Systematic Status of a South American Frog, Allophryne ruthveni Gaige

University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History Volume 17, No. 10, pp. 493-502, 3 Figs. October 27, 1966
BY JOHN D. LYNCH AND HOWARD L. FREEMAN University of Kansas Lawrence 1966
University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch, Frank B. Cross Volume 17, No. 10, pp. 493-502, 3 Figs. Published October 27, 1966 University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas PRINTED BY ROBERT R. (BOB) SANDERS, STATE PRINTER TOPEKA, KANSAS 1966 31-5378

BY JOHN D. LYNCH AND HOWARD L. FREEMAN
Gaige (1926) described Allophryne ruthveni as a new genus and species of diminutive bufonid from British Guiana. Noble (1931) considered A. ruthveni to be a toothless relative of Centrolenella and placed the genus in the Hylidae. Gallardo (1965) suggested that Allophryne is a leptodactylid of uncertain affinities. Other references to the monotypic genus have consisted only of a listing of the name or of its inclusion in a key. To date the holotype and one paratype (both females) have been reported (Gaige, 1926), and the family position of the genus remains unsettled.
A male of Allophryne ruthveni is among the amphibians and reptiles collected in southern British Guiana by William A. Bentley in January, 1962, and deposited in the Museum of Natural History at The University of Kansas (KU). Four additional specimens (females) are in the American Museum of Natural History; only one of the latter has definite locality data.
Acknowledgments. —We are grateful to Dr. Ernest E. Williams, Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and Dr. Richard G. Zweifel, American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) for the loan of specimens. We are further indebted to Dr. Zweifel for permission to clear and stain one specimen. Dr. William E. Duellman and Linda Trueb offered many constructive criticisms. Miss Trueb executed the drawings of the skull and finger bones. Mr. Martin Wiley provided x-ray photographs of Allophryne .
Six of the seven known specimens were available for study. Measurements were taken in the manner described by Duellman (1956). One specimen was cleared and stained, using the technique of Davis and Gore (1936), in order to study the skeleton. X-ray photographs were made of another specimen for comparison.