Xenopus fischbergi Evans, Carter, Greenbaum, Gvoždík, Kelley, McLaughlin, Pauwels, Portik, Stanley, Tinsley, Tobias & Blackburn, 2015
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5252/zoosystema2024v46a25 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D4AC1F89-AC34-43C4-9761-3F2015A02265 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13942912 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F187A4-FFAE-FFF8-AB11-F8AFFC03FC65 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Xenopus fischbergi Evans, Carter, Greenbaum, Gvoždík, Kelley, McLaughlin, Pauwels, Portik, Stanley, Tinsley, Tobias & Blackburn, 2015 |
| status |
|
Xenopus fischbergi Evans, Carter, Greenbaum, Gvoždík, Kelley, McLaughlin, Pauwels, Portik, Stanley, Tinsley, Tobias & Blackburn, 2015 View in CoL
( Fig. 12B View FIG )
MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Togo • 9 ♂; Bassar ; MNHN-RA-1979.5304-5312 • 2 ♂, 3 ♀; Kanté ; MNHN-RA-2006.2244-2248 .
DESCRIPTION. — Medium sized frog (SVL 27.5-32.5 mm ♂, 44- 53.8 mm ♀), with flattened body. Snout rounded. Head as long as broad (HW 22-29% SVL; HL 26-32% SVL). Eye larger (EL 1.6- 2.8 mm) than in Xenopus tropicalis ; subocular tentacle short, about half eye diameter. Tympanum indistinct. Hind leg rather short (TL 38-45% SVL). Webbing complete, no free phalanges. Three horny claws on toes I, II and III; metatarsal tubercles without horny claw. Skin smooth, with 22-24 dorsolateral lateral-line marks from the back of eyelid to rear back; belly smooth.
COLOURATION. — The dorsal colouration is gray. The flanks, upper forearm, thigh and tibia are also gray. The belly is lighter.
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM. — The males are smaller than the females. They have no vocal sac.
HABITATS AND DISTRIBUTION. — This species was formerly included in Xenopus muelleri (Peters, 1844) , which is now known to be restricted to eastern and southern Africa. The West African populations have been described as a distinct species, Xenopus fischbergi ( Evans et al. 2015) . Essentially a savannah form, this species is present in the savannahs of ecological zones I and II. It is very common in the Bassar and Kanté regions. Its distribution in the southern regions of the country remains doubtful. A population of the species was reported from the ecological zone III ( Segniagbeto et al. 2022). This species was reported in Kanté and Kara regions by Bourgat (1979).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.