Austrochaperina kosarek, ZWEIFEL, 2000

ZWEIFEL, RICHARD G., 2000, Partition Of The Australopapuan Microhylid Frog Genus Sphenophryne With Descriptions Of New Species, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2000 (253), pp. 1-130 : 38-45

Austrochaperina kosarek , new species

HOLOTYPE: MZB 3561 , also tagged UPNG 9532 (field no. Blum 1979-38), collected in July 1979 by J. Paul Blum at Kosarek, elevation 1400 m, Jayawijaya District , Irian Jaya, Indonesia.

PARATYPES: The holotype is the only known specimen.

ETYMOLOGY: The name of the type locality serves as a noun in apposition.

DIAGNOSIS: A small Austrochaperina (only specimen 21 mm SVL) with short legs (TL/ SVL 0.409) and with finger tips (except that of the first) flattened and disclike but with weak terminal grooves and only the disc of the third finger broader than the penultimate phalanx. A. brevipes of the far distant Owen Stanley Mountains resembles kosarek in size and most proportions but has better developed (though not broader) finger discs and a narrower head ( kosarek HW /SVL, 0.370; minimum in brevipes 0.379).

DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: Adult female (ova 1.7 mm in diameter) with the following measurements and proportions: SVL 21.0, HW 7.8, TL 8.6, EY 2.55, EN 1.5, IN 2.35, HD 4.0, FT 8.5, disc of third finger 0.45 (penultimate phalanx 0.4), disc of fourth toe 0.65 (0.35); HW/SVL 0.370, TL/SVL 0.409, EY/SVL 0.121, EN/SVL 0.071, IN/SVL 0.112, EN/IN 0.638, HD/SVL 0.190, FT/ SVL 0.405, disc of third finger/SVL 0.021, disc of fourth toe/SVL 0.031.

Head almost as wide as body; snout tapering to a sharply rounded tip, rounded and slightly projecting in profile; nostrils visible from above, rather widely spaced, equidistant from snout tip and eye; canthus rostralis rounded, loreal region sloping, slightly concave. Eyes large, corneal margin visible from beneath, eyelid about 75% of interorbital space. Tympanic annulus obscure. Relative lengths of fingers 3> 4> 2> 1, first about half length of second; tips (except for first finger) flattened, somewhat disclike with faint suggestions of terminal grooves, but only that of third finger slightly expanded; subarticular and metacarpal elevations low, rounded (fig. 53F). Toes unwebbed, relative lengths 4> 3> 5> 2> 1, first much less than half length of second, all but first with grooved discs broader than penultimate phalanges; subarticular elevations rounded, inconspicuous, inner metatarsal elevation rounded, elongate (fig. 53F). A weak postorbital-supratympanic skin fold, skin otherwise smooth above and below.

The top of the snout is gray, the tip almost white. The loreal region and area below and behind the eye are dark brown, with pale spots on the upper lip. The dorsal surface of the body is light brown with obscure, small, darker markings and a dark mark above the cloacal opening. The dark brown postorbital color continues along the flank to the groin and on the anterior side of the thigh, but is much interrupted by irregular light spotting on the flank and thigh. The front legs are heavily spotted above with brown. The hind legs are pale brown above with fine melanic stippling and heavily mottled beneath, and the thighs are mottled on their posterior surfaces. The chin and chest are dark brown with small light spots, and the abdomen abruptly paler with irregular brown spotting.

VARIATION IN TYPE SERIES: There is only the holotype specimen, so nothing can be said of variation.

ILLUSTRATIONS: Hand and foot, fig. 53F.

CALL: This has not been described.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SPECIES: Austrochaperina blumi is sympatric with kosarek and of similar size but may immediately be distinguished from kosarek by its well-developed finger and toe discs.

HABITAT AND HABITS: Nothing is on record.

DISTRIBUTION: The only known locality, Kosarek, is at 1400 m elevation on the north slope of the central dividing range of Irian Jaya, west of Nipsan and northeast of Anguruk, about 110 km west of the border with Papua New Guinea (fig. 10).

Austrochaperina macrorhyncha (van Kampen) , new combination Figures 22 , 31D

Chaperina macrorhyncha van Kampen, 1906: 168 (type locality, ‘‘ Manikion-Gebiet ,’’ Irian Jaya, Indonesia; holotype, RMNH 4630 , collected February 14–21, 1903, by the Netherlands New Guinea Expedition).

Chaperina punctata van Kampen, 1913: 463 (type localities, ‘‘ Went-Gebirge , 800–1050 m.’’ and ‘‘ Hellwig-Gebirge, ± 2500 m.,’’ Irian Jaya, Indonesia; 12 syntypes [see below], collected by H. A. Lorentz in October and November 1909).

Chaperina basipalmata : Boulenger, 1914: 251 (specimen from Mimika River).

Sphenophryne macrorhyncha : van Kampen, 1919: 54 (first use of combination). Van Kampen, 1923: 107 (part, basipalmata considered a synonym). Parker, 1934: 155 (part). Loveridge, 1948: 421 (paratype of punctata ).

TYPE LOCALITIES: The ‘‘Manikion region’’ is not shown on maps available to me, but during the period specified the Expedition operated at the southeastern corner of the Vogelkop Peninsula (Wichmann, 1917: 103– 116, map 2). The Went and Hellwig mountains are south of Mt. Wilhelmena (Peak Tricora) in the southern drainage of the central mountain chain of Irian Jaya. Labels associated with several of the Went Mountains specimens specify ‘‘Henvelbivak,’’ which Nouhuys (1913: pl. 5) placed on the Lorentz River, 3.5 km W, 9 km N Alkmaar.

TYPE MATERIAL: Eight of the 12 syntypes of punctata remain in Amsterdam (Daan and Hillenius, 1966): ZMA 5747–5750 ( Went Mtns. , 800 m, Oct. 11, 1909 and 1050 m, Oct. 12, 1909) ; ZMA 5751–5753 (Henvelbivak, 800 m, Nov. 9, 1909) ; ZMA 5754 , Hellwig Mtns., 2500 m, Oct. 1909). The remaining specimens are distributed as follows: AMS R30834 (formerly Macleay Museum 56; Went Mtns., 1050 m) ; BMNH 1947.2 .14.91 (Went Mtns., 800 m, Oct. 11, 1909) 6 ; FMNH 100117 (formerly in E. H. Taylor collection; Henvelbivak , 800 m, Nov.

6 Parker (1934) mistakenly listed this specimen, then bearing the number BMNH 1928.2.10.3, as a cotype of Chaperina basipalmata .

6, 1909); MCZ A10773 (Went Mtns., Oct. 11–12, 1909).

DIAGNOSIS: Moderate size, females mature at about 32 mm SVL, males slightly smaller, dorsal pattern obscure or of dark flecks or vermiform markings on a slightly paler background; finger disc moderately large (FD/ SVL ± 0.035), legs long and eyes large (TL/ SVL ± 0.46, EY/SVL ± 0.116).

MORPHOLOGY: Van Kampen’s (1906) description of the holotype (there are no paratypes) is quite thorough, omitting only the sex. I did not dissect the specimen when I examined it (in 1964), so the sex remains undetermined. The specimen was rather dried and the skin of the head had been split down the middle and loosened; hence, some of my measurements may be less exact than could be desired: SVL 21.3, TL 10.1, HW 8.2, EY 2.9, IN 2.5, EN 1.7, TY 1.2, FD 0.67, TD 1.0.

This description is based on FMNH 100117, an adult male (vocal slits present) syntype of punctata . SVL 29.7, HW 9.75, TL 14.l, EY 3.9, EN 2.2, IN 3.15, HD 7.3, FT 13.6, third finger disc 1.25 (penultimate phalanx 0.6), fourth toe disc 1.35 (0.7); HW/ SVL 0.328, TL/SVL 0.475, EY/SVL 0.131, EN/SVL 0.074, IN/SVL 0.106, EN/IN 0.698, HD/SVL 0.246, FT/SVL 0.458, FD/SVL 0.042, TD/SVL 0.045.

Head narrower than body; snout bluntly pointed, slightly projecting, loreal region steep, slightly concave; canthus rostralis obvious but rounded; nostrils lateral, barely visible from above, closer to tip of snout than to eye. Eyes large, eyelid about 86% of interorbital distance; tympanum small and indistinct. Relative lengths of fingers 3> 4> 2> 1, first about half length of second, all with broadened, rounded discs, that on third finger slightly more than 2X penultimate phalanx width; subarticular and metatarsal elevations low, rounded, scarcely evident. Toes with a trace of webbing, relative lengths 4> 3> 5> 2> 1, all with well-developed, rounded discs, that on fourth toe broader than disc of third finger; subarticular elevations low and indistinct, inner metatarsal elevation low and elongate, scarcely visible. Skin smooth above and below, some slight wartiness on side of body and upper surface of shank. Other specimens do not vary significantly from this description.

COLOR AND PATTERN: The syntypes of punctata are faded with little or no pattern discernable. Van Kampen (1913: 464) described them as brownish or gray, the back with dark rounded flecks or marbling, loreal region and upper half of temporal region mostly dark, extremities with indistinct dark crossbands or flecked, lower surfaces light, with gray or brown marbling on the throat and limbs. One of the four specimens from Timeka has a gray dorsal ground color with sharply defined, dark vermiform markings on head and body; on the upper surfaces of the legs these coalesce to form a reticulum. The loreal region is dark, the upper lip light spotted, and there is a dark postocular, supratympanic streak. The groinand anterior and posterior of thigh are pale with darker spots more evident on the posterior surface. Chin through chest is maculated dark and light gray, and the abdomen is pale and immaculate. Soles and palms are dark gray. The oth- er three specimens have the markings much less evident, almost indistinguishable in one.

A color transparency shows a reddish brown dorsal ground color with dark brown markings (fig. 31D).

Neither of the adult male specimens has a pale snout tip.

VARIATION IN SIZE AND PROPORTIONS: In the type series of punctata , two male specimens ( SVL 24.6 and 28.1 mm) lack vocal slits, whereas one ( SVL 29.7 mm) has them, suggesting size at maturity of about 30 mm. Three females in the range 23.7–28.2 mm SVL are immature, one of 31.6 mm has 1.3 mm ova, and five at 32.4–36.5 mm are gravid, suggesting size at maturity of about 32 mm. Among the other six specimens, the largest are two males of 36.8 and 36.9 mm. A male of 28.1 mm lacks vocal slits, a female of 31.6 mm has 1.3 mm ova, and two larger females (32.4 and 36.6 mm) are more conspicuously gravid. Table 2 summarizes variation in proportions ; table 3 provides regression data.

ILLUSTRATIONS: Hand and foot, fig. 56B. Van Kampen (1906: fig. 3) illustrated the holotype of macrorhyncha and (1913: pl. 9, fig. 7) one of the syntypes of punctata , probably ZMA 5751.

CALL: This is known from a single call recorded by Stephen Richards at Wapoga Alpha Camp , Irian Jaya, on April 13, 1998 (table 5). There are approximately 130 brief, harsh notes uttered over a duration of 57 sec at a rate of 2.6 per sec. Ten notes average 0.120 sec in length (0.112 –0.130) and have an average of 8.9 (7–10) pulses. Typically, each note begins with a brief pulse separated from a series of longer, less discrete pulses (fig. 80B). The voucher specimen is MZB 3564 ; a copy of the tape recording is in the AMNH Herpetology Department tape collection on reel no. 284.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SPECIES: Austrochaperina basipalmata and A. macrorhyncha are of similar size but differ in the distinctive character of toe webbing in basipalmata . Additionally, basipalmata has shorter legs and smaller eyes than macrorhyncha ; neither TL/ SVL nor EY/SVL ratios overlap (table 2). Austrochaperina rivularis evidently is much larger than macrorhyncha . Males in the Western Province sample of rivularis (geographically closest to macrorhyncha ) mature at about 35 mm SVL compared to 30 mm for macrorhyncha , females at 35 vs. 32 mm. The largest specimens of macrorhyncha are males 36.8 and 36.9 mm, the largest rivularis is a 49-mm female. A more distant population of rivularis (Mt. Hunstein, E. Sepik Prov.) has even larger individuals. The two samples differ also in relative eye size and tibia length (table 2). There is overlap in both proportions, but graphing the two together provides good separation (fig. 3).

The sample of A. derongo from Irian Jaya is superficially similar to macrorhyncha and requires comparison. The two differ notably in several respects: macrorhyncha has longer legs, larger eyes, larger hands, and larger digital discs. Among individuals of similar sizes, there is little overlap in regression plots for TL, HD, and third finger disc, and none at all in eye size. Comparisons of ratios are meaningful as the average size of specimens in the two samples is nearly identical (SVL 32.1 mm in macrorhyncha , 32.6 mm in derongo ). The maximum TL/SVL of derongo equals about the mean for macrorhyncha ; there is no overlap in EY/SVL; HD/SVL and FD/SVL only slightly overlap. Figure 23 shows that a complete separation between the two species is achieved by plotting EY/ SVL against TL/SVL. The distinctions are maintained in sympatry at the Wapoga Alpha Camp in Irian Jaya.

HABITAT AND HABITS: The frog tape-recorded by S. Richards (see above) was calling during rain under thick vegetation on a large, mossy boulder next to a waterfall of a small torrential stream. Another individual was on a trail next to a small torrential stream at night (S. Richards, personal commun.). Allen Allison (personal commun.) described the site near Timika as mossy midmontane forest.

DISTRIBUTION: Irian Jaya, from the southeastern corner of the Vogelkop Peninsula along the south flank of the central ranges to the Lorentz River, at elevations from 800 to 2500 m, and at least a short distance eastward on the north flank (fig. 24).

LOCALITY RECORDS AND SPECIMENS EXAMINED: IRIAN JAYA: Manikion region ( RMNH 4630 , holotype) ; Went Mtns. , 800 and 1050 m ( AMS R30834 [formerly Macleay Museum 56], MCZ A10773 , ZMA 5747–5750 ) ; Hellwig Mtns. , 2500 m ( ZMA 5754 ) ; Henvelbivak, Lorentz River , 800 m ( FMNH 100117 [formerly in E. H. Taylor collection], ZMA 5751–5753 ) ; Mimika Riv- er ( BMNH 1913.10.31.248) ; about 35 km (airline) NNE Timika airport, 1500 m ( BPBM 13860 –13862 ) ; Wapoga Alpha Camp , 1100 m, 3°08.67′S, 136°34.423′E ( QM J67251 , MZB 3564 ) .

REMARKS: The holotype of A. macrorhyncha is a juvenile (on the basis of size), is in less than good condition, and was taken at a place remote from localities of samples of presumably related species. These circumstances create a problem in defining which, if any, of the known species populations should be associated with the name macrorhyncha .

If basipalmata of the north-coast ranges can be excluded on the basis of its possession of toe webbing, there are two population samples to be considered: (1) frogs from the Idenburg River region of Irian Jaya, north of the central dividing range (assigned to macrorhyncha by Zweifel, 1956; here referred to derongo ) and some 600 km from the type locality; (2) the syntype series of Chaperina punctata (placed by Parker, 1934, in the synonymy of macrorhyncha ) from the Lorentz River region south of the central range in Iri- an Jaya, also 600 km from the type locality. These samples are augmented by specimens from Wapoga Alpha Camp and near Timika, about 300 km closer to the type locality. 7

The two samples in question are of modest size (14– 15 specimens) and moderately well distributed by body size. Therefore, the method of choice is comparison of the measurements of the holotype with those predicted for a frog of its size by the regressions of the two competing samples. The resemblance of the holotype to the augmented punctata sample is striking. In HW, TL, EY, EN, and IN, the difference between the holotype and the predicted measurement (rounded to 0.1 mm) ranges from ‾0.1 to + 0.2 mm, and is 0.0 in two instances (EY and EN). The finger disc measurement is smaller than predicted (0.7 vs. 0.9 mm), but the toe disc measurements are identical (1.0 mm). The Idenburg River sample predictions

7 The specimen from Mimika River (see Specimens Examined) is in execrable condition and useless for comparative purposes.

are also close to those of the holotype, but deviate more, from ‾0.5 to + 0.3 mm; only the finger disc is closer to the holotype’s dimension.

The principal diagnostic differences between the Idenburg and augmented punctata samples are the larger eyes and longer legs of the latter. In both these characters the holotype is closer to the measurements predict- ed for the punctata sample—eye size identical, tibia length 0.1 mm shorter; comparable figures for the Idenburg prediction are ‾0.3 and ‾ 0.5 mm. Given the difficulty of obtaining accurate digital disc measurements from specimens in poor condition, I am inclined to dismiss the seemingly contradictory indication of finger disc size. Accordingly, I agree with continuing punctata as a synonym of macrorhyncha , and regard the Idenburg sample as representing a population of A. derongo .

Austrochaperina mehelyi

(Parker), new combination Chaperina fusca : Méhelÿ, 1901: 207, 257.

Sphenophryne fusca : van Kampen, 1923: 109

(part, New Guinea specimens only).

Sphenophryne mehelyi Parker, 1934: 156 (type locality, ‘‘Sattelberg, New Guinea ’’ [Morobe

Province, Papua New Guinea]; holotype, MNH

2414/11, collected by Ludwig Biró [no date given, but see below], destroyed in 1956).

Zweifel, 1980: 411 (part).

TYPE MATERIAL: Parker based the description on two specimens cataloged under MNH 2414/11, designating the female as holotype and the male as paratype. Both were destroyed in the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Neither Méhelÿ (1901) nor Parker (1934) indicated a date of collection, but from the account of Biró’s travels in Wichmann (1912), it appears the types were taken either during July–December 1898 or March–August 1899.

DIAGNOSIS: A small species (maximum known SVL about 21 mm) with finger discs equal to or scarcely broader than penultimate phalanges, relatively long legs (TL/SVL mean 0.45) and moderate eye–naris distance (EN/SVL mean 0.072). These features in combination will distinguish mehelyi from its congeners. (However, see account of A. polysticta .)

MORPHOLOGY: Size small, largest male 20.6 SVL, largest female 20.0, though a slightly greater maximum is probable. Head slightly narrower than the relatively slender body. Snout rounded, slightly projecting; nostrils lateral, scarcely or not visible from above; canthus rostralis rounded, loreal region a steep slope. Eyes relatively large, slightly less to slightly more than snout length, corneal outline notably projecting as viewed from beneath; eyelid width about three-fourths interorbital distance. Tympanic annulus scarcely distinguished externally, slightly less to slightly more than half eye diameter; ear emphasized by paler color. Relative lengths of fingers 3> 4> 2> 1, fourth little longer than second, first greater than half of second; fingertips disclike with terminal grooves but not or scarcely broader than penultimate phalanges; subarticular and palmar elevations hardly evident. Toes unwebbed, relative lengths 4> 3> 5> 2> 1, first less than half length of second, all with rounded, grooved discs, only that on first toe not clearly broader than penultimate phalanx; subarticular elevations indistinct, inner metatarsal elevation small, low, round- ed, no outer elevation. Skin smooth above and below except for a postocular-supratympanic fold indistinct in some specimens.

COLOR AND PATTERN: The snout, loreal region, and upper lip of preserved specimens are purplish brown with a few light spots on the lip and sometimes a trace of a light canthal line. The top of the head and middorsal region are brown with numerous small, irregular, darker brown spots. In some specimens the brown ground color continues onto the flanks whereas in others an ill- defined dorsolateral band of paler, grayer ground interrupts, below which the lateral region is darker brown spotted and blotched with white. An irregular dark brown streak above and behind the tympanum merges with the lateral brown of the body. The tympanum itself is yellowish brown. The chin and chest are dark brown with light spots that are discrete or coalesce into blotches. This pattern gives way abruptly to a pale venter marked with a coarse network of brown (Méhelÿ: 1901, pl. XII, fig. 3). The front legs are brown above with a few light spots, and beneath they are brown with white markings. Above, the hind legs are colored like the middorsal region and below like the venter, but with the brown more conspicuous. The posterior surfaces of the thighs are a variable mixture of brown and white markings.

James Menzies (personal commun.) noted that in life, frogs from the Adelbert Mountains were dark purple-brown dorsally with numerous fine white spots on the flanks and fewer dorsally, sometimes coalescing into lateral bands. The venter was dark with large white blotches.

VARIATION IN SIZE AND PROPORTIONS: The seven specimens I examined range from 16.0 to 20.6 mm SVL. Four males are 17.4–20.6 mm (the smallest with vocal slits) and a gravid female is 20.0 mm SVL. Published information on the sizes of the type specimens is confusing. Méhelÿ (1901) stated that the largest was 24.5 mm long. In his key, Parker (1934) stated ‘‘ circa 28 mm.,’’ but in his species account gave 20 mm. Regression and proportion statistics are in tables 2 and 3.

ILLUSTRATIONS: Hand and foot, fig. 57D. Méhelÿ (1901) illustrated the skull (pl. VI, figs. 4, 5) and terminal phalanx of the 4th toe (pl. X, fig. 7) of A. mehelyi (as Chaperina fusca ).

CALL: The call is unknown.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SPECIES: Austrochaperina mehelyi resembles the insular species A. novaebritanniae , which led Tyler (1967) to assign the New Britain frogs to mehelyi . The two are close in size and in most proportions and have similar color patterns, although the abdomen of novaebritanniae with uniform pale spots differs from the reticulated venter of mehelyi . The internarial distance of novaebritanniae is narrower than that of mehelyi –IN/SVL maximum 0.108 in novaebritanniae vs. minimum 0.112 in mehelyi , and the legs average shorter. A plot of TL/SVL and IN/SVL of the two species emphasizes their distinctness (fig. 25). The finger discs of the two are similar in width, but they appear more acute than rounded in novaebritanniae and are better developed.

HABITAT AND HABITS: The habitus of this species—large eyes, small digital discs, moderately long legs—is that of an active leaf-litter form rather than a burrower or a climb- er. James Menzies (personal commun.) collected specimens in ‘‘good secondary forest’’ in the Adelbert Mountains. I visited one of the localities for the species, Tumnang, which is atop a ridge in steep, mountainous terrain with rainforest where such has not been degraded to grassland or gardens.

DISTRIBUTION: This species has so far been found only at moderate elevations (1200– 1600 m) in the Adelbert Mountains and in the mountains of the Huon Peninsula (fig. 28).

LOCALITY RECORDS AND SPECIMENS EXAMINED: PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Madang Prov.: Mambimap , 1500 m, Adelbert Mtns. ( UPNG 7239–7241 ) ; near Kowat, 900 m, Adelbert Mtns. ( UPNG 8115–8119 ). Morobe Prov. (all localities on the Huon Peninsula): Tumnang, 1340 m ( MCZ A28399 , 28400 ) ; Joangeng , 1220 m ( MCZ A28406 ) ; Mindik , 1200 –1600 m ( BPBM 5288 ) ; Sattleberg ( Méhelÿ , 1901) .

REMARKS: I am not entirely satisfied that the frogs I treat here are the same species that Méhelÿ (1901) referred to Chaperina fusca and that Parker (1934) later named Sphenophryne mehelyi . The destruction of the type specimens renders direct comparisons impossible, and the descriptions of the same specimens by Méhelÿ and Parker, although reasonably thorough, lack critical measurements.

In most respects the specimens I examined agree with the descriptions of mehelyi : size (though Parker was inconsistent, see above); eye and snout proportions; tympanum size; sizes of digital discs; ventral coloration (virtually identical with the illustration in Méhelÿ; pl. 12, fig. 3). Relative leg length cannot be assessed accurately, but both authors describe the tibia-tarsal joint as reaching the eye, which suggests a relatively long-legged frog, as are those examined. Differences include: interorbital space twice eyelid width (about 1.3X in my specimens); uniform brown above (all examined have many small, dark brown spots). The differences notwithstanding, I think it best to refer these specimens to mehelyi . The alternative of treating mehelyi as a synonym of A. polysticta seems less desirable (see that species account for comments).

With new material available, I conclude that a specimen from near Lae that I referred to mehelyi (Zweifel, 1980) was incorrectly attributed. I describe it herein as Austrochaperina parkeri .

Figures

Fig. 22. Austrochaperina macrorhyncha, BPBM 13860, SVL 31.6 mm.

Fig. 31. Examples of Austrochaperina, Liophryne, and Sphenophryne. A. S. cornuta, AMNH A130544, adult. B. A. brevipes, AMNH A130534, SVL 21.9 mm. C. A. guttata, QM J67256, SVL 43.2 mm. D. A. macrorhyncha, MZB 3564, SVL 36.8 mm. E. A. rivularis, holotype, AMNH A130551, SVL 49.0 mm. F. A. palmipes, AMNH A130550, adult. G. L. similis, AMNH A130564, SVL 40.0 mm. H. A. derongo, MZB 3563, SVL 36.7 mm. Photos C, D, and H by S. Richards.

Fig. 23. Comparison of eye size and tibia length in Austrochaperina derongo from the Idenburg River (circles) and of A. macrorhyncha (squares). Adult individuals only plotted.