MARQUES ET AL.: AMPHIBIANS AND TERRESTRIAL REPTILES OF ANGOLA 
65 
historic data for Xenopus laevis in Angola 
begins with Gunther (1865a), who eited the 
speeies for “Huila,” followed by several 
authors ineluding Boulenger (1905), Monard 
(1937a, 1938), and Hellmieh (1957a). After 
Gunther’s eitation, Boeage (1895a) deseribed a 
new speeies, Xenopus petersii, based on 
numerous speeimens deposited in Museu 
Boeage, Lisboa (see above), all eonsidered 
syntypes by Perret (1976a). Unfortunately, the 
syntypes were destroyed in the fire in the 
Museu Boeage in 1978. Bauer et al. (1996) 
reported a surviving syntype from “Catumbel- 
la” deposited in Museum fur Naturkunde, 
Berlin. 
Parker (1936) deseribed four raees or 
groups of X. laevis, redueing X. petersii to a 
subspeeies of X. laevis and suggesting that 
Map 6. Distribution of Xenopus poweri in Angola. 
Xenopus poweri Hewitt, 1927 is a synonym of X. petersii (Loveridge 1957). When deseribing 
X. petersii, Boeage (1895a) listed three “varieties” based on differenees in ventral markings. He 
gave no indieation that this variation was geographieal, but Sehmidt and Inger (1959) reported that 
12 FMNH speeimens from northern Angola represent Boeage’s “var. A” pattern, whereas five 
southern Angolan speeimens exhibit the “var. B” pattern. They refered X. laevis petersii to “var. 
A,” whieh represents the northern form distributed from the Upper Cuanza River northward. They 
assigned Xenopus laevis poweri to “var. B” reaehing from the Lower Cuanza River aeross all of 
southern Angola to Zambia (Sehmidt and Inger 1959; Poynton and Broadley 1985a). Mertens 
(1971), however, rejeeted this view. Channing (2001) eonsidered X. petersii as a full speeies, 
removing it from synonymy with Xenopus laevis. Measey and Channing (2003) provided molecu¬ 
lar evidence for the distinetiveness of X. petersii from X. laevis and eonsidered X. poweri to be a 
synonym of X. petersii, although other authors, ineluding Fretey et al. (2011) nonetheless later 
ineluded X. petersii and X. poweri as synonyms of Xenopus laevis. 
Reeently, Furman et al. (2015) provided an analysis of moleeular variation in the X. laevis 
group, whieh elarified the distribution of these lineages and supported the reeognition of X. laevis 
sensu stricto, X. petersii Boeage, 1895, and X. victorianus Ahl, 1924 and revalidated X. poweri 
Hewitt, 1927 as a separate speeies. These authors restrieted A laevis to South Afriea and the pop¬ 
ulation from Western Central Afriea to X. petersii, whieh indieates that the eentral and western 
Angolan population should be referred to the latter. They also proposed that portions of the 
eurrently reeognized distributions ofX laevis north of the Congo Basin andX. petersii south of the 
Congo Basin should be referred to X. poweri. This suggests that populations from eastern and 
southeastern Angola should be referred to X. poweri (Furman et al. 2015). 
Based on the available studies and in some new material reeently eolleeted by Conradie et al. 
(2016), we refer reeords from Moxieo Provinee to X. poweri, ineluding those from “Lueusse,” 
“Reserva da Palanea Preta,” “Rio Calombe” (Ruas 1996, 2002), and “Cazombo” (Laurent 1964a). 
