Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 6. (Budapest 1955)

Dely, O. Gy.: The problem of the origin of Rana méhelyi Bolkay

even published the picture of the ileum and tarsus of a Rana temporaria L. specimen from Lugano. In the year following the publication of his paper, Bolkay received a letter (12 February, 1912) from G. A. Boulenger, herpetologist of the British Museum. I should like to cite some excerpts of this letter, on the basis of F e j é r v á r y, as : ... »I should like to point out the tarsus from Lugano (fig. 8) is that of Rana agilis not fusca (temporaria)

«. .. . »Your tarsus of R. Al é h e 1 y i agrees entirely with that of R. temporaria.«

... »I much doubt whether R. Méhelyi is anything more than R. temporaria«. — So, Boulenger expressed certain doubts about the paper of Bolkay; and that not only concerning the characteristics of the tarsus of the new species but also in regard of the ileum and tarsus of the specimen from Lugano figured in the paper ; and finally questioned their identicity with the species mentioned (Rana temporaria L.). A year later, Bolkay shew Rana temporaria L. {= Rana fusca Rös.) from the Praeglacial

2 herpetofauna (collecting locality : Fortyogóhegy, Brassó, Transylvania), in another paper of his, ./Additions to the fossil herpetology of Hungary from the Pannonian and praeglacial periods«, (1913). At the conclusion of his enumeration concerning the several specimens exposed and the new forms described by him (which latter forms differ primarily by their size from those standing nearest to them), he emphasized again that he considers Rana méhelyi to be the ancestor of Rana temporaria. F e j é r v á r y (1915), who had been inclined at first to consider the new fossil species of B o 1 k a y (Rana méhelyi By.) as reaily identical with the recent Rana temporaria L, revised the problem on the ground of larger recent and fossil material ; he compared the new form with recent Rana temporaria bones originating from Northern Russia, and finally arrived at the definite conclusion that Rana méhelyi By. cannot be identified with Rana temporaria L. »Meiner bescheidenen Meinung nach«, wrote F e j é r v á r y, »nur mit Hinsicht auf die Nahe der Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse, steht R. Méhelyi By. der R. fusca Rös. ungefähr so nahe, wie z. B. Lacerta viridis Laur. die südliche L. vir. Laur. subsp. maior Blgr., und würde es sich um gleichzeitig lebende Formen handeln, so wäre R. Méhelyi By. systematisch als eine gute Subspezies aufzufassen.« By a profound examination of considerably larger material than Bolkay disposed of, he again established the differences distinguishing the two species

3 ; and answered simultaneously to the doubts, launched unseen, of Boulenger; presenting also figures of the skull, ileum and tarsus of the Rana temporaria L. specimen of Lugano. Coming to the discussion of the Phylogenese of the animal, F e j é r v á r y, alluding to B o 1 k a y, mentions that Bolkay shew, in 1913, Rana temporaria (— Rana fusca Rös.) from the Praeglacial fauna. Fejérváry comments on this as follows : »Obzwar diese Reste bloss in geringer Zahl und ziemlich schlecht erhalten vorhanden sind, weist doch jedes Zeichen darauf hin, dass uns die Fossile eines mit R. fusca vollständig identischen Tieres vorliegen. Auch die Bruchstücke der beiden Ilea sprechen für die Wahrscheinlichkeit dieser Vermutung«. Taking this as a starting point, Fejérváry again raises the question of the origin of Rana temporaria, stating that, as Rana méhelyi By. is 2 This fauna is now relegated to the Günz/Mindel Interglacial period. 3 In Fejérváry, s enumeration of the differentiating characters the concepts of Bolkay in regard of the tarsus are absent.