Rhacophorus suffry
| 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{Bordoloi2007Zootaxa1653, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Bordoloi2007Zootaxa1653">{{Citation |
Ordo: Polydesmida
Familia: Chelodesmidae
Genus: Rhacophorus
Name
Rhacophorus suffry Bordoloi, Sabitry, 2007 – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
- Rhacophorus suffry Bordoloi, Sabitry, 2007, Zootaxa 1653: 9-13.
Description
Five males and seven females of an unrecognized Rhacophorus collected in the month of September, 2005 are described here. As the frogs were collected outside the breeding season, they are not in reproductive state and some individuals are not fully mature. Description of the holophoront IASST A 66, adult male (Fig. 4).—(A) Size and general aspect. (1) Specimen of moderate size (SVL 52.9 mm). Body rather slender. (B) Head. (2) Head moderate, about as wide (HW 19.5 mm) as long (HL 19.6 mm) and flat above. (3) Snout rounded, protruding longer (SL 8.6 mm) than horizontal diameter of eye (EL 5.76). (4) Canthus rostralis sharp and concave. (5) Interorbital space flat, larger (IUE 5.88 mm) than upper eyelid (UEW 4.8 mm). Distance between front of eyes (IFE 10.5 mm) is 1.7 times in distance between back of eyes (IBE17.2 mm). (6) Nostril rounded without flap of skin, closer to tip of snout (NS 3.6 mm) than to eye (EN 4.54 mm). (7) Pupil rounded and horizontal. (8) Tympanum (TYD2.86 mm) very distinct, rounded, its distance to eye (TYE 1.12 mm) scarcely half of tympanum diameter. (9) Pineal ocellus absent. (10) Vomerine ridge horizontal in position, near anterior corner of nasal opening, very slightly oblique almost horizontal; space between the two ridges is less than the length of the ridge. (11) Tongue moderately notched; median lingual process absent.
(C) Forelimbs. (12) Arms (FLL 10.6 mm) thin, shorter than hand (HAL15.2 mm), forearm not enlarged. (13) Fingers rather short, thick (TFL 8.62 mm). (14) Relative length of fingers I <II <IV <III. (15) Discs present on tip of fingers, with distinct circum-ventral grooves. (16) Fingers without dermal fringe on inside of fingers. Webbing present, well developed: I 1–2II 1–2III 1 – 1 IV. (17) Subarticular tubercles present, distinct, rounded, single. (18) Prepollex oval, prominent; palmar tubercles indistinct, flat; supernumerary tubercles present on base of fingers II to IV. (D) Hindlimbs. (19) Shank thin (TL 26.9 mm), five times longer than wide (TW 5.0 mm), longer than foot (FOL 24.3 mm) and thigh (FL 24.9 mm). (20) Toes long and thin (FTL 12.3 mm). (21) Relative length of toes, shortest to longest: I <II <III <V <IV. (22) Discs present on tip of toes, with distinct circum-ventral grooves. (23) Webbing present, complete: I 0 – 0 II 0 – 0 III 0 – 0 IV 0 – 0 V. (24) Dermal fringe present from tip of toe to the base of tarsus, well developed. (25) Subarticular tubercles prominent, rounded and simple. (26) Inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, oval (IMT1.86 mm), 3.17 in length of toe I (ITL 5.9 mm). (27) Tarsal fold absent. (28) Outer metatarsal tubercle, supernumerary tubercles and tarsal tubercle absent. (E) Skin. (29) Skin of snout smooth, between eyes granular, side of head smooth with very fine granules. Anterior part of back with minute granules and skin folds, posterior part of back with very fine granules. Upper part of flank and lower part of flank with minute granules. (30) Dermal folds on forearm, heel, tarsus, metatarsus and vent absent; latero-dorsal folds absent; “Fejervaryan”line absent; lateral line system absent; supratympanic fold narrow, flat; cephalic ridges absent; co-ossified skin absent. (31) Forelimb smooth, thigh granular, leg and tarsus smooth. (32) Skin of ventral part of body granular (tree frog belly skin). (33) Macroglands absent. (F) Life coloration. (34) Dorsal and lateral part of head and body leafy green (Fig. 5). Flank upper part leafy green lined with light yellow colour. Lower part light green with few, creamy white scattered spots. Loreal region, tympanic region, upper lip and tympanum leafy green. Iris yellowish gold. (35) Forelimb, dorsal part of thigh, dorsal part of leg leafy green. Dorsal part of foot between fourth and fifth toes are green others are orange red. (36) Throat creamy white. Margin of throat light gray. Chest and belly creamy white. Thigh and webbing orange red.
Etymology.—The specific epithet is derived from the name of the onymotope, Suffry tea Estate, and is a noun in apposition, thus invariable. Variation.—Measurements of males and females are given in Table 3. Size differences reflect differences in age of the specimens. Colour pattern is very similar in all frogs observed. Comparison.—Specimens collected from Suffry tea Estate in Assam (India) are clearly members of the genus Rhacophorus as defined by Delorme et al. (2005). The species is unique by the following combination of characters: moderate size, green dorsal colour, web between fingers large but not complete, web on feet large, orange red in colour without spots, no blackish spots on lateral body, absence of dermal fringes or flaps on forelimbs, hindlimbs and vent (Tab. 4). Dubois (1987) proposed a series of species groups in the genus Rhacophorus. Some of these are now considered to be members of the genera Polypedates and Aquixalus (Delorme et al. 2005). The species here studied should be members of the R. reinwardtii species group which includes species that show large webbing on hands. To be complete we also compare the new species to the other groups present in the biogeographic region. This excludes the R. schlegelii species group which is present only in Taiwan and adjacent China and Japan, and the R. fasciatus species group present in Sunda region. TABLE3. Measurements of males and females of Rhacophorus suffry new species. Mean value, standard deviation, minimum – maximum values are given. Males n=5Females n=7SVL47.21±5.41 (38.5–52.9)44.05±9.32 (31.5–61.0)HW17.94±1.68 (15.2–19.5)17.26±3.47 (13.1–24.0)HL17.84±1.82 (14.8–19.6)16.89±3.20 (12.2–22.2)IFE9.20±1.10 (7.5–10.5)8.92±1.65 (6.2–11.6)IBE15.36±1.37 (13.4–17.2)14.85±2.88 (10.7–20.2)IN5.07±0.69 (4.08–6.0)4.85±0.98 (3.22–6.56)SL7.59±1.06 (5.82–8.6)7.19±1.56 (4.9–9.7)NS3.15±0.40 (2.52–3.6)2.94±0.50 (2.12–3.68)EN4.06±0.50 (3.22–4.54)3.77±0.80 (2.76–5.12)EL5.70±0.52 (5.1–5.76)5.51±0.52 (4.58–6.3)TYD2.69±0.20 (2.38–2.86)2.53±0.40 (1.96–3.24)TYE1.06±0.06 (0.98–1.12)1.02±0.20 (0.68–1.36)IUE5.15±0.57 (4.32–5.88)5.05±1.05 (4.02–7.2)UEW4.47±0.28 (4.05–4.8)4.41±0.78 (3.5–5.52)FLL9.82±0.88 (8.46–10.64)9.16±1.70 (6.7–12.4)HAL14.30±1.50 (12.06–15.2)13.53±2.84 (9.9–18.6)TFL8.03±0.81 (6.76–8.62)7.53±1.64 (5.4–10.5)TL23.32±3.44 (17.7–26.9)22.06±5.66 (14.7–32.0)FOL21.78±2.60 (17.4–24.3)20.62±4.76 (14.9–29.5)FTL11.28±1.27 (9.1–12.3)10.45±2.29 (8.2–14.9)IMT1.69±0.33 (1.1–1.86)1.55±0.48 (0.94–2.32)ITL5.32±0.70 (4.26–5.9)5.43±1.48 (3.22–8.06)FL23.02±2.37 (19.4–24.9)21.61±4.55 (16.5–30.7)
Species Males Females Dorsum color Web on hand Web on feet Spots on side of body Dermal fringes Color of web R. suffry38.5–52.1 n=5 31.5–61.0 n=7Green Large Large Absent Absent Orange red R. bipunctatus37.8–50.4 n=28 37.3–59.1 n=8Green Large Complete 1–3Present Red R. dennysii68.0–92.0 n=20 83.0–109.0 n=10Green Large Complete Absent Absent Whitish R. chenfui35.0–38.0 n=8 48.0–55.0 n=4Green Small Moderate Absent Absent Brown yellow R. hungfuensis30.8–36.8 n=10 45.5 n=1Green Small Small Absent Absent Greenish R. yaoshanensis33.2 n=1 51 n=1Green Small Moderate Absent Absent Red R. kio 58.0–79.1 78.0–80.0 n=17 n=2Green Complete Complete1Present Orange and black R. reinwardtii 41.6–52.6 55.4–79.6 n=5 n=10Green Complete Complete1Present Orange and black R. nigropalmatus 82.9–87.2 97.7 n=2 n=1Green Complete Complete1Present Yellow and black R. maximus 67.0–84.0 69.7 n=7 n=1Green Complete Complete Absent Absent Greyish R. rhodopus 31.7–39.3 49.2–53.4 n=20 n=2Brown Large Large1Present Red Among the Rhacophorus from the northern mountain region (Inger, 1999), species from the R. dugritei species group (including the R. dennysii species group) and the R. pardalis species group do not have orange web on feet. The species of the R. dugritei group can be distinguished by the presence of a brownish pattern which forms a line form the tip of snout, over canthus rostralis, eyelids and supratympanic fold.
Description
Two other species from India also shows reddish webbing: Rhacophorus malabaricus Jerdon, 1870 is distinct from R. suffry by the presence of dermal flaps on border of forelimbs, heels and feet. The other large sized webbed species of Rhacophorus from south-west India, R. pseudomalabaricus Vasudevan & Dutta, 2000, can be distinguished by its green and black vermiculate dorsal colour. The known distribution area of these two species (south-western peninsular India) is largely separate from the origin of R. suffry, in the northeastern region of India.
Taxon Treatment
- Bordoloi, Sabitry; Bortamuli, Tutul; Ohler, Annemarie; 2007: Systematics of the genus Rhacophorus (Amphibia, Anura): identity of red-webbed forms and description of a new species from Assam, Zootaxa 1653: 9-13. doi
This treatment was originally uploaded by Plazi, compare this treatment on Plazi. Unless this treatment has been substantially changed on Species-ID, Plazi requests to maintain a link back to the original repository.
