaris, J. Celsa, 2019, Catalogue of the amphibians of Venezuela: Illustrated and annotated species list, distribution, and conservation, Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (e 180) 13 (1), pp. 1-198 : 11-13

Oreophrynella macconnelli (Boulenger 1895)

Holotype: BM 1947.2.14.49 .

Type locality: “ Base of Mount Roraima , 3,500 feet (1,066 m),” Guyana .

Distribution: Region 5. Known from the base of Roraima (type locality) and Maringma-tepui in Guyana ( Kok 2009). It has been surmised to occur in the Venezuelan foothills surrounding the base of Mt. Roraima ( Rivero 1961; La Marca 1992; Barrio-Amorós 1998). To date there are no vouchers from Venezuela in any known scientific collection.

Remarks: It is not possible to designate the exact type locality or determine whether it is in Venezuela or Guyana, since Boulenger (1900) listed it as “the base of Mt. Roraima , 3,500 ft (ca. 1,066 m),” which could be in either Guyana, Venezuela or Brazil. Barrio-Amorós (1998) considered Boulenger’s type locality to be in Venezuela without explanation. He also incorrectly stated that the type material in the BMNH was lost. Kok (2009) assumed the type specimen was collected on the Guyanan side of Roraima, as the title of Boulenger’s article states, but provided no further information or evidence. The journey made by F.V. McConnell and J.J. Quelch in 1898, during which the specimen was collected, originated in Guyana, but the only access to the summit of Roraima by foot is on the Venezuelan side. The exact route by which the two collectors walked around the base of Roraima follows the Mazaruni-Cako-Aruparu Rivers to reach the foot of Roraima. Here, only one place at the Aruparu River seems to be at 1,066 m (5°15’10.93”N, 60°42’28.57”W), while still seeing the tepui from its base. Therefore, we restrict the type locality to be in Guyana. But see a different conclusion by Kok et al. (2018) for Pristimantis marmoratus .

We are unable to distinguish Oreophrynella macconnelli from O. dendronastes Lathrop and MacCulloch, 2007 . The only listed difference is the shape of the snout, reported as truncated for O. dendronastes and pointed or acuminate for O. macconnelli ( Lathrop and MacCulloch 2007) . Kok (2009) had examined a larger set of specimens of O. macconnelli and noted variation in this character, but snout shape alone may be insufficient evidence to distinguish between these taxa. The larger size of O. dendronastes , with a female of 37. 3 mm SVL (as opposed to an SVL of 22. 7 mm in males of O. macconnelli , for which females are unknown) seems significant, but could be attributed to maturity and/or dimorphism. Furthermore, Kok et al. (2012) found insufficient genetic differentiation to support the recognition of O. dendronastes . We therefore suggest considering O. dendronastes Lathrop and MacCulloch, 2007 as a junior synonym of O. macconnelli (Boulenger 1895) . Barrio-Amorós (1998, 2004, 2009) incorrectly gave the species name as O. macconelli (lapsus calami).

Selected references: Boulenger (1900); Ginés (1959); Rivero (1961, 1964b); McDiarmid (1971); Warren (1971); Señaris et al. (1994, 2014); McDiarmid and Donnelly (2005); Lathrop and MacCulloch (2007); Kok (2009); Kok et al. (2018).