- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and changes, 2025
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2024
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Choerophryne proboscidea Van Kampen, 1914
Choerophryne proboscidea Van Kampen, 1914, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 37: 376. Holotype: ZMA, uncatalogued, according to Van Tuijl, 1995, Bull. Zool. Mus. Univ. Amsterdam, 14: 126; considered lost by Kraus and Allison, 2001, Herpetologica, 57: 222, who designated UP 8514 as neotype. Type locality: "Njao", Papua (New Guinea), Indonesia. Neotype from "Sagoa Hill, Wewak, East Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea". Günther, 2008, Acta Zool. Sinica, 54: 668, questioned the appropriateness of a neotype designation so far from the original type locality.
Asterophrys proboscidea — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 418.
Common Names
None noted.
Distribution
Wide range along the bases of the northern coastal mountains of New Guinea (Papua, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea), up to 1450 m elevation.
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Indonesia, Indonesia - Papua Region, Papua New Guinea
Comment
Removed from the synonymy of Choerophryne rostellifer by Kraus and Allison, 2001, Herpetologica, 57: 222, where it had been placed by Parker, 1934, Monogr. Frogs Fam. Microhylidae: 177. Menzies, 2006, Frogs New Guinea & Solomon Is.: 183, provided a brief account. Shea and Kraus, 2007, Zootaxa, 1514: 37-60, commented on types. Günther, 2008, Acta Zool. Sinica, 54: 668, questioned the appropriateness of a neotype designation so far from the original type locality.
External links:
Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.
- For access to general information see Wikipedia
- For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
- For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
- For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
- For additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist