Difference between revisions of "Brachytarsophrys popei"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Imported from ZooKeys) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 18:28, 9 January 2023
| Notice: | This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly. This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX: @article{Qian2023ZooKeys1139, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Qian2023ZooKeys1139">{{Citation See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Ordo: Anura
Familia: Megophryidae
Genus: Brachytarsophrys
Name
Brachytarsophrys popei Qian & Li & Chen & Li & Yang, 2023 – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
Remark
The following description is based on five tadpoles at Stages 26–27 (N = 2) and 36–37 (N = 3). Body ratio ranges represent all specimens. Raw measurements are given in Table 1.
| Species | Voucher No. | Stage | TTL | BL | TAL | BH | SS | BS | ED | TMH | MTH | UFH | LFH | IOD | IND | NE | SN | ES | TMW | BW | ODW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brachytarsophrys popei | CSUFT T10944 | 27 | 31.8 | 9.0 | 22.8 | 4.2 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 3.0 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 4.8 | 5.4 |
| CSUFT T10945 | 26 | 27.9 | 7.9 | 20.0 | 3.9 | 4.9 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 4.4 | 5.9 | |
| CSUFT T10115 | 37 | 35.0 | 10.5 | 24.5 | 4.7 | 6.1 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 3.1 | 6.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 5.8 | 7.4 | |
| CSUFT T10117 | 37 | 37.3 | 11.0 | 26.3 | 5.0 | 6.3 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 2.9 | 5.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 4.7 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 5.9 | 7.8 | |
| CSUFT T10119 | 36 | 36.9 | 10.9 | 26.0 | 5.0 | 6.3 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 4.7 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 5.9 | 7.6 | |
| Boulenophrys shimentaina | CSUFT T10156 | 25 | 28.5 | 7.3 | 21.2 | 3.1 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 4.0 | 5.2 |
| CSUFT T10277 | 26 | 28.6 | 8.0 | 20.6 | 3.8 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 4.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 4.4 | 6.3 | |
| CSUFT T10279* | 25 | \ | 8.3 | \ | 3.7 | 4.7 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 2.6 | \ | \ | \ | 3.4 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 4.3 | 6.6 | |
| CSUFT T10285 | 27 | 28.5 | 8.1 | 20.4 | 3.7 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 4.4 | 5.7 | |
| CSUFT T10283 | 28 | 27.0 | 8.0 | 19.0 | 3.5 | 4.4 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 6.0 | |
| Boulenophrys nanlingensis | CSUFT T10144 | 25 | 18.7 | 5.4 | 13.3 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 3.8 |
| CSUFT T10986 | 35 | 40.1 | 10.8 | 29.3 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 3.7 | 7.3 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 2.4 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 7.8 | |
| CSUFT T10969 | 34 | 34.4 | 8.8 | 25.6 | 4.0 | 5.6 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 5.6 | |
| CSUFT T10261 | 25 | 25.1 | 6.7 | 18.4 | 3.1 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 3.8 | 5.4 | |
| CSUFT T10262 | 25 | 27.2 | 6.5 | 20.7 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 3.6 | 5.2 | |
| CSUFT T10273 | 28 | 35.7 | 9.4 | 26.3 | 4.4 | 5.4 | 4.3 | 1.1 | 3.2 | 5.9 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.9 | |
| CSUFT T10991 | 27 | 39.1 | 10.3 | 28.8 | 4.4 | 6.0 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 3.1 | 6.7 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 5.3 | 7.6 | |
| CSUFT T10284 | 25 | 18.9 | 5.3 | 13.6 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 3.2 | 4.1 | |
| CSUFT T10302* | 25 | \ | 7.3 | \ | 3.3 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 0.9 | 2.4 | \ | \ | \ | 3.0 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 4.0. | 6.0 | |
| CSUFT T10303 | 25 | 26.2 | 6.8 | 19.4 | 3.3 | 3.9 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 4.9 | |
| CSUFT T10377 | 27 | 28.1 | 8.2 | 19.9 | 3.5 | 4.9 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 2.3 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 4.4 | 6.8 | |
| CSUFT T10378 | 28 | 26.9 | 8.2 | 18.7 | 3.4 | 5.0 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 4.2 | 5.9 | |
| CSUFT T10376 | 27 | 24.8 | 7.0 | 17.8 | 3.5 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.7 | |
| CSUFT T10379 | 29 | 27.8 | 7.7 | 20.1 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 5.0 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 5.7 | |
| Boulenophrys cf. ombrophila | CSUFT T10270 | 36 | 33.7 | 10.0 | 23.7 | 4.5 | 5.6 | 4.6 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 6.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 8.3 |
| CSUFT T10272 | 27 | 33.1 | 8.9 | 24.2 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 7.8 | |
| CSUFT T10288 | 26 | 30.4 | 8.4 | 22.0 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 2.7 | 5.9 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 4.6 | 7.2 | |
| CSUFT T10992 | 25 | 20.9 | 5.1 | 15.8 | 2.1 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 2.7 | 3.9 |
Specimens examined
CSUFT T10115 (Stage 37, Field voucher: MT05; GenBank accession number: ON209276), CSUFT T10117 (Stage 37; Field voucher: MT07; GenBank accession number: ON209284), and CSUFT T10119 (Stage 36; Field voucher: MT09; not sequenced), collected on 30 May 2021 from Tiantaishan (24.972277°N, 112.963394°E, ca. 1280 m a.s.l.), Mangshan, Hunan Province, China; and CSUFT T10944 (Stage 27, Field voucher: MT1104; not sequenced), and CSUFT T10945 (Stage 26; Field voucher: MT1105; not sequenced), collected on 16 November 2021 from the same site as the first specimens.
External morphology
The body is oval, robust, and flattened above (BW/BL 53.3–55.7% at Stages 26–27, N = 2; and 53.6–55.2% at Stages 36–37, N = 3); the head is wider than the trunk; the eyes are located dorsolaterally, the pupils are round; the nares are oval, opening laterally, closer to the eye than to the tip of the snout (NE/SN 68.8–73.3% at Stages 26–27, N = 2; and 73.7–83.3% at Stages 36–37, N = 3); the internarial distance is smaller than the interorbital distance (IND/IOD 65.8–68.4% at Stages 26–27, N = 2; and 59.6–63.8% at Stages 36–37, N = 3); the rims of nares are raised from the body wall and directed posterolaterally; the spiracle is sinistral and low on the left flank; the spiracle tube is short, protruding posterodorsally, free from the body at the tip, and opening posterolaterally (SS/BL 55.6–62.0% at Stages 26–27, N = 2; and 57.3–58.1% at Stages 36–37, N = 3); the anal tube opens medially, unattached to the ventral fin; the dorsal fin arises behind the body-tail junction while the ventral fin is connected to the trunk; the tail muscle is massive, taller than tail fins before reaching the maximum tail height (TMH/MTH 55.6–55.8% at Stages 26–27, N = 2; and 48.4–50.8% at Stages 36–37, N = 3), and the tail tip is bluntly pointed, the tail length accounts for 71.7% (at Stages 26–27, N = 2) and 70.5–70.5% (at Stages 36–37, N = 3) of the total length; the mouth is terminal and the oral disc is funnel-like (BW/ODW 74.6–88.9% at Stages 26–27, N = 2; and 75.6–78.4% at Stages 36–37, N = 3); three and four rows of short oval submarginal papillae can be observed on the upper lip and lower lip, respectively; keratodonts are absent; the upper jaw sheath is brush-like, exhibiting a small median notch, while the lower jaw sheath is thin, sickle-shaped, weakly keratinized, and finely serrated.
Coloration
In life, the background color of the head and trunk is dark brown; the dorsal pattern is pale brown interspersed with dark brown chromocytes, extending to above the horizontal level of the spiracle on the trunk from a lateral perspective; the dorsal surface of the anterior part of the tail is pale brown marbled with dark brown speckles; neuromasts are distinctly visible on the head, trunk and tail; the region between the anterior edges of the eyes and the median point of the upper lip is pigmented with a dark brown V-shaped pattern; the narial rims are pale brown; the oral disc is golden-pigmented, with a translucent edge; the submarginal papillae on lips are dark brown-pigmented. Laterally, the tail is pale brown-pigmented; dense goldish spots are located at the anterior part of the lateral surface of tail muscle, becoming smaller and at the middle, then disappearing posteriorly; three distinct dark brown stripes extended from the body-tail junction, and horizontally positioned at the anterior part of the tail; the upper and lower stripes end before reaching the maximum tail height, while the middle stripe is about half the length of the others; the upper and middle stripes are incomplete; the anterior part of the upper fin is opaque, marbled with goldish pigmentation and brown speckles; the anterior part of the ventral fin, as well as the anal tube are semi-translucent with dense large golden spots; the rest of the fins are semi-translucent, and exhibit sparse dark brown speckles interspersed with small goldish dots. The ventral surface of the body is rather dark; the belly is dark purplish covered with dense white spots; two longitudinal stripes, positioned ventrolaterally, extending from the snout to the vertical edge of the eyes posteriorly, and sometimes appear to broken; a transverse bar is positioned at the head-trunk junction of the vertical edge of the anterior spiracle and is always interrupted at the middle; the spiracle region and the corresponding region on the other side of the body, are covered with a short white stripe, that starts from the head-body connection, and terminated before reaching the region of the spiracle tube opening; regions without white pigmentation have less melanocytes; the gills and gut coils are indistinctly visible through the ventral skin. The eye sclera is silver with black dots; the iris periphery is wide and black; the iris is golden sprinkled with black dots; and the spiracle is translucent without pigmentation. In tadpoles at Stages 36–37, the hindlimbs are semi-transparent, and the outer aspect of the legs exhibits brown pigmentation interspersed with goldish chromocytes.
In preserved specimens, the tail stripes are still prominent; an incomplete V-shaped pigmentation pattern is still visible; the ventral pattern is translucent milky white; the golden pigmentation wanes on the oral disc; and the hindlimb bones are visible in ventral view in Stage 36–37 tadpoles.
Comparisons
Tadpoles of Br. popei differ significantly from the three syntopic Boulenophrys tadpoles described below by the unique pattern of two longitudinal white ventrolateal stripes on head, a transverse white bar on chest, and distinct large spots on belly (vs. absence of stripes and bars, and smaller spots/speckles on belly).
The differences in ventral pattern between four Brachytarsophrys tadpoles were compared by Li et al. (2020)[1] and summarized in Table 2. The tadpole of Br. popei (Stage 29, N = 1) illustrated in their paper (also in Zhao et al. 2014[2], but marked as Stage 27), which was collected ~ 200 km north of Mangshan has a complete transverse white ventral bar. In contrast, our tadpoles (Stages 26–27, N = 2; and Stages 36–37, N = 3) consistently exhibit an interrupted white transverse ventral bar. This difference may be due to geographic variation or insufficient sample size. However, the presence of a transverse bar on chest could distinguish Br. popei tadpoles from Br. orientalis and Br. intermedia (vs. absent in both). In addition, the width of the transverse bar is markedly smaller than that in Br. chuannanensis (see Li et al. 2020[1]: fig. 5E, F). Furthermore, compared with Br. intermedia, the tadpoles of Br. popei have a distinctly smaller size at Stage 36 (TTL 36.9 mm vs. 48.7 mm). Zhao et al. (2014)[2] illustrated a metamorph of Br. feae at Stage 44 with several short stripes on belly (vs. spots or speckles in Br. popei, Br. orientalis, and Br. chuannanensis). We believe this pattern should be confirmed using more specimens at an earlier developmental stage in case this is a transitional form during metamorphosis. Further comparisons between Br. popei tadpoles and all megophryinid tadpoles that were identified using molecular data are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
| Species | Stage | Neuromasts visibility | Intestine visibility | Dorsum pattern | Pattern on tail | Ventral pattern | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atympanophrys | |||||||
| A. gigantica | 35, N = 5 | visible | visible | uniform dark brown | pale yellowish brown without speckles | translucent dark grey and speckled with white | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Brachytarsophrys | |||||||
| Br. popei | 26–27, and 36–37, N = 5 | distinct | indistinct | uniform dark brown | small dots and longtitudinal stripes | ventrolateral stripes on head and body, incomplete transverse bar on chest, dense large spots on belly | This study |
| 26–29, N = 14 | \ | \ | \ | three dark longitudinal stripes | two longitudinal white stripes along the sides of body, a completed transverse bar on chest, belly mottled with dense white speckles | Zhao et al. 2014[2] | |
| Br. intermedia | 32, 36, and 39, N = 4 | pale brown | not visible | pale brown with a darker brown medial saddle | speckled with dark brown, and longitudinal stripes | ventrolateral stripes on head and body, small spots on chest and belly | Tapley et al. 2020a[4] |
| Br. chuannanensis | 38, N = 1 | \ | \ | \ | distinct dark longtitudinal stripes* | wide ventrolateral stripes on head*; wide transverse bar on chest; and several spots on belly* | Li et al. 2020[1] |
| Br. orientalis | 36, N = 1 | \ | \ | brown | three short dark longitudinal stripes | two short, longitudinal white stripes on sides of ventral surface of head and body; absence of transversal white stripe on chest; belly mottled with dense white speckles | Li et al. 2020[1] |
| Br. feae | 44, N = 1 | \ | \ | \ | \ | transeverse bar on chest; several several transeverse stripes on belly | Li et al. 2020[1] |
| Boulenophrys | |||||||
| Bo. shimentaina | 25–28, N = 5 | distinct | visible | brown with dark brown reticulation | pigmented with dense dark brown markings posteriorly | milky white ventrolateral spots on chest, dense indistinct small milky white speckles on belly | This study |
| Bo. cf. ombrophila | 25, N = 1 (TTL 20.9 mm) | indistinct | distinct | pale brown, scattered with dense dark melanocytes | pigmented orange and dark brown speckles | belly covered with dense melanocytes | This study |
| 26–27, and 36, N = 3 (TTL 30.4–33.1 mm) | distinct | indistinct | brown pattern along mid-vertical line | several large brown spots along tail muscle | gold-pigmented white ventrolateral spots on chest, dense white speckles on belly | This study | |
| Bo. nanlingensis | 25, N = 2 (TTL 18.7–18.9 mm) | distinct | distinct | yellowish with pale orangish blotches, or brown with whitish patterns | many brown speckles | gold-pigmented white ventrolateral spots on chest, sparse white speckles on belly | This study |
| 25, N = 3 (TTL 25.1–27.2 mm) | distinct | distinct | pale brown with dark brown pigmentation | many brown speckles | gold-pigmented white ventrolateral spots on chest, sparse white speckles on belly | This study | |
| 27–29, N = 4, TTL 24.8–28.1 mm) | distinct | distinct | bi-colored dorsum of pale brown anteriorly and dark brown posteriorly | many brown speckles | gold-pigmented white ventrolateral spots on chest, sparse white speckles on belly | This study | |
| 27–28, and 34–35, N = 4, (TTL 35.7–44.4 mm) | distinct | distinct | uniform brownish | many brown speckles | gold-pigmented white ventrolateral spots on chest, sparse white speckles or dense large spots on belly | This study | |
| Bo. fansipanensis | 25, N = 2 | obvious | visible | brown with dark brown speckles | small spots and dark brown speckles | a translucent grey brown and speckled with metallic blue and flecked with dark brown | This study |
| Bo. jingdongensis | 25, N = 1 | indistinct | visible | dark brown with cream blotches, bordered by orange flecks | many dark brown speckles | grey brown and speckled with metallic blue | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Bo. hoanglienensis | 26, N = 1 | distinct | visible | dark brown with reddish brown blotches and reticulated blackish brown | many dark brown speckles | speckled with metallic grey blue flecks | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Bo. rubrimera | 37, N = 1 | obvious | \ | brown with darker speckles | pale yellowish brown with speckles | speckled white and brown | Tapley et al. 2017[5] |
| Bo. baishanzuensis | 31, N = 1 | \ | \ | brownish black | small white and black spots | \ | Wu et al. 2020[6] |
| Bo. lushuiensis | 26–27, 32, and 36, N = 5 | \ | visible | brown without distinct patterns | pale brown with dozens of small dark brown patches | scattered with silver tiny patches | Shi et al. 2021[7] |
| Bo. leishanensis | 25–26, N = 6 | visible* | \ | yellow-brown | pale colored on fins, and small black spots on tail muscle | dense small white speckles* | Li et al. 2018[8] |
| Bo. jiangi | 26, N = 2 | \ | \ | yellow-brown | few dark spots on posterior tail muscle* | \ | Liu et al. 2020[9] |
| Ophryophryne | |||||||
| O. elfina | 25, N = 5 | visible | not visible | uniform brownish red or brownish orange | few round blackish spots on tail | pale brownish orange, intestine | Poyarkov et al. 2017[10] |
| Pelobatrachus | |||||||
| P. kalimantanensis | 30, and 36, N = 2 | visible* | not visible* | conspicuous dark brown and gold or orange brown pigmentation | marbled with dark brown pigmentation, edges of fins with golden iridophores | belly milky-white pigmented, pale stripe below spiracle extends laterally to half of abdomen* | Munir et al. 2019[11] |
| 45, N = 1 | invisible* | not visible* | dark brown without orange gold pigmentation | dark brown | dark brown marbled pattern | Munir et al. 2019[11] | |
| Xenophrys | |||||||
| X. medogensis (low-elevation) | 35, and 38, N = 2 | \ | \ | pale yellow-brown | mottled with pale colored patches | without white patches | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| X. medogensis (high-elevation) | 27, N = 1 | \ | \ | deep brown with copper pigmentation | brown, scattered with tiny white pigment spots, no dark brown patches on tail | semitransparent brown, covered with small white pigments | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| X. cf. pachyproctus | 25, N = 1 | \ | \ | yellow-brown with two golden spots on dorsalateral mid body | \ | \ | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| X. yeae | 28–29, and 31–35, N = 9 | \ | \ | brown with dense copper pigments | above lower fin mottled with copper patches | semi-transparent | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| X. maosonensis | 25, N = 2 | obvious | visible | brown with dark brown speckles posteriorly | few dark brown speckles | speckled with metallic grey blue | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| X. lekaguli | 25, 37–38, and 42, N = 6 | \ | \ | pale gray (in preservative) | proximal half of caudal muscle with two or three irregular dark streaks, fins distinctly pigmented only in distal portions (in preservative) | small black spots (in preservative) | Stuart et al. 2006[13] |
| X. serchhipii | 32, 34, and 36–38, N = 11 | \ | visible | dark brown (in preservative) | translucent and grey (in preservative) | dark brown, fins are opaque and speckled (in preservative) | Raj et al. 2022[14] |
| X. monticola | 25, N = 5 | \ | \ | grey olive-green with irregular melanophores (in preservative) | densely arranged melanophores (in preservative) | immaculate, slightly translucent with some rare spots of melanophores (in preservative) | Deuti et al. 2017[15] |
| X. periosa | 27, N = 1 | \ | \ | greyish brown | dense small speckles | translucent greyish brown | Shi et al. 2020b[16] |
| 34, N = 1 | \ | \ | greyish brown | large spots alongside anterior 2/3 of tail muscle | translucent greyish brown | Shi et al. 2020b[16] | |
| Incertae sedis with Megophryinae | |||||||
| “Megophrys” dringi | 25, N = 4 | \ | visible | conspicuous pattern of intense dark brown and gold pigmentation | pigmented dark brown, interspersed with pale golden iridophores | milky translucent with a few irregularly shaped golden spots | Oberhummer et al. 2014[17] |
| Species | Stage | N | TTL | BL | TAL/TTL | BW/ODW (expanded) | Mouthpart shape | Narial rim | Tail tip | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atympanophrys | ||||||||||
| A. gigantica | 35 | 5 | 50.7 (42.6–54.9) | 16.9 (15.7–18.0) | 66.6 (63.2–68.4) | 62.6, N = 1 | hastate | serrated and raised | broadly rounded | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Brachytarsophrys | ||||||||||
| Br. popei | 26–27 | 2 | 36.4±1.2 (35.0–37.3) | 8.5±0.8 (7.9–9.0) | 71.7(–) | 81.7±10.1 (74.6–88.9) | bi-triangular | raised | bluntly pointed | This study |
| 36–37 | 3 | 36.4±1.2 (35.0–37.3) | 10.8±0.3 (10.5–11.0) | 70.3±0.3 (70.0–70.5) | 77.2±1.4 (75.6–78.4) | bi-triangular | raised | bluntly pointed | This study | |
| 26–27 | 12 | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | bluntly pointed | Zhao et al. 2014[2] | |
| 29 | 2 | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | bluntly pointed | Zhao et al. 2014[2] | |
| Br. intermedia | 32 | 2 | 45.0±4.7 (41.7–48.3) | 14.0±2.2 (12.4–15.5) | 69.7±1.7 (67.9–70.3) | \ | bi-triangular | raised | pointed | Tapley et al. 2020a[4] |
| 36 | 1 | 48.7 | 15.0 | 69.2 | 50.6 | bi-triangular | raised | pointed | Tapley et al. 2020a[4] | |
| 39 | 1 | 55.1 | 16.3 | 70.4 | \ | bi-triangular | raised | pointed | Tapley et al. 2020a[4] | |
| Br. orientalis | 36 | 1 | 33.9 | 12.3 | 69.2 | \ | \ | \ | pointed | Li et al. 2020[1] |
| Boulenophrys | ||||||||||
| Bo. fansipanensis | 25 | 2 | 30.8 (26.5–35.0) | 9.1 (7.4–10.8) | 69.1–72.1 | 64.8, N = 1 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | pointed | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Bo. jingdongensis | 25 | 1 | 27.9 | 8.9 | 68.1 | 80.4, N = 1 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | rounded | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Bo. hoanglienensis | 26 | 1 | 26.5 | 7.1 | 73.2 | 79.3, N = 1 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | pointed | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| Bo. shimentaina | 25–27 | 4 | 28.5±0.1 (28.5–28.6) | 7.9±0.4 (7.3–8.3) | 72.7±1.5 (71.6–74.4) | 72.3±5.8 (65.2–77.2) | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | bluntly pointed | This study |
| 28 | 1 | 27 | 8 | 70.4 | 68.3 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | bluntly pointed | This study | |
| Bo. cf. ombrophila | 25 | 1 | 20.9 | 5.1 | 75.6 | 69.2 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | bluntly rounded | This study |
| 26–27 | 2 | 31.8±1.9 (30.4–33.1) | 8.7±0.4 (8.4–8.9) | 72.7±0.5 (72.4–73.1) | 62.7±1.7 (61.5–63.9) | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | sharply pointed | This study | |
| 36 | 1 | 33.7 | 10.0 | 70.3 | 61.4 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | sharply pointed | This study | |
| Bo. nanlingensis | 25–27 | 9 | 26.0±6.4 (18.7–39.1) | 7.1±1.5 (5.3–10.3) | 72.8±1.8 (70.8–76.1) | 71.4±4.9 (64.7–79.6) | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | pointed | This study |
| 28–29 | 3 | 30.1±4.8 (26.9–35.7) | 8.4±0.9 (7.7–9.4) | 71.8±2.1 (69.5–73.7) | 68.2±4.2 (63.3–71.2) | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | pointed | This study | |
| 34 | 1 | 34.4 | 8.8 | 74.4 | 85.7 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | pointed | This study | |
| 35 | 1 | 40.1 | 10.8 | 73.1 | 73.1 | bi-triangular | serrated and raised | pointed | This study | |
| Bo. lushuiensis | 26–27 | 3 | 27.8±4.0 (23.1–30.3) | 8.0±1.1 (6.8–8.8) | 70.2±1.9 (68.0–71.3) | 66.8±11.0 (56.1–78.0) | \ | \ | \ | Shi et al. 2021[7] |
| 32 | 1 | 42.7 | 12.1 | 71.9 | 57.9 | bi-triangular* | \ | rounded* | Shi et al. 2021[7] | |
| 36 | 1 | 41.1 | 11.3 | 72.5 | 58.4 | \ | \ | \ | Shi et al. 2021[7] | |
| Bo. rubrimera | 37 | 1 | 33.3 | 10.5 | 68.5 | \ | \ | \ | rounded | Tapley et al. 2017[5] |
| Bo. baishanzuensis | 31 | 1 | 22.7 | \ | 64.8 | \ | bi-triangular* | \ | pointed | Wu et al. 2020[6] |
| Bo. leishanensis | 25–27 | 6 | 29.7±2.3 (27.0–33.0) | \ | 64.2±2.1 (61.5–66.7) | \ | \ | \ | pointed | Li et al. 2018[8] |
| Bo. jiangi | 26 | 2 | 25.5–26.0 | \ | 65.5–70.4 | \ | bi-triangular* | \ | pointed | Liu et al. 2020[9] |
| Bo. lini | 28 | not provided | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | raised | pointed | Wang et al. 2014[18] |
| 31–34 | not provided | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | raised | pointed | Wang et al. 2014[18] | |
| Ophryophryne | ||||||||||
| O. elfina | 25 | 5 | 28.4±1.3 (27.4–30.2) | 8.6±0.1 (8.4–8.7) | \ | \ | bi-triangular* | “nares tubular” | bluntly rounded | Poyarkov et al. 2017[10] |
| Pelobatrachus | ||||||||||
| P. kalimantanensis | 30 | 1 | 38.9 | 11.2 | 71.2 | \ | \ | \ | blunt | Munir et al. 2019[11] |
| 36 | 1 | 47.0 | 12.9 | 72.6 | \ | \ | \ | blunt | Munir et al. 2019[11] | |
| 45 | 1 | 31.2 | 13.5 | 56.7 | \ | \ | \ | \ | Munir et al. 2019[11] | |
| Xenophrys | ||||||||||
| X. yeae | 28–29 | 4 | 34.3±0.4 (33.9–34.8) | 10.6±0.3 (10.2–11.0) | 69.0±1.2 (67.3–69.9) | 70.6±6.1 (64.8–78.0) | \ | \ | \ | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| 31–34 | 4 | 34.9±1.1 (33.7–35.8) | 11.0±0.5 (10.4–11.4) | 68.4±0.5 (68.0–69.1) | 78.6±13.7 (66.2–92.9) | \ | \ | \ | Shi et al. 2020a[12] | |
| 35 | 1 | 38.4 | 10.9 | 71.6 | 66.2 | \ | \ | rounded* | Shi et al. 2020a[12] | |
| X. cf. pachyproctus | 25 | 1 | 19.1 | 6.1 | 68.1 | 63.3 | \ | \ | bluntly pointed* | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| X. medogensis (high-elevation) | 27 | 1 | 33.7 | 9.5 | 71.5 | 98.1 | \ | \ | pointed* | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| X. medogensis (low-middle elevation) | 35 | 1 | 42.7 | 13.3 | 68.9 | 85.2 | \ | \ | pointed* | Shi et al. 2020a[12] |
| 38 | 1 | 43.6 | 13.2 | 69.5 | 83.1 | \ | \ | \ | Shi et al. 2020a[12] | |
| X. maosonensis | 25 | 2 | 35.5 (34.4–36.6) | 8.8 (8.1–9.5) | 76.5–77.9 | 73.2 | bi-triangular | raised | narrowly rounded | Tapley et al. 2020b[3] |
| X. lekaguli | 25 | 2 | \ | 9.0–10.4 | \ | \ | \ | not raised | rounded | Stuart et al. 2006[13] |
| 37 | 2 | \ | 12.1–12.9 | \ | \ | \ | not raised | rounded | Stuart et al. 2006[13] | |
| 38 | 1 | \ | 13.8 | \ | \ | \ | not raised | rounded | Stuart et al. 2006[13] | |
| 42 | 1 | \ | 14.2 | \ | \ | \ | not raised | rounded | Stuart et al. 2006[13] | |
| X. serchhipii | 32 | 1 | 28.6 | 10 | 65.0 | \ | \ | \ | \ | Raj et al. 2022[14] |
| 34 | 4 | 29.9±1.40 | 10.2±0.30 | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | Raj et al. 2022[14] | |
| 36 | 4 | 29.3±0.47 | 11.3±0.11 | 72, N = 1 | \ | \ | “an elevated projection” | pointed | Raj et al. 2022[14] | |
| 37 | 1 | 28.9 | 11.9 | 58.8 | \ | \ | \ | \ | Raj et al. 2022[14] | |
| 38 | 1 | 35.6 | 13.0 | 63.5 | \ | \ | \ | \ | Raj et al. 2022[14] | |
| X. monticola | 25 | 7 | 24.7±2.7 (21.1–28.1), N = 5 | 6.9±0.9 (5.9–8.2) | 70–71, N = 4 | \ | \ | “waves” | finely rounded | Deuti et al. 2017[15] |
| X. periosa | 27 | 3 | 30.4±1.5 (29.0–32.0) | 8.9±0.1 (8.4–9.5) | 70.7±0.4 (70.3–71.0) | 60.3±3.6 (58.2–64.5) | bi-triangular* | \ | bluntly pointed | Shi et al. 2020b[16] |
| 34 | 3 | 47.3±4.4 (42.7–51.4) | 12.8±0.9 (12.1–13.8) | 72.9±1.1 (71.7–73.9) | 75.8±5.9 (69.9–81.6) | bi-triangular* | \ | bluntly pointed | Shi et al. 2020b[16] | |
| Incertae sedis with Megophryinae | ||||||||||
| “Megophrys” dringi | 25 | 4 | 32.28±6.05 (23.23–37.63) | 9.11±1.89 (6.74–11.35) | 71±2 (69–73) | \ | \ | raised and projected | pointed* | Oberhummer et al. 2014[17] |
Ecology notes
All tadpoles were collected from an artificial roadside drainage ditch (Fig. 5C) at night while feeding beneath the water surface. Upstream of the ditch is a narrow, slow-moving stream with many rocks covered by moss. The ditch was rocky with a sandy substrate. The maximum depth of this ditch was ~ 0.5 m. Branches of plants from the mountain side of the road extended over this ditch, however, sunlight did reach the water surface at certain times of the day. Tadpoles were observed in a still water stretch behind big rocks, or a small dam formed by submerged leaf litter. Three tadpoles at Stages 36–37 were collected on 30 May 2021 at 22:30 h, together with tadpoles of Bo. shimentaina and Bo. nanlingensis with an ambient air temperature of ~ 20 °C. Two tadpoles at Stages 2627 were collected on 16 November 2021 at 19:30 h with an ambient temperature of ~ 13 °C. Tadpoles were considered nocturnal because we did not encounter any tadpoles during the day. Male Br. popei frogs began their calling activities under rock crevices in this ditch in late July. Zhao et al. (2014)[2] reported that the breeding season of Br. popei is July to September, and that their tadpoles (Stages 26–29) were collected in April and December. This indicates that the development of these tadpoles may be very prolonged, and it is likely that they can over winter. Interestingly, it is unknown why no tadpoles were collected during the breeding season both in this study and in Zhao et al. (2014)[2].
Taxon Treatment
- Qian, T; Li, Y; Chen, J; Li, P; Yang, D; 2023: Tadpoles of four sympatric megophryinid frogs (Anura, Megophryidae, Megophryinae) from Mangshan in southern China ZooKeys, 1139: 1-32. doi
Images
|
Other References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Li Y, Zhang D, Lyu Z, Wang J, Li Y, Liu Z, Chen H, Rao D, Jin Z, Zhang C, Wang Y (2020) Review of the genus Brachytarsophrys (Anura: Megophryidae), with revalidation of Brachytarsophrys platyparietus and description of a new species from China.Zoological Research41(2): 105–122. https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.033
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Zhao J, Yang J, Chen G, Chen C, Wang Y (2014) Description of a new species of the genus Brachytarsophrys Tian and Hu, 1983 (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Southern China based on molecular and morphological data.Asian Herpetological Research5(3): 150–160. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1245.2014.00150
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Tapley B, Nguyen L, Cutajar T, Nguyen C, Portway C, Luong H, Rowley J (2020b) The tadpoles of five Megophrys Horned frogs (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from the Hoang Lien Range, Vietnam.Zootaxa4845(1): 35–52. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4845.1.3
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Tapley B, Nguyen L, Le M (2020a) A description of the tadpole of Megophrys “Brachytarsophrys” intermedia (Smith, 1921).Zootaxa4845(1): 26–34. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4845.1.2
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Tapley B, Cutajar T, Mahony S, Nguyen C, Dau V, Nguyen T, Luong H, Rowley J (2017) The Vietnamese population of Megophrys kuatunensis (Amphibia: Megophryidae) represents a new species of Asian horned frog from Vietnam and southern China.Zootaxa4344(3): 465–492. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4344.3.3
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Wu Y, Li S, Liu W, Wang B, Wu J (2020) Description of a new horned toad of Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Megophryidae) from Zhejiang Province, China.ZooKeys1005: 73–102. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1005.58629
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Shi S, Li D, Zhu W, Jiang W, Jiang J, Wang B (2021) Description of a new toad of Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from western Yunnan Province, China.Zootaxa4942(3): 351–381. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4942.3.3
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Li S, Xu N, Liu J, Jiang J, Wei G, Wang B (2018) A new species of the Asian toad genus Megophrys sensu lato (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Guizhou Province, China.Asian Herpetological Research9(4): 224–239. https://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.180072
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Liu J, Li S, Wei G, Xu N, Cheng Y, Wang B, Wu J (2020) A new species of the Asian toad genus Megophrys'sensu lato (Anura: Megophryidae) from Guizhou Province, China.Asian Herpetological Research11(1): 1–18. http://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.190041
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Poyarkov Jr N, Duong T, Orlov N, Gogoleva S, Vassilieva A, Nguyen L, Nguyen V, Nguyen S, Che J, Mahony S (2017) Molecular, morphological and acoustic assessment of the genus Ophryophryne (Anura, Megophryidae) from Langbian Plateau, southern Vietnam, with description of a new species.ZooKeys672: 49–120. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.672.10624
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Munir M, Hamidy A, Matsui M, Iskandar D, Sidik I, Shimada T (2019) A new species of Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from Borneo allied to M. nasuta (Schlegel, 1858).Zootaxa4679(1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4679.1.1
- ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 Shi S, Zhang M, Xie F, Jiang J, Liu W, Ding L, Luan L, Wang B (2020a) Multiple data revealed two new species of the Asian horned toad Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Anura, Megophryidae) from the eastern corner of the Himalayas.ZooKeys977: 101–161. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.977.55693
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Stuart B, Chuaynkern Y, Chan-ard T, Inger R (2006) Three new species of frogs and a new tadpole from eastern Thailand. Fieldiana. Zoology 111: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3158/0015-0754(2006)187[1:TNSOFA]2.0.CO;2
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 Raj P, Dutta S, Lalremsanga H (2022) Larval descriptions of Rhacophorus bipunctatus and Xenophrys serchhipii from northeast India.Zootaxa5092(4): 493–500. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5092.4.9
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Deuti K, Grosjean S, Nicolas V, Vasudevan K, Ohler A (2017) Nomenclatural puzzle in early Xenophrys nomina (Anura, Megophryidae) solved with description of two new species from India (Darjeeling hills and Sikkim).Alytes34: 20–48.
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Shi S, Wang B, Zhu W, Fu L, Jiang W, Li D, Jiang J (2020b) Megophrys periosa (Mahony, Kamei, Teeling, and Biju 2018) was first recorded in Yunan Province, China with description of its tadpole.Chinese Journal of Zoology55(6): 730–740. [In Chinese with English abstract]
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Oberhummer E, Barten C, Schweizer M, Das I, Haas A (2014) Description of the tadpoles of three rare species of megophryid frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Gunung Mulu, Sarawak, Malaysis.Zootaxa3835(1): 59–79. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3835.1.3
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Wang Y, Zhao J, Yang J, Zhou Z, Chen G, Liu Y (2014) Morphology, molecular genetics, and bioacoustics support two new sympatric Xenophrys toads (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) in southeast China. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093075
