Translator Disclaimer
1 January 2014 First Record of the Tree-Frog Genus Chiromantis from Borneo with the Description of a New Species (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae)
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

We record a tree frog of the genus Chiromantis for the first time from outside the Southeast Asian continent and describe it as a new species, Chiromantis inexpectatus. The new species from the Malaysian state of Sabah, Borneo, is a small-sized Chiromantis (male snout-vent length ca. 22 mm), and is distinguished from all other members of the genus by the combination of the following morphological characteristics: dark stripes absent, but dark spots present on dorsum; a dark-brown lateral band present from snout tip to half of body, bordered ventrally by white stripe; third and fourth fingers less than half webbed; third finger disk wider than tympanum diameter; and inner metatarsal tubercle present. Significance of findings of this species from Borneo Island, as well as phylogeny and breeding habit of the genus Chiromantis, are briefly discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The Old-World tree-frog genus Chiromantis Peters, 1854 had long been confined to several African tree frogs (Liem, 1970; Frost, 1985), but based on results of recent molecular studies on rhacophorids (Frost et al., 2006), the genus was enlarged to contain frogs formerly known as Chirixalus Boulenger, 1893 occurring from southern China through Thailand to northeastern India (e.g., Bourret, 1942; Taylor, 1962). Recently, two additional new species have been described from the Asian continent (Grismer et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2011).

Outside the continental region of Southeast Asia, no formal report of occurrence of the genus has been given, although their presence in Sumatra and Java is likely (Amir Hamidy, pers. comm.). However, our field survey in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, revealed presence of a small rhacophorid species morphologically similar to the genus Chiromantis there. The species formed a clade on mtDNA trees with some members of the genus, and also differed from all the known congeneric members morphologically. Hence we describe it as a new species of Chiromantis, which is the first formal record of the genus outside the Southeast Asian continent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained DNA sequence data from tissues preserved in 99% ethanol for a specimen of rhacophorid species from Sabah (BORNEENSIS [BORNEENSIS collection, Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation, University Malaysia Sabah] 22421; GenBank accession number AB813160), Chiromantis doriae (Boulenger, 1893) from Phu Luang, Thailand (KUHE [Kyoto University, Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies] 19301; AB813159), C. nongkhorensis (Cochran, 1927) from Song Khla Buri, Thailand (KUHE 19498; AB813158), C. xerampelina Peters, 1854 from pet trade (KUHE 46345; AB813157), C. vittatus (Boulenger, 1887) from Song Khla Buri, Thailand (KUHE 19441; AB813162), C. hansenae (Cochran, 1927) from Nam Tok Hongkaew, Thailand (KUHE 34136; AB813161), Rhacophorus gauni (Inger, 1966) from Sarawak (KUHE 53511; AB847124), R. dulitensis Boulenger, 1892 from Sabah (BORN 09097; AB847123), Feihyla kajau (Dring, 1984) from Sarawak (KUHE 53591; AB847122), Theloderma leprosum Tschudi, 1838 from Malay Peninsula (KUHE 52581; AB847128), Kurixalus appendiculatus (Günther, 1859) from Sarawak (KUHE 53614; AB847125), Philautus davidlabangi Matsui, 2009 from Sarawak (KUHE 19594; AB847127), and Ph. macroscelis (Boulenger, 1893) from Sabah (BORN 08499; AB847126). Methods for DNA extraction, and amplification and sequencing of the mtDNA fragments are the same as those reported by Kuraishi et al. (2013). We deposited the resultant sequences (1987 base pairs [bp] of partial sequences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNA genes and the intervening tRNA gene) in GenBank (Accession numbers AB813157–813162, 847122– 847128, as shown above). In addition to our own new sequence data, we used GenBank data of C. rufescens (Günther, 1869) (AF 458126), Polypedates leucomystax (Gravenhorst, 1829) (AB728138), R. borneensis Matsui et al., 2013 (AB781693), Nyctixalus pictus (Peters, 1871) (DQ283133), Buergeria buergeri (Temminck and Schlegel, 1838) (AB127977), and a mantellid, Aglyptodactylus madagascariensis (Duméril, 1853) (DQ283056). For tree construction and calculation of genetic distances (uncorrected p-distance), we followed Kuraishi et al. (2013).

Specimens examined are stored in the BORNEENSIS collection. We took the following 25 body measurements to the nearest 0.05 mm with a dial caliper under a binocular microscope, following Matsui (1984, 1994): (1) snout-vent length (SVL); (2) head length (HL) from tip of snout to hind border of angle of jaw, not measured parallel with the median line; (3) snout-nostril length (S-NL); (4) nostril-eyelid length (N-EL); (5) snout length (SL); (6) eye length (EL); (7) eye diameter (ED), diameter of the exposed portion of the eyeball; (8) tympanum-eye length (T-EL); (9) tympanum diameter (TD); (10) head width (HW); (11) internarial distance (IND); (12) interorbital distance (IOD); (13) upper eyelid width (UEW); (14) forelimb length (FLL); (15) lower arm and hand length (LAL); (16) first finger length (1FL), measured from distal edge of inner palmar tubercle; (17) inner palmar tubercle length (IPTL); (18) hindlimb length (HLL); (19) thigh length (THIGH); (20) tibia length (TL); (21) foot length (FL); (22) first toe length (1TOEL); (23) inner metatarsal tubercle length (IMTL); (24) third finger disk diameter (3FDW); and (25) fourth toe disk diameter (4TDW). We followed the system of description of toe-webbing states used by Savage (1975).

SYSTEMATICS

The topology of the maximum-likelihood (ML) and Bayesian trees was nearly identical, and only the former is shown in Fig. 1. Support for the monophyly of the rhacophorid sp. from Sabah and six species of Chiromantis was sufficient in the Bayesian tree (Bayesian posterior probability [BPP] = 0.98), but was moderate in the ML tree (bootstrap support [BS] = 67%). Two groups were recognized in the clade, and the first group formed a fully-supported clade (BS = 100%, BPP = 1.00) and contained four Chiromantis species, in which C. doriae and C. nongkhorensis, and C. xerampelina and C. rufescens, respectively, showed sister relationships. The second group contained a fully-supported clade of C. vittatus and C. hansenae (BS = 100%, BPP = 1.00) and the rhacophorid sp. from Sabah, and the monophyly of the group was moderately supported (BS = 71%, BPP = 0.97). Although the relationships were not highly supported, these results indicate placement of the rhacophorid sp. from Sabah in the genus Chiromantis.

Table. 1.

Uncorrected p-distances (in %) for fragment of 16S rRNA among 18 rhacophorid and a mantellid taxa compared.

t01_45.gif

Chiromantis sp. from Sabah differed genetically from the six species of Chiromantis by large genetic distances (16.1– 18.6%: Table 1), and the species also substantially differed from species of the other genera (14.7% from F. kajau to 20.7% from P. leucomystax). The distances between the six species of Chiromantis ranged from 5.7–20.9%. Further more, Chiromantis sp. from Sabah is separated morphologically from all nominal species of Chiromantis in congruent with genetic separation. Thus, we conclude the rhacophorid specimens from Sabah, Borneo as a distinct species in the genus Chiromantis and describe it as follows:

Fig. 1

Maximum-likelihood (ML) tree from a 1987 bp sequence of mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNA genes and the intervening tRNA gene for the rhacophorid from Sabah, members of the Chiromantis, Bornean rhacophorines, and a buergerine and a mantellid species. Numbers above or below branches represent bootstrap supports for ML inferences and Bayesian posterior probabilities.

f01_45.jpg

Chiromantis inexpectatus sp. nov. Bornean opposite-fingered tree frog (Figs. 25)

Diagnosis

Chiromantis inexpectatus is distinguishable from its congeners by the combination of the following characters: (1) size small, SVL 22.2–22.4 mm in males, (2) dark stripes absent, but dark spots present on dorsum, (3) a dark-brown lateral band present from snout tip to half of body, bordered below by white stripe, (4) third and fourth fingers less than half webbed (III 2–2.5 IV), (5) third finger disk wider but toe disks narrower than tympanum diameter, (6) inner metatarsal tubercle present.

Etymology

The specific name is a Latin adjective, referring to the fact that the occurrence of the genus on the island of Borneo, where the new species was found, was unexpected.

Fig. 2.

(A) Male holotype (BORNEENSIS 22421) and (B) male paratype (BORNEENSIS 22420) of Chiromantis inexpectatus in life, showing different color phase.

f02_45.jpg

Fig. 3.

(A) Dorsal, (B) ventral, and (C) lateral views of male holotype (BORNEENSIS 22421) of Chiromantis inexpectatus after preservation. Scale bar = 10 mm.

f03_45.jpg

Holotype

BORNEENSIS 22421, adult male, collected by Tomohiko Shimada on 9 March 2005 from Camel Trophy field station (4°54' N, 116°53' E; ca. 1050 m a.s.I.) of the Maliau Basin Conservation Area, Sandakan Division, Sabah, East Malaysia.

Paratypes

BORNEENSIS 22419, metamorphosing young, and BORNEENSIS 22420, adult male, same collection details as for holotype.

Description of holotype

Adult male; SVL 22.2 mm; head longer (HL 38.7% SVL) than wide (HW 36.9% SVL), wider than body, relatively flat; snout truncated in lateral view, length (SL 14.9% SVL) subequal to eye length (EL 14.4% SVL), sloping anteroventrally, projecting beyond mouth; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region vertical and concave; nostril nearer to tip of snout (SNL 8.1% SVL) than to eye (N-EL 9.0% SVL); internarial distance (IND 12.4% SVL) less than interorbital distance (IOD 14.9% SVL), which in turn nearly twice as wide as upper eyelid (UEW 7.9% SVL); eye large, protuberant; tympanum distinct, subcircular, diameter (TD 5.4% SVL) three-eighths of eye length and separated from eye by one-eighth of tympanum diameter (T-EL 0.7% SVL); vomerine teeth absent; choana oval; tongue notched posteriorly; single median vocal sac; vocal slits on floor of mouth well anterior to jaw commissure on both sides.

Forelimb long (FLL 67.1% SVL); hand and forearm long (LAL 56.3% SVL) and relatively robust; finger length formula: I < II < IV < III; expanded disks each with a circummarginal groove and a transverse ventral groove; disks on third and fourth fingers (3FDW 6.1% SVL) only slightly wider than those on second (2FDW 6.0% SVL) and first (1FDW 5.9% SVL), all wider than tympanum; no webbing between first and second fingers; second and third fingers, and third and fourth fingers less than half webbed (II 3–3 III 2–2.5 IV); inner two fingers widely separated from outer two fingers (opposable); subarticular tubercle between penultimate and adjoining proximal phalange on third and fourth fingers indistinct; inner palmar tubercle flat (IPTL 5.4% SVL), outer one absent; nuptial pad absent.

Fig. 4.

Ventral views of (A) left hand and (B) right foot of male holotype (BORNEENSIS 22421) of Chiromantis inexpectatus after preservation. Scale bar = 10 mm.

f04_45.jpg

Fig. 5.

(A) Dorsal and (B) ventral views of juvenile paratype (BORNEENSIS 22419) of Chiromantis inexpectatus in anesthesized condition. Scale bar = 5 mm.

f05_45.jpg

Hindlimb relatively short (HLL 159.9% SVL); tibiotarsal articulation extends to anterior corner of eye when fully stretched leg adpressed to body; heels touching each other when thigh (THIGH 54.7% SVL) and tibia (TL 54.5% SVL) placed at right angle to body; foot (FL 41.9% SVL) much shorter than tibia; toe length formula I<II<III<V< IV; toes bearing expanded disks each with a circummarginal groove and a transverse ventral groove, width of fourth toe disk (4TDW 4.7% SVL) much narrower than those of finger disks; webbing formula I 2–2 II 11/2–2 III 11/2–2 IV11/2–11/2 V; subarticular tubercles oval, poorly developed; inner metatarsal tubercle small (IMTL 3.6% SVL) and flat, about onethird length of first toe (1TOEL 11.5% SVL); no outer metatarsal tubercle.

Dorsal surface nearly smooth, sparsely scattered with minute, blunt asperities between shoulder and sacral regions; supratympanic fold weak, continued as glandular fold to shoulder; skin of lower jaw posterolateral^ forming a short fold at anterior base of upper arm; ventral surface composed of flat granules; skin of ventral surface of foot smooth, with longitudinal folds.

Color

The color changes in life: when captured, the dorsal ground color was whitish-yellow on body and pinkish on limbs, but later changed to light brown (Fig. 2). Dorsum scattered with vaguely defined small dark-brown spots; a darkbrown lateral band extending from tip of snout, through lower eyelid, upper half of tympanum, to fade one-half way down body, bordered ventrally by a narrower white stripe extending from snout tip below canthus, through lower eyelid and tympanum; venter immaculate creamy white, semitransparent.

Table 2.

Measurements (in mm) of types of Chiromantis inexpectatus. See text for abbreviations.

t02_45.gif

In alcohol, all dorsal and ventral surfaces faded to beige, but dark-brown and white stripes remained.

Variation

Morphometric variation is shown in Table 2. The male paratype (BORNEENSIS 22420) is generally similar with the holotype in general morphology and coloration, but has more isolated, clearer dark spots. Another paratype (BORNEENSIS 22419) is a metamorphosing juvenile with a tail stub of 0.1 mm and lacks a visible tympanum. Darkbrown lateral band is indistinct and ventral white stripe is not recognizable.

Range

Known from the type locality, Camel Trophy of the Maliau Basin Conservation Area, Sandakan Division, State of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo.

Natural history

In the type locality, Camel Trophy, two adult males and a metamorphosing juvenile of the type series were simultaneously found at night perching each on a leaf of low trees (< 1 m) extending above the surface of a shallow pool (3–5 m × 10 m). The air temperature before the time of finding was 24°C. No tadpoles were found in the pond nor eggs on overhanging leaves of trees. Early March may not be a breeding season since males were not calling, but is surely in the season of metamorphosis as evidenced by the presence of a juvenile with a degenerating tail. Frogs found together with the new species included Rhacophorus borneensis, Kurixalus appendiculatus, Polypedates macrotis (Boulenger, 1891), and Microhyla petrigena Inger and Frogner, 1979.

Comparisons

Chiromantis inexpectatus is distinguished from C. cherrapunjiae (Roonwal and Kripalani, 1966) from northern India by light brown or yellowish brown dorsum with dark-brown spots, dark-brown dorsolateral stripe bordered below by white stripe, and the presence of inner metatarsal tubercle (vs. dorsum pale green to dark green and inner metatarsal tubercle absent in C. cherrapunjiae: Chanda, 1994; Mathew and Sen, 2010); from C. doriae from northern India through Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam to China, by the absence of dark dorsal stripes and presence of external vocal sac (vs. dark dorsal stripe present and external vocal sac absent in C. doriae); from C. dudhwaensis (Ray, 1992) from northern India by the possession of dorsum with dark-brown spots, and third finger disk larger than tympanum (vs. dorsum with dark stripe, and disk on third finger smaller than tympanum in C. dudhwaensis); from C. hansenae from Thailand by dark-brown dorsolateral stripe bordered below by white streak on anterior half of flank, and clearly webbed second to fourth fingers (vs. dorsolateral stripe cream bordered with violet streaks on each edge to groin, and webs on hand rudimentary in C. hansenae: Taylor, 1962); from C. marginis Chan et al., 2011 from the Malay Peninsula by dorsolateral stripe dark-brown, bordered below by white streak, both of which not continuous but fading one-half way down body, webbing between third and fourth fingers not extensive (III 2–2.5 IV), and disk on third finger larger than tympanum (vs. dark-brown dorsolateral stripe bordered above by white stripe, both of which continuing to groin, extensive webbing between third and fourth fingers [III 1.5–IV], and third finger disk smaller than tympanum in C. marginis: Chan et al., 2011); and from C. nongkhorensis from Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Malaysia, by smaller body size, relatively small eye shorter than snout, possession of clear dorsolateral stripes and dorsum speckled with small dark-brown spots (vs. body larger, SVL 29–32 mm in males, eye longer than snout, dorsolateral stripes absent, and distinct dark dorsal markings between orbital and sacral regions in C. nongkhorensis).

The new species also differs from the following species morphologically: from C. punctatus (Wilkinson et al., 2003) from Myanmar by dorsum scattered with vaguely defined small dark-brown spots, and dark-brown dorsolateral stripe bordered ventrally by narrow white stripe extending from snout tip below canthus, through lower eyelid to one-half way down body (vs. dorsum with many clearly defined darkbrown spots, and wide white dorsolateral stripe running from snout above canthus rostralis through upper eyelid to groin, bordered ventrally by narrow dark stripe in C. punctatus); from C. samkosensis Grismer et al., 2007 from Cambodia by the dorsal ground color of yellow to light brown, distinct white streak below canthus, and possession of disk on third finger larger than tympanum (vs. ground color of dorsum lime-green, no white streak below canthus, and third finger disk slightly smaller than tympanum in C. samkosensis: Grismer et al., 2007); from C. senapatiensis (Mathew and Sen, 2009) from northern India by the absence of dark dorsal stripe and presence of clear webs on second to fourth fingers (vs. dark middorsal stripe present and webs on hand rudimentary in C. senapatiensis: Mathew and Sen, 2010); from C. shyamrupus (Chanda and Ghosh, 1989) from northern

India by the absence of dark dorsal stripes, and presence of clear webs on second to fourth fingers and inner metatarsal tubercle (vs. a dark middorsal stripe present, fingers free of web, and inner metatarsal tubercle absent in C. shyamrupus: Chanda, 1994; Mathew and Sen, 2010); from C. simus (Annandale, 1915) from northern India by the smaller body size (male SVL 22 mm) and the absence of uniform tuberculation and dark stripes on dorsum (vs. body larger, SVL 30 mm, and dorsum uniformly tuberculate with dark stripes in C. simus: Ahmed et al., 2009); and from C. vittatus from northern India through Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam to China, by the smaller body size and presence of dark-brown dorsolateral stripe bordered below by white streak on anterior half of flank (vs. size larger, males 26–28 mm in SVL, and dorsolateral stripe bordered above by white stripe running to groin in C. vittatus).

The African species, C. kelleri Boettger, 1893 from Ethiopia and Somalia through Kenya to Tanzania, C. petersii Boulenger, 1882 from Kenya and Tanzania, C. rufescens from West Africa, and C. xerampelina from Kenya, Angola and Namibia to South Africa, are all much larger (SVL 35–80 mm: Liem, 1970) than the present new species (ca. 22 mm).

DISCUSSION

The island of Borneo is famous for its high frog diversity, and as many as 155 species have been recorded by the beginning of this century (Matsui, 2006). The number of species is still increasing, and the situation for rhacophorids is no exception. Several new species have been described recently based chiefly on morphological and acoustic data (Dehling, 2008, 2010; Dehling and Grafe, 2008; Matsui, 2009), as well as molecular approaches (Matsui et al., 2013), further contributing to the discovery of the Bornean frog diversity.

Compared with these recent findings, discovery of Chiromantis from Borneo Island is biogeographically more significant, since occurrence of the genus has never been expected on the island. However, the finding is not surprising, because another rhacophorid tree frog, Theloderma horridum Boulenger, 1903, long known only from the Peninsular Thailand and Malaysia was also discovered from the island rather recently (Inger et al., 1995). Tree frogs are generally more difficult to be detected than frogs and toads of the other lineages because of their habit of spending most of their life on trees, sometimes on high crown, and can mainly be found only in the breeding seasons when they come down to lower places near the water body.

Maliau Basin Conservation Area, where the present new species was found, is situated in the southern part of Sabah, and is not easy of access. The three specimens were obtained during a joint expedition of University Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), together with the recently described Rhacophorus borneensis, which had been confused with R. reinwardtii Schlegel, 1840 (Matsui et al., 2013), suggesting that the region has never been amply surveyed.

Our phylogenetic analyses using limited samples indicated deep genetic divergence among species of Chiromantis. Of the Asian species, C. doriae and C. nongkhorensis formed a well-supported clade with the African taxa, but the other Asian species were much divergent from it, supporting the findings of Frost et al. (2006) and Li et al. (2009). The genus is reported to be monophyletic when it is compared with the Indian genus Ghatixalus Biju et al., 2008 (Pyron and Wiens, 2011), but further analyses including species from India and those recently described from Southeast Asia are necessary to determine the validity of the monophyly of Chiromantis.

The African C. xerampelina is noted for the construction of a foamy egg mass (e.g., Noble, 1931), and C. dorae and C. nongkhorensis also lay eggs in a foamy mass (Taylor, 1962; Fei et al., 2009; M. Matsui, pers. obs.). The Indian member C. simus is also reported to lay eggs in a foamy nest (Ahmed et al., 2009). In contrast, C. vittatus lays smaller, non-foamy egg mass on leaves (Ahmed et al., 2009; Fei et al., 2009; M. Matsui pers. obs.). Variation in the mode of egg deposition is another interesting problem in understanding phylogeny and evolution in the genus Chiromantis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia (EPU: 40/200/19 SJ. 1158) and Sabah Parks (SP) granted permission for fieldwork. UMS and JICA kindly provided all the facilities for conducting the field research. T. Shimada thanks L. Apin, Y. Hashimoto, K. B. Kueh, K. Tanaka, and S. Yasuma for help during the field trip. We are particularly indebted to N. Kuraishi and K. Eto for help in the laboratory. This research was partly supported by a fellowship of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) to T. Shimada and a Grant-in Aid from the Monbusho through JSPS (Field Research, Nos. 15370038, 20405013 and 23405014) to M. Matsui.

REFERENCES

1.

MF Ahmed , A Das , SK Dutta ( 2009) Amphibians and Reptiles of Northeast India. Aaranyak, Guwahati Google Scholar

2.

N Annandale ( 1915) Herpetological notes and descriptions. Ree Ind Mus 11: 341–357 Google Scholar

3.

SD Biju , K Roelants , F Bossuyt ( 2008) Phylogenetic position of the montane treefrog Polypedates variabilis Jerdon, 1853 (Anura: Rhacophoridae), and description of a related species. Org Divers Evol 8: 267–276 Google Scholar

4.

O Boettger ( 1893) Übersicht der von Prof. C. Keller anlässlich der Ruspolischen Expedition nach den Somaliländern gesammelten Reptilien und Batrachier. Zool Anz 16: 129–132 Google Scholar

5.

GA Boulenger ( 1882) Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the Collection of the British Museum, 2nd Ed. Taylor and Francis, London Google Scholar

6.

GA Boulenger ( 1887) An account of the batrachians obtained in Burma by M. L. Fea, of the Genoa Civic Museum. Ann Mus Civ Stor Nat Genova Ser 25: 418–424 Google Scholar

7.

GA Boulenger ( 1891) Descriptions of new Oriental reptiles and batrachians. Ann Mag Nat Hist Ser 67: 279–283 Google Scholar

8.

GA Boulenger ( 1892) An account of the reptiles and batrachians collected by Mr. C. Hose on Mt. Dulit, Borneo. Proc Zool Soc Lond 1892: 505–508 Google Scholar

9.

GA Boulenger ( 1893) Viaggio di Leonardo Fea in Birmania e regioni vicine LII. Concluding report on the reptiles and batrachians obtained in Burma by Signor L. Fea, dealing with the collection made in Pegu and Karin Hills in 1887–88. Ann Mus Civ Stor Nat Genova Ser 213: 304–347 Google Scholar

10.

GA Boulenger ( 1903) Report on the batrachians and reptiles. In “Fasciculi Malayenses: Anthropological and Zoological Results of an Expedition to Perak and the Siamese Malay States, 1901–1903 undertaken by Nelson Annandale and Herbert C. Robinson under the auspecies of the University of Edinburgh and the University of Liverpool. Volume 2, Zoology, Part 1” Ed by N Annandale , HC Robinson , Longmans, Green & Co., London, pp 131–178 Google Scholar

11.

R Bourret ( 1942) Les Batraciens de l'Indochine. Mém Inst Océanogr l'Indochine Hanoi 6: 1–547 Google Scholar

12.

KO Chan , LL Grismer , S Anuar , E Quah , JL Grismer , PL Wood Jr , al. et ( 2011) A new species of Chiromantis Peters 1854 (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Perlis State Park in extreme northern Peninsular Malaysia with additional herpetofaunal records for the park. Rus J Herpetol 18: 253–259 Google Scholar

13.

SK Chanda ( 1994) Anuran (Amphibian) fauna of northeast India. Mem Zool Surv India 18: 1–143 Google Scholar

14.

SK Chanda , AK Ghosh ( 1989) A new frog of the genus Philautus Gistel from the proposed Namdapha Biosphere Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 86: 215–217 Google Scholar

15.

DM Cochran ( 1927) New reptiles and batrachians collected by Dr. Hugh M. Smith in Siam. Proc Biol Soc Wash 40: 179–192 Google Scholar

16.

JM Dehling ( 2008) A new treefrog (Anura: Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from Gunung Mulu, Borneo. Salamandra 44: 193–205 Google Scholar

17.

JM Dehling ( 2010) A new bush frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae: Philautus) from Gunung Mulu National Park, East Malaysia (Borneo). Salamandra 46: 63–72 Google Scholar

18.

JM Dehling , TU Grafe ( 2008) A new treefrog of the genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Brunei Darussalam (Borneo). Salamandra 44: 101–112 Google Scholar

19.

JCM Dring ( 1984 “1983”) Some new frogs from Sarawak. AmphibiaReptilia 4: 103–115 Google Scholar

20.

AHA Duméril ( 1853) Mémoire sur les batraciens anoures de la famille des hylaeformes ou rainettes, comprenant la description d'un genre nouveau et de onze espèces nouvelles. Ann Sei Nat Paris Zool Ser 319: 135–179 Google Scholar

21.

L Fei , S-Q Hu , C-Y Ye , Y-Z Huang , et al. ( 2009) Fauna Sinica, Amphibia, Vol. 2, Anura. Science Press, Beijing Google Scholar

22.

DR Frost ( 1985) Amphibian Species of the World: a Taxonomie and Geographical Reference. Allen Press, Lawrence Google Scholar

23.

DR Frost , T Grant , J Faivovich , RH Bain , A Haas , CFB Haddad , et al. ( 2006) The amphibian tree of life. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 297: 1–370 Google Scholar

24.

JLC Gravenhorst ( 1829) Deliciae Musei Zoologici Vratislaviensis (Reptilia Musei Zoologici Vratislaviensis Recensita et Descripta). Fasciculus Primus continens Chelonios et Batrachia. Leopold Voss, Leipzig Google Scholar

25.

LL Grismer , N Thy , T Chav , J Holden ( 2007) A new species of Chiromantis Peters 1854 (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Phnom Samkos in the northwestern Cardomom Mountains, Cambodia. Herpetologica 63: 392–400 Google Scholar

26.

A Günther ( 1859 “1858”) Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the Collection of the British Museum. British Museum, London Google Scholar

27.

A Günther ( 1869 “1868”) First account of species of tailless batrachians added to the collection of the British Museum. Proc Zool Soc Lond 1868: 478–490 Google Scholar

28.

RF Inger ( 1966) The systematics and zoogeography of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana Zool 52: 1–402 Google Scholar

29.

RF Inger , KJ Frogner ( 1979) New species of narrow-mouth frogs (genus Microhyla) from Borneo. Sarawak Mus J 27: 311–322 Google Scholar

30.

RF Inger , RB Steubing , FL Tan ( 1995) New species and new records of anurans from Borneo. Raffles Bull Zool 43: 115–131 Google Scholar

31.

N Kuraishi , M Matsui , A Hamidy , DM Belabut , N Ahmad , S Panha , et al. ( 2013) Phylogenetic and taxonomie relationships of the Polypedates leucomystax complex (Amphibia). Zool Ser 42: 54–70 Google Scholar

32.

J-T Li , J Che , RW Murphy , H Zhao , E-M Zhao , D-Q Rao , et al. ( 2009) Evolution of reproduction in the Rhacophoridae (Amphibia: Anura) inferred from a phylogenetic analysis of five nuclear and three mitochondrial genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 53: 509–522 Google Scholar

33.

SS Liem ( 1970) The morphology, systematics and evolution of the Old World tree frogs (Rhacophoridae and Hyperoliidae). Fieldiana Zool 57: 1–145 Google Scholar

34.

R Mathew , N Sen ( 2009) Studies on little known amphibians of Northeast India. Ree Zool Surv India Occas Pap 293: 1–64 Google Scholar

35.

R Mathew , N Sen ( 2010) Pictorial Guide to the Amphibians of North East India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata Google Scholar

36.

M Matsui ( 1984) Morphometric variation analyses and revision of the Japanese toads (genus Bufo, Bufonidae). Contrib Biol Lab Kyoto Univ 26: 209–428 Google Scholar

37.

M Matsui ( 1994) A taxonomie study of the Rana narina complex, with description of three new species (Amphibia: Ranidae). Zool J Linn Soc 111: 385–415 Google Scholar

38.

M Matsui ( 2006) Anuran inventory in Sabah—past and future. Cur Herpetol 25: 1–14 Google Scholar

39.

M Matsui ( 2009) A new species of Philautus (Amphibia, Anura, Rhacophoridae) from the lowlands of Sarawak, Western Borneo. Zool Sei 26: 437–442 Google Scholar

40.

M Matsui , T Shimada , A Sudin ( 2013) A new gliding frog of the genus Rhacophorus from Borneo. Cur Herpetol 32: 112–124  Google Scholar

41.

GK Noble ( 1931) The Biology of the Amphibia. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar

42.

WCH Peters ( 1854) Diagnosen neuer Batrachier welche zusammen mit der früher (24 Juli und 12 August) gegebenen Übersicht der Schlangen und Eidechsen mitgetheilt werden. Monatsb Königl Preuss Akad Wiss Berlin 1854: 614–628 Google Scholar

43.

WCH Peters ( 1871) Über neue Reptilien aus Ostafrika und Sarawak (Borneo), vorzüglich aus der Sammlung des Hrn. Marquis J. Doria zu Genua. Monatsb Königl Preuss Akad Wiss Berlin 1871: 566–581 Google Scholar

44.

RA Pyron , J Wiens ( 2011) A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of advanced frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol Phylogenet Evol 61: 543–583  Google Scholar

45.

P Ray ( 1992) Description of a new rhacophorid, Chirixalus dudhwaensis (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Dudhwa National Park, District Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, India. Ind J Forest 15: 260–265 Google Scholar

46.

ML Roonwal , MB Kripalani ( 1966 “1961”) A new frog, Philautus cherrapunjiae (family: Ranidae) from Assam, India with field observations on its behaviour and metamorphosis. Ree Indian Mus 59: 325–333 Google Scholar

47.

JM Savage ( 1975) Systematics and distribution of the Mexican and Central American stream frogs related to Eleutherodactylus rugulosus. Copeia 1975: 254–306 Google Scholar

48.

H Schlegel ( 1840) Abbildungen neuer oder unvollständig bekannter Amphibien, nach der Natur oder dem Leben entworfen, herausgegeben und mit einem erlaüternden Texte begleitet. Atlas. Arnz, Düsseldorf Google Scholar

49.

EH Taylor ( 1962) The amphibian fauna of Thailand. Univ Kansas Sei Bull 43: 265–599 Google Scholar

50.

CJ Temminck , H Schlegel ( 1838) Saurii et Batrachii. In “Fauna Japónica sive Descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japonianum, jussu et auspieiis superiorum, qui summum in India Batava Imperium tenent, suseepto, annis 1823–1830 colleget, notis observationibus et adumbrationibus illustratis, Reptilia” Ed by PF von Siebold , JG Lalau , Leiden, pp 97–144 Google Scholar

51.

JJ von Tschudi ( 1838) Classification der Batrachier, mit Berücksichtigung der fossilen Thiere dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Petitpierre, Neuchatel Google Scholar

52.

JA Wilkinson , H Win , T Thin , KS Lwin , AK Shein , H Tun ( 2003) A new species of Chirixalus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from western Myanmar (Burma). Proc Calif Acad Sei 54: 17–26 Google Scholar
© 2014 Zoological Society of Japan
Masafumi Matsui, Tomohiko Shimada, and Ahmad Sudin "First Record of the Tree-Frog Genus Chiromantis from Borneo with the Description of a New Species (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae)," Zoological Science 31(1), 45-51, (1 January 2014). https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.31.45
Received: 4 May 2013; Accepted: 24 August 2013; Published: 1 January 2014
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top