Leptopelis viridis (Günther, 1869) *

Specimen.

Guinea-Bissau: Bolama: BMNH 1887.3.23.4 [syntype of Hylambates cynnamomeus Bocage, 1893; Fig. 9].

Comments.

In a letter detailing a shipment of Hylambates specimens (NHMA /DF/ZOO/235/1/1/1/76, see previous accounts), Bocage mentioned a specimen “ 4. Un individu d’une autre espèce de Hylambates, de Bolama (Guiné) peut-être voisin de H. rufus, mais qui me semble distinct de celui-ci ”. Some years later Bocage (1893 a) described Hylambates cynnamomeus, providing measurements for an adult male and mentioning an unspecified number of specimens from Quillenges in Angola and Bolama in Portuguese Guinea, noting also that the new species was similar to Hylambates viridis. In his catalogue of “ types ” in the Lisbon Museum, Bocage (1897) mentioned only Quillenges, seemingly restricting the type locality. Boulenger (1906 “ 1905 ”) mentioned a specimen sent by Bocage from Bolama under the name cynnamomeus, which he considered identical to viridis. These observations led Boulenger (1906 “ 1905 ”) to refer both Bocage’s angolensis and cynnamomeus, as well as Günther’s viridis, to the synonymy of Hylambates bocagei, while Parker (1936) regarded Hylambates viridis as a valid species from West Africa and considered cynnamomeus records from that region as referring to viridis. Upon examination of the types in the Lisbon Museum, Perret (1976) identified the “ holotype ” from Quillenges (MB T.16 -250) and four “ paratypes ” from Bolama (MB T.16 -248 and 16-249), confirming that the specimens from Bolama belonged to Leptopelis viridis. The specimen presented by Bocage to the British Museum in 1887 (BMNH 1887.3.23.4) is here recognized as a syntype of Hylambates cynnamomeus. While in his letter Bocage recognized it as a distinct, yet unnamed species (NHMA /DF/ZOO/235/1/1/1/76), the original label attached to the specimen bears Bocage’s yet unpublished name “ Hyl. cinnamomeus n. sp. ” (Fig. 9), thus representing compelling evidence that the specimen belonged to the original, composite, type series. Similarly to BMNH 1887.3.23.3, although the number on the specimen label (i. e., “ 2 ”) does not match, the remaining data agree with the description of specimen No. 4 in Bocage’s letter. It is unclear if the number was originally written by Bocage or subsequently added to the specimen label