Research Article
Print
Research Article
A field survey on the genus Xenophrys (Amphibia, Megophryidae) confirms underestimated diversity in the Gaoligong Mountains, with the description of a new species
expand article infoYun-He Wu§, Zhong-Bin Yu§, Jin-Min Chen, Felista Kasyoka Kilunda|, Ding-Can Zhang, Chang-Sheng Zuo, An-Ru Zuo, Zheng-Pan Duan, Jing Che§
‡ Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China
§ Southeast Asia Biodiversity Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yezin, Myanmar
| University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China
¶ Administrative Bureau of Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Dehong, China
Open Access

Abstract

The Gaoligong Mountains, located in the western part of China’s Yunnan Province adjoining northern Myanmar, harbor a striking diversity of species and endemism. Previous studies have shown that amphibian diversity in this region remains underestimated. A field survey carried out in 2023 oversaw a collection of eight Xenophrys specimens from the Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Yunnan Province, China. Subsequent molecular analyses revealed two distinct and previously undescribed lineages. Based on morphological evidence, we formally describe one of the lineages as a new species and tentatively assign the other lineage to X. sp. due to the absence of adult specimens for examination. Our results bring the total number of Xenophrys species to 29 and the number of Xenophrys species known to occur in China to 11. Furthermore, our study reveals that five species and putative species of Xenophrys (X. dehongensis, X. glandulosa, X. periosa, X. yingjiangensis sp. nov., and X. sp.) exhibit sympatric distribution. These findings highlight the need for future research to investigate the mechanisms of sympatric coexistence in Xenophrys. In addition, our study confirms that the amphibian diversity of the Gaoligong Mountains is undoubtedly underestimated. As a result, continued exploration of amphibians in the future is necessary to obtain a clearer understanding of the overall biodiversity in this region.

Key Words

Biodiversity, cryptic species, frog, sympatric distribution, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov.

Introduction

The Asian horned toads of the subfamily Megophryinae (Bonaparte, 1850) are widely distributed in tropical Asia, from India and Bhutan to China and south to the Sundas and the Philippines (Frost 2024). It currently includes 136 recognized species, with more than half of the species described in the last 10 years (Frost 2024). As a consequence of both morphological similarity among species and the complex patterns of genetic divergence, the generic classification of the subfamily Megophryinae has been constantly under debate (e.g., Delorme et al. 2006; Fei et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2017; Mahony et al. 2017; Lyu et al. 2023). In this study, we followed the classification system outlined in Frost (2024) and Lyu et al. (2023), in which Megophryidae was divided into 10 genera for the convenience of our comparisons.

The genus Xenophrys Günther, 1864, of the subfamily Megophryinae is distributed widely throughout southern China to the Indochina Peninsula and currently includes 28 recognized species (Frost 2024). These species inhabit primarily montane forests. To date, 10 species have been recorded in China (Frost 2024), with nearly half of the recognized species described in the last 10 years (e.g., Mahony et al. 2018; Lyu et al. 2023; Shu et al. 2023). Moreover, five species of Xenophrys have been recorded in Yunnan (AmphibiaChina 2024; Frost 2024).

The Gaoligong Mountains, located in the western part of China’s Yunnan Province bordering northern Myanmar, form a long, narrow mountain range. It stretches 600 km from the Tibetan Plateau to Myanmar across a 5° latitude with a large elevation range of 210 m to 5000 m. Renowned as one of the world’s most significant biodiversity hotspots outside of the tropics, its complex geography, hydrology, and climate have fostered many distinct habitat types that support diverse biotic components (Chaplin 2005). Several cryptic and novel amphibian species have been described from this mountain ecosystem in recent years (AmphibiaChina 2024), indicating that amphibian diversity in the region may still be diverse and largely underestimated.

A recent herpetological survey conducted at the Gaoligong Mountains, Yunnan Province, China, saw a collection of some Xenophrys specimens. Subsequent studies, including molecular data and morphological comparisons, revealed that these specimens represent five distinct evolutionary lineages, two of which could not be assigned to any known Xenophrys species. Therefore, we herein describe one of the two lineages as a new species.

Materials and methods

Sampling

Field surveys were conducted in August 2023. A total of eight Xenophrys specimens were collected in Tongbiguan Town, Yingjiang County, Yunnan, China (Fig. 1). After taking photographs, the toads were euthanized using benzocaine. Liver tissue was taken from the specimens and preserved in 95% ethanol at -80 °C. The specimens were then fixed in 10% formalin and subsequently stored in 75% ethanol after 24 hours. All the newly collected specimens were deposited in the herpetological collection of the Museum of the Kunming Institute of Zoology (KIZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

Figure 1. 

Known distribution of Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. The red pentagram indicates the type locality of Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov.

Molecular data and phylogenetic analyses

Total genomic DNA was extracted using the standard phenol-chloroform extraction protocol (Sambrook et al. 1989). The mitochondrial fragment 16S ribosomal RNA gene (16S rRNA) was amplified and sequenced using the primer pairs (5’–3’) 16SAR (CGCCTGTTTAYCAAAAACAT) and 16SBR (CCGGTYTGAACTCAGATCAYGT) (Kocher et al. 1989). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed in a 25 μl volume reaction with the following conditions: an initial denaturing step at 94 °C for 4 min; 35 cycles of denaturing at 94 °C for 40 s; annealing at 55 °C for 40 s; and extending at 72 °C for 1 min; and a final extending step of 72 °C for 10 min. PCR products were sequenced using the same forward and reverse primers as those used in PCR. Sequencing was conducted using an ABI 3730xl DNA automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems, UK). All sequences were assembled from forward and reverse reads and edited manually using DNASTAR LASERGENE 7.1. New sequences were deposited in GenBank (Table 1).

Table 1.

Localities, voucher information, and Genbank accession numbers for all specimens used in this study.

Species Voucher Locality Accession No. Reference
Xenophrys ancrae SDBDU 2009.727 India, Arunachal, Changlang KY022318 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys ancrae ZSI A 11606 India, Arunachal, Changlang MN734391 Mahony et al. 2020
Xenophrys auralensis NCSM 79599 Cambodia, Kampong Speu, Aural KX811807 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys awuh SDBDU 2007.192 India, Nagaland state, Kohima district, above New Ministers’ Hill, Aradurah Forest MN734399 Mahony et al. 2020
Xenophrys awuh MZUHC 314 India, Mizoram MT793046 Lalronunga et al. 2020
Xenophrys dehongensis SYS a005823 China, Yunnan, Yingjiang OQ180993 Lyu et al. 2023
Xenophrys dehongensis KIZ 053847 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan PP989323 This study
Xenophrys dzukou SDBDU 2007.106 India, Nagaland, Kohima KY022324 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys flavipunctata SDBDU 2009.298 India, East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya MH647517 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys flavipunctata SDBDU 2007.134 India, Kohima district, Nagaland MH647518 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys glandulosa KIZ 013609 China, Yunnan, Wenlong KX811761 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys glandulosa SYS a003757 China, Yunnan, Mt Gaoligong MH406754 Liu et al. 2018
Xenophrys glandulosa KIZ 053845 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan PP989322 This study
Xenophrys himalayana SDBDU 2009.1227 India, West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh MH647526 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys himalayana SDBDU 2009.1206 India, West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh MH647527 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys lancangica SYS a007794 China, Yunnan, Simao OQ180994 Lyu et al. 2023
Xenophrys lancangica SYS a007825 China, Yunnan, Jinghong OQ180997 Lyu et al. 2023
Xenophrys lekaguli FMNH 265955 Thailand, Sa Kaeo, Mueang Sa Kaeo KY022214 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys major RGK 0089 India, Manipur,Tamenglong KY022308 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys major SDBDU 2007.229 India, Nagaland, Kohima MH647514 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys mangshanensis KIZ 021786 China, Guangdong, Mt Nanling KX811790 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys mangshanensis SYS a002177 China, Guangdong, Huaiji MH406666 Liu et al. 2018
Xenophrys maosonensis KIZ 016045 China, Yunnan, Xichou KX811780 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys maosonensis SYS a008748 China, Guangxi, Mt Shiwandashan OQ181000 Lyu et al. 2023
Xenophrys maosonensis SYS a008766 China, Guangxi, Mt Shiwandashan OQ181002 Lyu et al. 2023
Xenophrys medogensis KIZ 06657 China, Xizang, Beibeng KX811768 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys medogensis SYS a002932 China, Xizang, Medog MH406725 Liu et al. 2018
Xenophrys megacephala ZSI A 11213 India, Meghalaya, Ri Bhoi KY022315 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys montana SDBDU 2011.1047 India, West Bengal, Darjeeling KY022312 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys montana SDBDU 2011.1049 India, West Bengal, Darjeeling MH647506 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys numhbumaeng SDBDU 2007.041 India, Manipur, Tamenglong KY022316 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys numhbumaeng BNHS 6076 India, Manipur, Tamenglong MN734393 Mahony et al. 2020
Xenophrys oreocrypta SDBDU 2008.1400 India, West Garo Hills district, Meghalaya MH647520 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys oreocrypta SDBDU 2009.1108 India, West Garo Hills district, Meghalaya MH647521 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys oropedion ZSI A 11601 India, Meghalaya state, East Khasi Hills district, Shillong, Malki Forest MN734394 Mahony et al. 2020
Xenophrys oropedion ZSI A 11603 India, Meghalaya state, East Khasi Hills district, Shillong, Malki Forest MN734395 Mahony et al. 2020
Xenophrys pangdaensis YBU 21248 China, Xizang, Yadong County, Pangda Village OR026569 Shu et al. 2023
Xenophrys pangdaensis YBU 21261 China, Xizang, Yadong County, Pangda Village OR026572 Shu et al. 2023
Xenophrys periosa SDBDU 2009.793 India, East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh MH647522 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys periosa SDBDU 2009.1285 India, West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh MH647524 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys periosa CIB YN201909160 China, Yunnan, Gongshan, Dulongjiang MT225581 Shi et al. 2020
Xenophrys periosa KIZ 053849 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan PP989324 This study
Xenophrys robusta K5207/ZSI11404 India, Sikkim, North Sikkim KX894674 Deuti et al. 2017
Xenophrys robusta SDBDU 2011.1057 India, West Bengal, Darjeeling KY022314 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys serchhipii SDBDU 2009.612 India, Tripura, North Tripura KY022323 Mahony et al. 2018
Xenophrys serchhipii SDBDU 2008.1492 India, Manipur, Tamenglong MN734405 Mahony et al. 2020
Xenophrys “sp.17” KIZ 011940 Myanmar, Myitkyina KX811792 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys “sp.17” KIZ 048503 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve KX811793 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys “sp.17” KIZ 048504 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve KX811794 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys “sp.17” KIZ 048505 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve KX811795 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. KIZ 053814 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve PP989318 This study
Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. KIZ 053815 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve PP989320 This study
Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. KIZ 053828 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve PP989319 This study
Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. KIZ 053848 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve PP989317 This study
Xenophrys sp. KIZ 053846 China, Yunnan, Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve PP989321 This study
Xenophrys takensis FMNH 261711 Thailand, Kampaeng, Khlong Lan KY022215 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys truongsonensis IEBRA 4943 Vietnam, Dak Lak ON146200 Luong et al. 2022
Xenophrys truongsonensis IEBRA 4948 Vietnam, Lam Dong ON146201 Luong et al. 2022
Xenophrys truongsonensis IEBRA 4952 Vietnam, Ninh Thuan ON146202 Luong et al. 2022
Xenophrys zhangi KIZ 014278 China, Xizang, Nyalam KX811765 Chen et al. 2017
Xenophrys zhangi SYS a008204 China, Xizang, Nyalam OQ180998 Lyu et al. 2023
Xenophrys zunhebotoensis RGK41 India, Nagaland, Zunheboto KY022322 Mahony et al. 2017
Xenophrys zunhebotoensis SDBDU 2009.374 India, Nagaland, Kohima MN734418 Mahony et al. 2020
Outgroups
Brachytarsophrys feae KIZ YN070570 China, Yunnan, Longchuan KX811809 Chen et al. 2017
Leptobrachella ventripunctata KIZ 046940 China, Yunnan, Wenlong KX811929 Chen et al. 2017
Leptobrachium huashen KIZ 049025 China, Yunnan, Mengyang KX811931 Chen et al. 2017

Maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) were used to infer phylogenetic trees. Fifty-eight homologous sequences of Xenophrys and representative outgroups (Brachytarsophrys feae, Leptobrachella ventripunctata, and Leptobrachium huashen) were downloaded from the GenBank (Table 1). The dataset was aligned using MUSCLE v3.8 (Edgar 2004), checked by eye, and trimmed to minimize missing characters in MEGA v6.0.6 (Tamura et al. 2013). BI and ML analyses were performed on the CIPRES web server (Miller et al. 2010) using MrBayes v3.2.4 (Ronquist et al. 2012). For BI analyses, the best-fit model of evolution was determined using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Posada 2008) implemented in jModelTest 2.1.7 (Darriba et al. 2012). GTR+G was the best-fit model of evolution for 16S rRNA. The Monte Carlo Markov chain length was run for 10 million generations and sampled every 1000 generations, with a burn-in of 25%. Convergence was assessed by the average standard deviation of split frequencies (below 0.01) and ESS values (greater than or equal to 200) in TRACER 1.6 (Rambaut et al. 2014). ML analyses were performed using RAxML-HPC BlackBox 8.2.10 (Stamatakis 2014) with 1,000 bootstrap replicates and using the standard bootstrap search (random seed value 12,345) under the GTR+gamma nucleotide substitution model. Mean genetic distances between and within species were calculated using uncorrected pairwise distances (p-distance) by 16S rRNA implemented in MEGA v6.0.6, with complete deletion of missing data and gaps (Tamura et al. 2013).

Morphology and morphometrics

All the measurements were recorded with digital calipers to the nearest 0.1 mm. Morphological terminology followed Fei et al. (2009). Twenty-five measurements included the following: SVL: snout-vent length (measured from tip of snout to vent); HDL: head length (measured from tip of snout to rear of jaw); HDW: maximum head width (measured width of head at its widest point); SNT: snout length (measured from tip of snout to anterior corner of ocular aperture); ED: eye diameter (diameter of exposed portion of eyeball); UEW: width of upper eyelid (maximum width of upper eyelid); TD: tympanum diameter (measured as maximal diameter of tympanum); DNE: distance from nostril to eye (distance from the front of the eye to the center of the nostril); SN: distance from the center of the nostril to the tip of the snout; IND: internarial distance (distance between nares); TEY: distance from anterior edge of tympanum to posterior corner of eye; IOD: interorbital distance (measured at narrowest point between eyes on top of the head); FAL: forearm length (measured from the elbow to the wrist); LAD: (diameter of lower arm); FHL: forearm and hand length (distance from elbow to the tip of the third finger); TL: tibia length (distance from knee to heel); HL: hand length (distance from the posterior end of the inner metacarpal tubercle to tip of third finger); HLL: hindlimb length; FL: foot length (distance from the proximal end of inner metatarsal tubercle to the tip of fourth toe); THL: thigh length (from the cloaca to the knee); TAL: tarsus length (measured as the distance from knee to heel); FLI-IV: first to fourth finger length.

Results

The aligned sequence matrix of the 16S gene contained 490 bp, among which 215 sites were variable and 159 were parsimony-informative (including outgroups). Both BI and ML trees had almost identical topologies with relatively robust support for most nodes, differing mainly at terminal nodes identified as weakly supported or collapsed. The genus Xenophrys was recovered as monophyletic with strong support from both analyses (BPP=1; BS=96; Fig. 2). The newly collected sympatric samples from Tongbiguan Nature Reserve, Yunnan, China, were divided into five highly divergent clades with strong nodal supports: three were nested within a clade containing recognized species, while the other two formed their own previously unknown lineages (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. 

Phylogram of Xenophrys based on the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene. Node values with Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) < 0.95 and Bootstrap support (BS) < 70 are not shown. A “-” denotes Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) < 0.95 and bootstrap support (BS) < 70. New samples for the present study are indicated in bold font.

The newly collected specimen (KIZ 053849) and X. periosa (including the type specimens) nested into a single clade with strong support (BPP=1; BS=81; clade A), and the within-group mean genetic p-distance was 1.7% (0%–3.4%, Suppl. material 1). The newly collected specimen (KIZ 053845) strongly clustered with X. glandulosa (BPP=1; BS=100; clade B), with maximal uncorrected pairwise 16S distances of merely 0.0%. The newly collected specimen (KIZ 053847) formed a monophyletic clade with X. dehongensis from the paratype (BPP=1; BS=99; clade E), with shallow within-group genetic differentiation (0.7%, Suppl. material 1).

For the two new distinct clades, the newly collected samples and samples proposed as Megophrys sp. 17 in Chen et al. (2017) clustered into a monophyletic clade with a strong nodal support (BPP=1; BS=99; clade D). This clade was recovered as a sister taxon to X. dehongensis. In addition, the remaining sample (KIZ 053846) formed an independent monophyletic clade, which clustered with X. awuh, X. zunhebotoensis, X. serchhipii, X. numhbumaeng, X. oropedion, X. ancrae, X. megacephala, and X. dzukou with moderate support (BPP=0.96; BS=81; clade C). The two putative new species showed obvious genetic divergence from the other congeners. The genetic distance between the new populations and the other congeneric species ranged from 5.3% (with X. megacephala) to 12.0% (with X. lancangica) for clade D, 7.1% (with X. ancrae), and 12.2% (with X. robusta) for clade C (Suppl. material 1). It is comparable to the divergences among the nearest neighbor genetic distances of the described Xenophrys species, which ranged from 2.1% (X. mangshanensis and X. maosonensis) to 15.7% (X. dzukou and R. awuh). In addition, these levels of pairwise divergence of the 16S rRNA gene exceeded the acceptable threshold (3%) of species-level genetic divergence in anurans (Vences et al. 2005).

Morphologically, these specimens from Clade D differed from recognized congeners; therefore, we formally describe them as new. However, Clade C contains only one subadult specimen, and further surveys are needed to retrieve adult specimens.

Taxonomic account

Xenophrys yingjiangensis Wu, Yu, Chen & Che, sp. nov.

Figs 3, 4, Table 2

Chresonymy

Megophrys sp17., Chen et al. 2017.

Type material

Holotype : KIZ 053848, an adult male collected from Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Yingjiang County, Yunnan, China (24.563°N, 97.639°E; elevation 1478 m a.s.l.), collected by Zhong-Bin Yu, Dong An, Tian-En Chen, and Xian-Kun Huang on 12 August 2023.

Paratypes : KIZ 048503–KIZ 048505, three adult males, from Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Yingjiang County, Yunnan, China (24.546°N, 97.759°E; elevation 809 m a.s.l.), collected by Jin-Min Chen and Mian Hou on 11 August 2013; KIZ 053828, one adult male, collected at the same locality and with the same collection information as the holotype.

Etymology

The specific epithet “yingjiang” is a Latinized adjective derived from the name of Yingjiang County, Yunnan Province, China, where the new species occurs. We propose the English common name “Yingjiang horned toad” and the Chinese common name “Yíng Jiāng Jiǎo Chán (盈江角蟾)”.

Diagnosis

Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. differs from its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: (1) medium adult size, adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm (N=5); (2) head slightly longer than wide; (3) tympanum distinct, narrow anteriorly, slightly widening posteriorly; (4) pupil vertically elliptical; (5) vomerine ridges and vomerine teeth present; (6) tongue large, oval-shaped, feebly notched posteriorly; (7) relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III; (8) the heels slightly overlapping when the tibias are positioned at right angles to the body axis; (9) tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril; (10) lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow; (11) toes with rudimentary webbing; (12) inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate; (13) a distinct narrow ‘\ /’-shaped parietoscapular ridge present; (14) flesh pink ventral surface of thighs.

Description of the holotype

(measurements in Table 2). KIZ 053848, mature male, sized medium body (SVL 45.0 mm); head moderate (HDL/SVL 39.6%, HDW/SVL 38.9%), slightly longer than wide (HDW/HDL 98.3%); snout obtusely rounded in dorsal view, obtusely projecting beyond the lower jaw in profile, without rostral appendage; triangular in dorsal view; top of head flat; loreal region vertical and concave; canthus rostralis angular; eyes large (ED/HDL 31.5%); eye less than twice as long as maximum tympanum diameter (ED/TD 207.4%) and shorter than snout length (SNT 6.8 mm, ED/SNT 82.4%); tympanum distinct, circular in shape, relatively small (TD/HDL 15.2%), with upper border concealed by supratympanic ridge; eye-tympanum distance (TYE 3.3 mm) longer than tympanum diameter (TD 2.7 mm); nostril rounded, laterally positioned, nostril closer to the tip of snout than to the anterior corner of the eye (SN/DNE 81.6%); internarial distance greater than interorbital distance (IND/IOD 109.4%) and width of upper eyelid (IND/UEW 126.1%); pineal ocellus absent; vomerine teeth in two oblique series, positioned between choanae, separated from each other by distance equal to distance from choanae; maxillary teeth present; choanae oval; tongue large, oval-shaped, feebly notched posteriorly; single internal vocal sac, with a sac slit opening on floor of mouth at each corner; pupil vertically elliptical (Fig. 3B).

Table 2.

Measurements (in mm) of the type series of Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. Bold font and an asterisk (*) indicate the holotype.

KIZ 053848* KIZ 053828 KIZ 048503 KIZ 048504 KIZ 048505
Sex
SVL 45.0 49.8 46.8 44.6 47.9
HDL 17.8 17.6 17.9 18.4 18.2
HDW 17.5 17.5 16.4 17.3 17.4
SNT 6.8 7.0 6.5 7.0 7.1
ED 5.6 5.7 5.2 6.0 5.8
IOD 5.3 4.7 5.3 5.3 4.9
UEW 4.6 5.2 4.5 4.9 5.2
IND 5.8 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.8
DNE 3.8 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4
SN 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.5
TD 2.7 3.2 4.3 3.3 3.3
TYE 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.6 3.1
FHL 23.3 23.5 22.8 22.5 21.8
FAL 10.8 10.9 10.0 10.0 9.9
HL 12.5 12.6 12.8 12.5 12.0
LAD 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.9
FLI 5.9 6.1 3.8 3.8 4.1
FLII 4.5 5.0 3.7 3.1 3.8
FLIII 8.6 8.2 6.1 5.9 6.0
FLIV 5.2 5.4 4.6 4.6 4.0
HLL 75.9 80.4 76.0 78.7 72.6
THL 22.3 25.1 23.9 23.0 20.7
TL 23.8 24.8 24.0 25.7 24.0
TAL 32.7 34.3 12.3 12.9 12.9
FL 21.4 21.6 20.7 21.2 20.4
Figure 3. 

Views of the Holotype KIZ 053848 in life. A. Lateral view; B. Lateral view of head; C. Dorsal view of hindlimbs; D. Ventral view; E. Ventral view of hand, and F. Ventral view of foot. Photos by Zhong-Bin Yu.

Forelimbs moderately long and thin; forearm not enlarged relative to the upper arm, its length shorter than the hand length (FAL/HL 86.4%); fingers long and narrow, lateral fringes on fingers absent, relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III; tips of all fingers rounded, slightly expanded relative to digit widths, with subcircular pads, terminal grooves absent; no webbing between fingers; subarticular tubercle absent; supernumerary tubercle absent; metacarpal tubercle absent (Fig. 3E).

Hindlimbs relatively long and thin, thigh length (THL 22.3 mm) shorter than the tibia length (TL 23.8 mm) but slightly longer than the foot length (FL 21.4 mm); the heels slightly overlapping when the tibias are positioned at right angles to the body axis; tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril; toes long and thin, relative toe lengths: I < II < V < III < IV; tips of all toes rounded, slightly dilated, terminal grooves absent; notably expanded relative to digit widths forming circular pads; lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow; toes with rudimentary webbing; tarsal fold absent; subarticular tubercle, supernumerary tubercle, and outer metatarsal tubercle absent; inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (Fig. 3F).

Skin of dorsal surfaces of head, body and limbs relatively smooth, with very small granules; posterior back densely-distributed with numerous small to medium sized granules and tubercles; flanks with small scattered tubercles (Fig. 3A); supratympanic fold distinct, narrow anteriorly, slightly widening posteriorly, extending from the posterior corner of the eye to a level above the insertion of the arm; tympanum skin smooth, tympanic rim slightly elevated relative to skin of temporal region (Fig. 3B); two opposing “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridge present on dorsum joined by a ca. 10 mm long dorsomedial fold in a hourglass-shape; dorsolateral fold absent; a distinct narrow ‘\ /’-shaped parietoscapular ridge present, its two sides extending posteriorly from above tympanum, terminating beyond level of axilla; dorsal surface of thighs, shanks and upper forearms with distinct transverse ridges (Fig. 3A, C); ventral surfaces of limbs, throat, chest, and abdomen smooth; pectoral glands small, rounded, slightly raised, closer to the axilla than to the mid-ventral line; femoral gland distinct, extend longitudinally, positioned equidistant from the knee and cloacal opening on rear of each thigh.

Coloration in life

For the coloration of the holotype in life, see Fig. 3. Dorsal surface reddish brown, with a complete inverted triangle bordered with a light edge present between eyes; lateral surface of trunk of body and anterior surface of the thighs near the groin pinkish; throat purplish grey with white flecking; chest and anterior half of abdomen purplish grey with yellowish flecking and grey-brown blotches; posterior half of abdomen white with irregular lighter greyish blotches; ventral surface of thighs pinkish; ventral surface of feet and shanks brown-black; brown nuptial pads present on the base of first and second finger; supratympanic fold, light colored, bordered by a black lower margin; iris copper-brown, with tiny dark reticulations spreading from pupil; pectoral and femoral glands creamy white; inner metatarsal tubercle off-white.

Coloration in preservative

For coloration of the holotype in preservative, see Fig. 4. After eight months of storage in ethanol, dorsal and lateral surfaces of head and body fading to greyish-brown; slightly darker brown triangular marking between the eyes; two opposing “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridges present on two sides of dorsum becoming less distinct; the ‘\ /’-shaped parietoscapular ridge present dorsum still clear; lateral surfaces of head below supratympanic ridges and canthus rostralis dark brown; supratympanic ridges whitish-cream; dorsal surfaces of forelimbs and hindlimbs primarily light greyish-brown; granules and tubercles on posterior half of back and flanks more distinct; throat and chest faded greyish-brown with several scattered white dots; ventral thighs and shank faded to pale yellow, with several dark brown blotches on the anterior thigh and shank; pectoral and femoral glands white; inner metatarsal tubercle still off-white.

Figure 4. 

Views of the Holotype KIZ 053848 in preservative. A. Dorsal view; B. Ventral view; C. Lateral view; D. Lateral view of head; E. Ventral view of hand, and F. Ventral view of foot. Photos by Zhong-Bin Yu.

Sexual dimorphism

All adult males with nuptial pads covering most of the dorsal surface of the bases of fingers I and II; male with single internal vocal sac (Fig. 5), with a sac slit opening on floor of mouth at each corner.

Figure 5. 

Advertisement calls for Paratype KIZ 048505. Photo by Jin-Min Chen.

Distribution and ecology

Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. is only known from the Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Tongbiguan Town, Yingjiang County, Yunnan, China, and Myitkyina, Myanmar (Fig. 1). All individuals were discovered in a mountainous area surrounded by shrubland at elevations of approximately 800–1200 m (Fig. 6). This species is in sympatric distribution with X. periosa, X. dehongensis, X. glandulosa, and Xenophrys sp. of congeners. In addition, other frog species also found at the site include Leptobrachella yingjingensis, Jingophrys feii, and Kurixalus yangi.

Figure 6. 

Habitat of Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. at the type locality in Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, Yingjiang County, Yunnan, China. Photo by Zhong-Bin Yu.

Comparison

We compared Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. with other congeneric species (Ohler et al. 2002; Stuart et al. 2006; Mahony 2011; Mahony et al. 2011; Mahony et al. 2013, 2018; 2020; Che et al. 2020; Luong et al. 2022; Lyu et al. 2023; Shu et al. 2023).

Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. is obviously different from its four most phylogenetically close congeners (X. dehongensis, X. auralensis, X. lekaguli, and X. takensis). It differs from X. dehongensis by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 34.8–36.7 mm, n = 5), metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. two metacarpal tubercles indistinct), tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril (vs. tibio-tarsal articulation reaching posterior corner of eye), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. II < I < IV < III); from X. auralensis by medium adult size, adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. large sized species, adult male SVL 71.0–76.9 mm, n = 9), head longer than wide (vs. head wider than long), internarial distance greater than interorbital distance and width of upper eyelid (vs. interorbital distance larger than internarial distance and width of upper eyelid), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. II < I < IV < III), transverse crossbar in hindlimbs absent (vs. forelimb, dorsal parts of thigh, tibia and foot greyish brown with darker brown bands); from X. lekaguli by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 55.6–66.6 mm, n = 8), head longer than wide (vs. head slightly wider than long), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. IV < II < I < III); tongue feebly notched posteriorly (vs. tongue unnotched), vertical bar below eye absent (vs. wide, dark vertical bar below eye), transverse crossbar in limbs absent (vs. limbs with narrow dark brown crossbars); from X. takensis by head longer than wide (vs head wider than long), tongue large, oval-shaped, feebly notched posteriorly (vs. tongue oval, not notched posteriorly), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. IV ≤ II < I < III or IV = I < II < III), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent).

Xenophrys yingjiangensis sp. nov. is different from other congeneric species. The new species differs from X. ancrae by inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle very weak), pupil horizontally orientated (vs. pupil vertically elliptical), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. I < II < IV < III), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent); from X. awuh by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 35.7–41.1 mm, n = 4), nostril closer to the tip of snout than to the anterior corner of the eye (vs. nostril closer to eye than to snout), vomerine teeth present (vs. absent), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent); from X. damrei by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 57.1 mm, n = 1), head longer than wide (vs head wider than long), nostril closer to the tip of snout than to the anterior corner of the eye (vs. nostril closer to eye than snout), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), male with single internal vocal sac (vs. external vocal sac indistinct); from X. dzukou by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 34.2–35.3 mm, n = 4), nostril closer to the tip of snout than to the anterior corner of the eye (vs. nostril closer to eye than snout), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), toes with rudimentary webbing (vs. webbing absent); from X. flavipunctata by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 56.9–68.4 mm, n = 4), head longer than wide (vs head wider than long), tongue large, oval-shaped, feebly notched posteriorly (vs. tongue moderately large, deeply notched posteriorly), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), transverse crossbar in hindlimbs absent (vs. dorsal surfaces of hindlimbs with distinct mid brown transverse crossbars); from X. himalayana by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 68.0–73.5 mm, n = 6), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), outer metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. outer metacarpal tubercle weakly developed), transverse crossbar in hindlimbs absent (vs. dorsal surfaces of thighs and shanks with distinct dark brown transverse crossbars); from X. megacephala by the heels slightly overlapping when the tibias positioned at right angles to the body axis (vs. not meeting), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. IV < II < I< III); dorsal surface of thighs, shanks and upper forearms with distinct transverse ridges (vs. absent), transverse crossbar in limbs absent (vs. dorsal surface of the fore and hind limbs with faint dark cross bars); from X. numhbumaeng by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 33.8–34.6 mm, n = 2), pupil vertically elliptical (vs. pupil horizontally orientated), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle weak), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent); from X. oreocrypta by lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), pupil vertically elliptical (vs. pupil horizontally orientated), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle very weak), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. I < II < IV < III); from X. oropedion by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 32.8–39.6 mm, n = 7), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct); from X. pangdaensis by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 17.9–22.2 mm, n = 6), tympanum distinct (vs. indistinct), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), transverse crossbar in limbs absent (vs. two dark transverse bands on each forearm, three dark transverse bands on anterior surface of thigh and shank), iris copper-brown (vs. iris orange-red); from X. periosa by medium adult size, adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. medium adult size, adult male SVL 71.3–93.8 mm, n = 12), outer metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. outer metacarpal tubercle weakly developed), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle weakly defined), iris copper-brown (vs. iris very dark orange), transverse crossbar in hindlimbs absent (vs. hindlimbs with distinct transverse crossbars); from X. truongsonensis by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 58.8–71.4 mm, n = 14), internarial distance greater than interorbital distance and width of upper eyelid (vs. internarial distance narrower than interorbital distance but wider than upper eyelid), external vocal sac indistinct (vs. absent), upper lip dark brown (vs. upper lip with a continuous white stripe, running from the nostril to shoulder), hindlimbs (vs. dorsal surface of fore and hind limbs reddish brown with dark crossbars); from X. lancangica by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 64.0–65.4 mm, n = 3), metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. two metacarpal tubercles indistinct), tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril (vs. tibiotarsal articulation reaching region between nostril and tip of snout), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), transverse crossbar in limbs absent (vs. dorsal limbs with transverse bands), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. II < IV < I < III); from X. glandulosa by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 77.0–81.0 mm, n = 3), head longer than wide (vs head wider than long), tongue large, feebly notched posteriorly (vs. tongue distinctly notched posteriorly), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. moderately wide lateral fringes present on all toes), transverse crossbar in limbs absent in preservative (vs. dorsal surfaces of hindlimbs with distinct brown transverse crossbars in preservative), sides of head smooth (vs. sides of head finely granular); from X. monticola by vomerine teeth present (vs. vomerine teeth absent), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct), toes with rudimentary webbing (vs. absent), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), pupil vertically elliptical (vs. pupil horizontally orientated), tongue large, feebly notched posteriorly (vs. tongue large, appears rounded posteriorly without notch); from X. robusta by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 73.5–83.1 mm, n = 6), head longer than wide (vs head wider than long), vomerine teeth present (vs. absent), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent); from X. medogensis by inner metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. distinct), toes with rudimentary webbing (vs. absent), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. I < II < IV < III); dark brown stripe in lower margin of the supratympanic folds absent (vs. lower margin of the supratympanic folds with dark brown stripe); from X. major by medium adult size, adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. large sized species, adult male SVL 75.0–87.5 mm, n = 12), throat purplish grey with white flecking; chest and anterior half of abdomen purplish grey with yellowish flecking and grey-brown blotches (vs. light-edged wide dark brown stripe extending from posterior edge of mandible onto base of forearms), dorsolateral surface of forearms without blotch (vs. three dark brown blotches on dorsolateral surface of forearms); from X. maosonensis by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 66.2 mm, n = 1), metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. two metacarpal tubercles indistinct), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. I < II < IV < III), tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril (vs. tibio-tarsal articulation reaching center of eye), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct); from X. mangshanensis by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 60.4–71.6 mm, n = 10), metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. two metacarpal tubercles indistinct), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. II < I < IV < IIII), tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril (vs. tibio-tarsal articulation reaching center of eye), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), toes with rudimentary webbing (vs. absent), inner metatarsal tubercle large, elongate, ca. one and a half times longer than wide (vs. inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct); from X. zhangi by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 32.5–40.0 mm, n = 7), metacarpal tubercle absent (vs. two metacarpal tubercles indistinct), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. I < II < IV < III), tibio-tarsal articulation of straightened limb reaching the nostril (vs. tibio-tarsal articulation reaching anterior corner of eye), toes with rudimentary webbing (vs. absent); from X. zunhebotoensis by adult male SVL 44.6–49.8 mm, n = 5 (vs. adult male SVL 28.4–33.9 mm, n = 23), vomerine teeth present (vs. absent), lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), toes with rudimentary webbing (vs. absent), the heels slightly overlapping when the tibias positioned at right angles to the body axis (vs. meeting); absent (vs. dense orange speckling on chest and anterior abdomen); from X. serchhipii by lateral dermal fringes on toes distinct, narrow (vs. absent), relative finger lengths: II < IV < I < III (vs. IV < I = II < III), two opposing “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridge present on dorsum joined by a ca. 10 mm long dorsomedial fold in a hourglass-shape (vs. unconnected inverted “V”-shaped sacral ridge).

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that species diversity within the genus Xenophrys remains largely underestimated. Recent phylogenetic analysis has revealed multiple genetic lineages of Xenophrys that may represent new species (Chen et al. 2017). Among these, X. yingjiangensis sp. nov. was previously suggested to be a putative new species based on molecular phylogenetic analysis. In our present study, we combined morphological and molecular lines of evidence to confirm its species status and formally describe it. Our results bring the total number of Xenophrys to 29, and the number of Xenophrys known from China to 12. In addition to the new taxon described herein, the following species of Xenophrys are known from China: X. dehongensis, X. glandulosa, X. himalayana, X. lancangica, X. mangshanensis, X. maosonensis, X. medogensis, X. pangdaensis, X. parva, X. periosa, and X. zhangi (Frost 2024). Furthermore, our study also reveals a new distinct lineage from Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve that we consider a putative species. However, at present, we only have one subadult specimen. Further fieldwork is needed to collect more adult specimens and compare their morphological characteristics to determine their taxonomic status.

During our field work in the Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve, adults and subadults of five species and putative species of Xenophrys (X. dehongensis, X. glandulosa, X. periosa, X. yingjiangensis sp. nov., and X. sp.) were found at the same site at the same time. A sympatric distribution pattern has been observed in other amphibians, such as L. flaviglandulosa, L. nyx, L. feii, and L. bourreti, in the Xiaoqiaogou Nature Reserve (Chen et al. 2020). However, research on the mechanism of sympatric distribution in amphibians is not well understood. Further evolutionary studies that integrate life history (e.g., advertisement call and breeding season) with genome data will be critical in the future to explore the mechanisms of sympatric coexistence among multiple lineages in Xenophrys.

The Gaoligong Mountains may harbor more hidden amphibian diversity than previously postulated. Recent intensive surveys have significantly enhanced our understanding of the amphibian diversity of the Gaoligong Mountains, with discoveries of multiple new species, new national record species, and a series of new regional record species (e.g., Liu et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2022; Hou et al. 2023; Wu et al. 2024, 2021). Our new findings of X. yingjiangensis sp. nov. and putative species further confirm that amphibian diversity in this mountain ecosystem is undoubtedly underestimated. Future amphibian exploration will hopefully continue to discover more new taxa in the region. In addition, the classification and diversity of some species distributed in the Gaoligong Mountains have long been disputed, such as Amolops bellulus (Liu et al. 2000; Wu et al. 2020) and Nanorana arnoldi (AmphibiaChina 2024). Considering that the Gaoligong mountains are located at the China-Myanmar border, future international collaborations between herpetologists from both countries are necessary to clarify the distribution and classification of these species.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Key R & D Program of China (2022YFC2602500), the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (STEP) program (Grant No. 2019QZKK0501), Science and Technology Basic Resources Investigation Program of China (Grant No. 2021FY100200); National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 32100371); Yunnan Applied Basic Research Projects (No. 202301AT070312, 202301AT070431), Major Science and Technique Program (202102AA310055) and Key R & D program (202103AC100003, 202301AT070431) in Yunnan Province; China’s Biodiversity Observation Network (Sino-BON), and the Animal Branch of the Germplasm Bank of Wild Species, CAS (Large Research Infrastructure Funding). We thank Mian Hou, Xian-Kun Huang, Dong An, and Tian-En Chen for their help in the field. We thank the Tongbiguan Provincial Nature Reserve for their support in undertaking field surveys and specimen collections.

References

  • AmphibiaChina (2024) The Database of Chinese Amphibians. Kunming Institute of Zoology (CAS), Kunming, Yunnan, China. Electronic Database. http://www.amphibiachina.org [accessed 15 April 2024]
  • Chaplin G (2005) Physical geography of the Gaoligong Shan area of southwest China in relation to biodiversity. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 56(28): 527–556.
  • Che J, Jiang K, Yan F, Zhang YP (2020) Amphibians and Reptiles of Tibet – Diversity and Evolution. Science Press, Beijing. [In Chinese]
  • Chen JM, Zhou WW, Poyarkov Jr NA, Stuart BL, Brown RM, Lathrop A, Wang YY, Yuan ZY, Jiang K, Hou M, Chen HM, Suwannapoom C, Nguyen SN, Duong TV, Papenfuss TJ, Murphy RW, Zhang YP, Che J (2017) A novel multilocus phylogenetic estimation reveals unrecognized diversity in Asian horned toads, genus Megophrys sensu lato (Anura: Megophryidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 106: 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.09.004
  • Chen JM, Xu K, Poyarkov NA, Wang K, Yuan ZY, Hou M, Suwannapoom C, Wang J, Che J (2020) How little is known about “the little brown frogs”: description of three new species of the genus Leptobrachella (Anura: Megophryidae) from Yunnan Province, China. Zoological Research 41(3): 292–313. https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.036
  • Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9(8): 772–772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109
  • Delorme M, Dubois A, Grosjean S, Ohler A (2006) Une nouvelle ergotaxinomie des Megophryidae (Amphibia, Anura). Alytes 24: 6–21.
  • Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32(5): 1792–1797. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340
  • Fei L, Hu SQ, Ye CY, Huang YZ (2009) Fauna Sinica. Amphibia Vol. 2 Anura. Science Press, Beijing. [In Chinese]
  • Hou M, Yu GH, Liu XL, Liu S, Wang B, Li PP, Orlov NL (2023) New records of Amolops kaulbacki specimens from Yunnan Province, China with discussion on species distribution. Russian Journal of Herpetology 30(3): 144–166. https://doi.org/10.30906/1026-2296-0-0-0-23
  • Kocher TD, Thomas WK, Meyer A, Edwards SV, Pääbo S, Villablanca FX, Wilson AC (1989) Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: Amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86(16): 6196–6200. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.16.6196
  • Lalronunga S, Zosangliana I, Lalhmangaiha K, Lalhmingliani E (2020) First record of the Naga Hills Horned Frog, Megophrys awuh Mahony, Kamei, Teeling, and Biju (Anura: Megophryidae: Megophryinae), from Mizoram, India. Reptiles & Amphibians : Conservation and Natural History 27(3): 472–473. https://doi.org/10.17161/randa.v27i3.14884
  • Liu Z, Chen G, Zhu T, Zeng Z, Lyu Z, Wang J, Messenger K, Greenberg AJ, Guo Z, Yang Z, Shi S, Wang Y (2018) Prevalence of cryptic species in morphologically uniform taxa–Fast speciation and evolutionary radiation in Asian frogs. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 127: 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.06.020
  • Liu X, He YH, Wang Y, Beukema W, Hou S, Li Y, Che J, Yuan ZY (2021) A new frog species of the genus Odorrana (Anura: Ranidae) from Yunnan, China. Zootaxa 4908(2): 263–275. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4908.2.7
  • Luong AM, Pham CT, Nguyen TT, Orlov N, Ziegler T, Nguyen TQ (2022) A new species of Xenophrys (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Truong Son Range, Vietnam. Zootaxa 5150(3): 333–356. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5150.3.2
  • Lyu ZT, Qi S, Wang J, Zhang SY, Zhao J, Zeng ZC, Wang H, Yang JH, Mo YM, Wang YY (2023) Generic classification of Asian horned toads (Anura: Megophryidae: Megophryinae) and monograph of Chinese species. Zoological Research 44(2): 380–450. https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.372
  • Mahony S, Sengupta S, Kamei RG, Biju SD (2011) A new low altitude species of Megophrys Kuhl and van Hasselt (Amphibia: Megophryidae), from Assam, Northeast India. Zootaxa 3059(1): 36–46. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3059.1.2
  • Mahony S, Teeling EC, Biju SD (2013) Three new species of horned frogs, Megophrys (Amphibia: Megophryidae), from northeast India, with a resolution to the identity of Megophrys boettgeri populations reported from the region. Zootaxa 3722(2): 143–169. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3722.2.2
  • Mahony S, Foley NM, Biju SD, Teeling EC (2017) Evolutionary history of the Asian Horned Frogs (Megophryinae): Integrative approaches to timetree dating in the absence of a fossil record. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34(3): 744–771. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw267
  • Mahony S, Kamei RG, Teeling EC, Biju SD (2018) Cryptic diversity within the Megophrys major species group (Amphibia: Megophryidae) of the Asian Horned Frogs: Phylogenetic perspectives and a taxonomic revision of South Asian taxa, with descriptions of four new species. Zootaxa 4523(1): 1–96. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4523.1.1
  • Mahony S, Kamei RG, Teeling EC, Biju SD (2020) Taxonomic review of the Asian Horned Frogs (Amphibia: Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt) of Northeast India and Bangladesh previously misidentified as M. parva (Boulenger), with descriptions of three new species. Journal of Natural History 54(1–4): 119–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2020.1736679
  • Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), 2010: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129
  • Ohler A, Swan SR, Daltry JC (2002) A recent survey of the amphibian fauna of the Cardomom Mountains, Southwest Cambodia with descriptions of three new species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 50(2): 465–482.
  • Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Paul VDM, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61(3): 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029
  • Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Habor, NY.
  • Shi SC, Wang B, Zhu WB, Fu L, Jiang W, Li DH, Jiang JP (2020) Megophrys periosa (Mahony, Kamei, Teeling, and Biju 2018) was first recorded in Yunnan province, China with description of its tadpole. Dongwuxue Zazhi 55(6): 730–740.
  • Shu G, Li K, Wu Y, Liu Q, He Z, Li L, Zhang H, Guo P (2023) A new species of Xenophrys (Amphibia, Anura, Megophryidae) from southern Tibet, China. ZooKeys 1182: 307–329. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1182.106828
  • Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(12): 2725–2729. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197
  • Vences M, Thomas M, Van der Meijden A, Chiari Y, Vieites DR (2005) Comparative performance of the 16S rRNA gene in DNA barcoding of amphibians. Frontiers in Zoology 2(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-2-5
  • Wu YH, Yan F, Stuart BL, Prendini E, Suwannapoom C, Dahn HA, Zhang BL, Cai HX, Xu YB, Jiang K, Chen HM, Lemmon AR, Lemmon EM, Raxworthy CJ, Orlov NL, Murphy RW, Che J (2020) A combined approach of mitochondrial DNA and anchored nuclear phylogenomics sheds light on unrecognized diversity, phylogeny, and historical biogeography of the torrent frogs, genus Amolops (Anura: Ranidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 148: 106789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106789
  • Wu YH, Liu XL, Gao W, Wang YF, Li YC, Zhou WW, Yuan ZY, Che J (2021) Description of a new species of Bush frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae: Raorchestes) from northwestern Yunnan, China. Zootaxa 4941(2): 239–258. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4941.2.5
  • Wu YH, Yu ZB, Lu CQ, Zhang YP, Dong WJ, Liu XL, Kilunda FK, Xiong Y, Jiang YF, Ouyang H, Fu ZX, He YB, Yuan ZY, Che J (2024) A new species of the genus Amolops (Amphibia: Ranidae) and the first national record of Amolops vitreus from China. Vertebrate Zoology 74: 343–357. https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.74.e108013
  • Zhang YP, Liu XL, Stuart BL, Wu DY, Wang YF, Che J, Yuan ZY (2022) Amolops putaoensis Gan, Qin, Lwin, Li, Quan, Liu & Yu, 2020, a newly recorded torrent frog for China. Herpetozoa (Wien) 35: 231–237. https://doi.org/10.3897/herpetozoa.35.e94745

1 Yun-He Wu and Zhong-Bin Yu contributed equally to this work.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

Average uncorrected p-distances (percentage) among Xenophrys species calculated from 16S rRNA gene sequences (below the diagonal) and standard error estimates (above the diagonal)

Yun-He Wu, Zhong-Bin Yu, Jin-Min Chen, Felista Kasyoka Kilunda, Ding-Can Zhang, Chang-Sheng Zuo, An-Ru Zuo, Zheng-Pan Duan, Jing Che

Data type: xls

Explanation note: The ingroup mean uncorrected p-distances are shown on the diagonal.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (73.50 kb)
login to comment