identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EF403E0051FFF5F9A5D932FD781A06.text	03EF403E0051FFF5F9A5D932FD781A06.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana leporipes : Werner 1930	<div><p>Rana leporipes Werner, 1930</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: Two figures (Werner, 1930: 49, pl. IV) of Mell no. 15660, an adult female from Lung Tao Shan, North Kwangtung, China (700 m a.s.l.) collected on 4 July 1919 by R. Mell. The voucher specimens of the type series have been lost and the photographs of the holotype become the iconotype.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS (from text and plates of original description): Rana leporipes is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL reported for females between 52 and 102 mm; (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) lip­stripe white; (6) tympanum very distinct, TMP:EYE is 0.5; (7) supratympanic fold milky white; (8) dorsal skin smooth, flanks weakly granular, dorsolateral folds slightly distinguishable, venter smooth; (9) dorsum dark green, flanks stony gray with white marbling, legs not banded; (11) disks on fingers and toes only slightly enlarged (&lt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to base of distal phalanges; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle large, projecting; (14) terminal phalanges oblong, somewhat pointed.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana leporipes superficially resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica and R. tiannensis (table 12). Rana leporipes is unique among all of the above species in having a white supratympanic fold, webbing that only reaches the distal phalanx (not the disk), and oblong, somewhat rounded distal phalanges (T­ shaped in others, unknown for R. hejiangensis, R. junlianensis, and R. kwangwuensis). The absence of banding on the legs distinguishes R. leporipes from all species listed here, except R. livida (present or absent in R. chalconota and R. hosii). The presence of a dorsolateral fold also distinguishes it from R. andersonii, R. chloronota, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis. Whereas Huia nasica has an olive­brown dorsum, R. leporipes is dark green. Rana hainanensis further differs from R. leporipes in its size (SVL R. hainanensis 103 mm) and relative lengths of fingers (II &lt;IV &lt;I for R. hainanensis, I = II for R. leporipes). Rana junlianensis has brown lip bands. Rana andersonii has a rough, olive­brown dorsum. Rana grahami has pustules on the dorsum and flanks and no digital disks. Rana schmackeri has a smooth, heavily spotted dorsum. Rana tiannensis has a rough, brown dorsum with large, prominent lateral granulations. Both Rana chalconota and R. archotaphus possess an outer metatarsal tubercle, but R. leporipes does not. Rana hosii can be distinguished from R. leporipes by its feeble tarsal folds. Rana chloronota differs from R. leporipes in that it is larger (R. chloronota female SVL 80–100 mm) and it has a different digital formula (II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III for R. chloronota). Dorsum of R. livida is uniform (flanks a different color for R. leporipes).</p> <p>REMARKS: The original description of R. leporipes reported extensive variation in snout–vent length (52–102 mm) and lacked any description of secondary sex characters. The single male specimen of R. leporipes is significantly larger than males of R. chloronota (93 mm vs. a maximum of 53 mm). However, it is unclear how the male was sexed, as nuptial excrescences and gular pouches are not mentioned. Bourret (who did not indicate whether he had seen the type series) thought the male was an incorrectly identified female and that Werner’s (1930) frogs were all females spanning a range of varying degrees of maturity. We are also skeptical about any males, although this cannot be confirmed, as the type series has been lost.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E0051FFF5F9A5D932FD781A06	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E0050FFF3FA56DEE4FC151D1F.text	03EF403E0050FFF3FA56DEE4FC151D1F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana livida (Blyth 1856)	<div><p>Rana livida (Blyth, 1856)</p> <p>Figures 6E, F, 7E, F, 9</p> <p>Rana livida (Boulenger, 1887)</p> <p>NEOTYPE: BMNH 1889.3.25.48 an adult female from Thagata Juwa, Village on the hills southwest of Mt. Mooleyit, Dawna Mountains, Myanmar (400–500 m), by M.L. Fea in early 1887.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana livida, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al. 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL females 89.4, 97.1 mm; (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) lip­stripe white, extending across upper lip, terminating in glandule above insertion of arm; (5) head broad, snout rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile; (6) tympanum round, distinct, TMP:EYE 0.41; (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin smooth to flanks, pustules dorsal to cloaca, dorsolateral folds absent, venter smooth; (9) dorsum uniform brown in preservative; forelimbs and hindlimbs lighter brown, without transverse bars; (10) median callous pad on finger III to proximal tubercle; (11) disks on fingers and toes enlarged (&gt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to disks, weak lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, conical; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly; (17) eggs white.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana livida superficially resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis (table 12). The smooth, uniformly colored dorsum further distinguishes R. livida from all of the above species. The unpigmented eggs of R. livida distinguish it from H. nasica, Rana andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, and R. schmackeri, which are white with melanic poles. Huia nasica differs from R. livida in its longer, more pointed head, and smaller females (SVL 67 mm). Rana hainanensis further differs from R. livida in relative lengths of fingers (II &lt;IV &lt;I &lt;III for R. hainanensis, II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III for R. livida). Rana hejiangensis differs from R. livida in its relative finger size (II &lt;I &lt;III &lt;IV) and smaller digital disks. Rana andersonii has a rough, olive­brown dorsum and small disks on fingers. Rana grahami has pustules on the dorsum and flanks (vs. smooth in R. livida) and slightly swollen digital tips. Rana junlianensis has brown lip bands. Rana kwangwuensis has small digital disks. Rana schmackeri has a smooth, heavily spotted dorsum. Rana tiannensis has a rough brown dorsum with large, prominent lateral granulations. Rana chalconota differs from R. livida by having coarsely shagreened dorsum, distinct dorsolateral folds, pointed snout, smaller SVL (females 46–59 mm), and an outer metatarsal tubercle. In R. archotaphus, webbing (toe IV) reaches base of distal subarticular tubercle (R. livida, webbing to base of disk), females are smaller (SVL 59–62 mm), and it has an outer metatarsal tubercle. Rana sinica differs from R. livida in lacking a lip­stripe, and in having smaller mature females (R. sinica holotype 66.6 mm), an indistinct, skin­covered tympanum (distinct and uncovered in R. livida), nares halfway between the eye and tip of the snout (nearer the snout in R. livida), and a different finger formula (I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica, II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. livida). Rana hosii differs from R. livida by its obtusely pointed head (rounded in R. livida), dorsolateral folds, occasional bands on arms and legs, and feeble tarsal folds (dorsolateral and tarsal folds absent in R. livida). Rana chloronota differs from R. livida with its solid­colored dorsum and dark sides (uniform in R. livida), transverse bars on the limbs (absent in R. livida), smooth dorsum, flanks granular (slightly granulose on the posterior thighs in R. livida), and absence of white mottling on the flanks (present in R. livida). Rana leporipes differs from R. livida in having smaller digital disks, a white supratympanic fold, weak dorsolateral fold, and webbing that only reaches the distal phalanges (R. livida to base of the disk). Rana graminea further differs from R. livida with its nearly vertical (versus concave) loreal region and depressed head.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION: Head length greater than head width (103%), head width 35% of SVL, length 37% of SVL; snout short, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw, rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile; eye large, prominent, 72% snout length; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold weak, swollen rim of tissue dorsal to tympanum; tympanum round, distinctly visible, 44% of EYE. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, oblique, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately one­third its length.</p> <p>Forearm robust; fingers moderately short, slender; hands 29% of SVL, relative lengths of fingers II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III; ventromedial callous pad on III to proximal tubercle; disks greatly expanded (&gt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III; circummarginal grooves present ventrally; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles prominent, rounded. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 68% of SVL; FTL 85% of SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to base of toe disk, lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges; toes long, slender, with large, obliquely rounded disks, relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV&gt; V; ventral circummarginal grooves present; subarticular tubercles prominent, conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum smooth to flanks; dorsolateral fold absent; small tubercles posteroventral to tympanum; granules dorsal cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly, at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN PRESERVATIVE: Dorsum uniform dark brown to flanks, some white spots and mottling on flank; prominent lip­stripe white; tympanum brown; posterior surface of thighs light brown with white spots, no transverse banding; venter creamy white; ventral side of limbs creamy white; webbing dark gray.</p> <p>SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERS: BMNH 1889.3.25.47, an adult female bears white eggs. No male specimens were studied.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF NEOTYPE (in mm): SVL 89.4; SNT 14.2; HDL 32.8; HDW 31.6; EYE 10.2; IOD 8.0; TMP 4.5; TEY 2.8; HND 25.5; FPL 3.2; TIB 60.8; FTL 76.2; TPL 2.6.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF REFFERED SPECIMEN (BMNH 1889.3.25.47): SVL 97.1; SNT 16.7; HDL 36.1; HDW 33.4; EYE 11.9; IOD 9.2; TMP 4.6; TEY 4.1; HND 28.8; FPL 3.3; TIB 63.8; FTL 75.6; TPL 2.7.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: The range of R. livida is unclear. The type material is lost and the locality information has been poorly recorded. Much confusion exists in its taxonomy. The only confirmed locality is that of the neotype and maps do not show Thagata Juwa village, as indicated in by Feae. Mount Mooleyit is currently found on maps as Mulayit Taung (16°N, 98°30̍E). The closest villages to Mulayit Taung are Kyeik­ywa, Daukkat­ywa, and Kyeik­don, to the west, and Mawkhi and Huthi, near the Thai border to the east.</p> <p>REMARKS: Male R. chloronota are substantially smaller than females and they posses paired subgular pouches and a larger tympanum. Presumably, male R. livida have the same attributes. Blyth (1852) appears to have included males in his original description; many of the specimens that Theobold assumed to be juveniles have whiter lip­stripes and a relatively large tympanum that is closer to the eye than in females. Although the color is not recorded in life, Blyth (1856) reported that R. livida is ‘‘uniform duskyplumbeous above, probably dull olive green when alive.’’ Boulenger (1920) recorded measurements of two R. livida females from Thagata, Tenasserim. It is not clear whether these two specimens are the same as those described above.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E0050FFF3FA56DEE4FC151D1F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E0056FFF1FA45D90CFD6E1B9A.text	03EF403E0056FFF1FA45D90CFD6E1B9A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana sinica : Ahl 1925	<div><p>Rana sinica Ahl, 1925</p> <p>Figure 10</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: ZMB 9785 an adult female from China.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana sinica is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL of single mature female is 66.6 mm, males unknown; (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) lip­stripe absent; (5) head not broad, snout rounded in dorsal view; (6) tympanum round, indistinct, covered by a layer of skin, TMP:EYE 0.52; (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin smooth flanks weakly granular, dorsolateral folds absent, venter smooth; (9) dorsum bronze­green with irregular indistinct spots and blue­gray flanks, legs with black bands; cloacal region marbled black with white; (10) median callous pad on finger III almost to proximal tubercle; (11) disks on fingers and toes slightly enlarged (&lt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed on II, III, IV; I and V without lateral web fringes, webbing light gray in alcohol; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, conical; (14) terminal phalanges are slightly rounded; (15) xiphisternum not large, shallow notch posteriorly; (16) male secondary sexual characteristics unknown; (17) eggs yellow (in alcohol).</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana sinica superficially resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri and R. tiannensis (table 12). Unlike the species listed above, R. sinica has a layer of skin overlying its tympanum and its terminal phalanges are slightly rounded (not T­ shaped; R. leporipes has oblong, somewhat rounded distal phalanges). The absence of a lip­stripe in R. sinica further differentiates it from H. nasica, R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, and R. livida. Eggs of H. nasica, Rana andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, and R. schmackeri are white with melanic poles, whereas those of R. sinica are immaculate. The smooth green dorsum further distinguishes R. sinica from H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. jingdongensis, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. leporipes, R. schmackeri, and R. tiannensis. Huia nasica has an olive­ brown dorsum (R. sinica green). Rana hainanensis further differs from R. sinica in its size (mean female SVL R. hainanensis 103 mm) and relative lengths of fingers (II &lt;IV &lt;I for R. hainanensis, I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica). Rana andersonii has a rough, olivebrown dorsum. Rana hejiangensis has smaller males (SVL 47 mm) and a different finger formula (II &lt;I &lt;III) than R. sinica. Rana julianensis and R. kwangwuensis differ from R. sinica in their relative finger formula (II &lt;I &lt;IV). Rana jingdongensis possesses vertical lip bands, large toe disks, and is fully webbed to all disks. Rana graminea differs from R. sinica in that its nares is closer to the tip of the snout than to the eye (halfway in R. sinica), and it has a different finger formula (II = I &lt;IV for R. graminea). Rana margaretae further differs from R. sinica in having larger females (SVL 78–88 mm). Rana grahami has pustules on the dorsum and flanks and no digital disks (only slightly swollen tips). Rana schmackeri has a smooth, heavily spotted dorsum. Rana tiannensis has a rough, brown dorsum with large, prominent lateral granulations. Rana chalconota differs from R. sinica by having distinct dorsolateral folds, a pointed snout (vs. rounded), and an outer metatarsal tubercle. In R. archotaphus the outer metatarsal tubercle is present. Rana hosii differs from R. sinica by its dorsolateral folds and feeble tarsal folds (absent in R. sinica). Rana chloronota differs from R. sinica in being larger (SVL for adult females 80–100 mm for R. chloronota), having nostrils closer to the tip of the snout than the eye (halfway for R. sinica), and a different digital formula (II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III for R. chloronota). Rana leporipes also differs from R. sinica by having a white supratympanic fold (not colored in R. sinica). Rana livida has a solid­colored dorsum with white spots on its sides (flanks a different color for R. sinica, lacking spots), and it lacks transverse bands on the arms and legs (present in R. sinica).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: HDL greater than HDW (132%), HDW 26% of SVL, HDL 34% of SVL; snout short, rounded in dorsal view; protruding beyond margin of lower jaw, rounded in lateral view, EYE prominent, smaller than SNT, IOD broader than EYE and upper eyelid. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region steeply concave; nostril about one­half the distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold weak; tympanum round, indistinct, covered by layer of skin; TMP 52% of EYE in females. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, oblique, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for part of its posterior length.</p> <p>Forearm robust; relative lengths of fingers I &lt;II &lt;IV, III &lt;snout; ventromedial callous pad on III almost to proximal tubercle; disks slightly expanded (&lt;2× base of phalanges); circummarginal grooves present ventrally; terminal phalanges rounded; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; extend 15 mm beyond snout when adpressed; TIB 59% of SVL; FTL 30% of SVL; toe II is longer than all others, III = IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to base of toe disk on II, III, and IV, I and V without external fringes; toes long, slender, with slight, rounded disks; ventral circummarginal grooves present; subarticular tubercles prominent, conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum small, with a shallow notch posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum smooth, flanks with slight granulations; dorsolateral fold absent; small tubercles posteroventral to tympanum; granules on thighs and around cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly, at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Dorsum green (bronze­green to brown), flanks gray (blue­gray to light brown); loreal region black (dark blackish brown), lip­stripe absent; dorsal limbs and digits brown with dark brown transverse bands; posterior surface of thighs black with white marbling; venter creamy white; ventral side of limbs creamy yellow; webbing marbled white on dark brown (brown).</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS: The female holotype has large, immaculate yellow eggs (possibly white in life).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 66.6; HDL 22.5; HDW 17.6; EYE 8.2; IOD 13.4; TMP 4.2; TIB 39.4; femur 33.7; FTL 33.7.</p> <p>REMARKS: The holotype is the only known specimen of R. sinica; all others are lost. This redescription is based on the original description by Ahl (1925) with amendments and additions based on our examination of the holotype. Ahl described the holotype as a male, but it is clearly a gravid female. As well, Ahl described a frog with large finger and toe pads. Although the condition of the specimen did not allow for accurate pad measurements to be made, the enlarged pads on the holotype are not as large as those on other species in the Rana chloronota complex. This species differs significantly from the other members of the Rana chloronota complex in preservative, but presumably has superficial resemblances in life. Ahl (1925) believed that R. sinica was closely related to Staurois natator.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E0056FFF1FA45D90CFD6E1B9A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E0054FFCBFA7FDF8EFBC01F4C.text	03EF403E0054FFCBFA7FDF8EFBC01F4C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana bacboensis BAIN & LATHROP & MURPHY & ORLOV & CUC 2003	<div><p>Rana bacboensis, new species</p> <p>(Previously referred to as species 2, ‘‘Black Egg’’)</p> <p>Figures 11D, 12E, F, 13B</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: (ROM field no. 13171) ROM 29534 an adult female from the Khe Moi River, approximately 24 km west of Con Cuong village, Con Cuong District, Nghe An Province, Vietnam (18°56̍30̎N, 104°48̍35̎E) collected 24 October 1994 by I.S. Darevsky, L.A. Lowcock, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. The holotype had leg and liver tissue removed shortly after it was euthanised.</p> <p>PARATYPES: ROM 29531–29533, all females, collected with holotype on 24 October 1994 by I.S. Darevsky, L.A. Lowcock, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov; ROM 26404, a female collected at the type locality by A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N. Orlov on 5 June 1995; ROM 26357–26358, adult females collected from the type locality on 5 June 1995 by A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov; ROM 29359, a female, from Ba Be Lake, Ba Be Lake National Park, Bac Kan Province (formerly Cao Bang Province), Vietnam (22°25̍05̎N, 105°38̍05̎E), collected by R.H. Bain on 24 May 1995 at the outflow on the south side of Ba Be Lake; ROM 29526–29530, all females, from Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam (22°21̍54̎N, 105°25̍40̎E) approximately 15 km from Pac Ban village collected by R.W. Murphy and A. Lathrop between 25 and 30 May 1996; AMNH A­161248, a female, from Hieng Stream, Chau Khe Commune, Con Cuong District, Nghe An Province, Vietnam (19°02̍17̎N, 104°42̍06̎E, elevation 300 m) collected on 29 April 1998 by N.Q. Truong; FMNH 255611 (adult female), 255612 (adult male) along the Khe Chat Stream, Pu Mat Nature Reserve, Con Cuong District, Nghe An Province, Vietnam (18°56̍N, 104°45̍E, elevation 300 m) on 8 September 1998 by Bryan L. Stuart.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana bacboensis, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL of males 54.9 mm, means of females 96 mm (82–105 mm); (3) vomerine teeth present in rows oblique to choanae; (4) vertical black stripes on upper lip (especially under eye), light colored glandule above insertion of arm; (5) head broad, bluntly rounded in profile; (6) tympanum circular, distinct, TMP:EYE 0.43 in females, 0.66 in the male; (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin shagreened, becoming granular laterally, dorsolateral fold absent; venter smooth; (9) dorsum brown with black blotches; forelimbs and hindlimbs with transverse bands of distinct blotches to tips of digits; (10) median callous pad on base of fingers II and III to proximal tubercle; (11) disks on fingers and toes enlarged (&lt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to disks, but as a fringe from distal subarticular tubercle of IV, slight lateral fringes on toes I and V to terminal phalanges, webbing marbled brown on white; (13) subarticular tubercles distinct, conical; inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, ovoid; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly; (16) male with velvety nuptial pad on thumb, paired gular pouches, no pectoral spines; (17) eggs black.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana bacboensis is one of the larger species of cascade ranids (SVL female 81–105 mm). It can be distinguished from all other cascade ranids of Southeast Asia by its dark, pigmented eggs (immaculate white or white with melanic pole in other species) (table 12). Its black vertical lip­bars distinguish it from R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. livida, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and Huia nasica. The brown dorsum with dark spots distinguishes it from R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, and R. sinica, all of which have a predominantly green dorsum. The presence of gular pouches in males differentiates R. bacboensis from R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. hainanensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, and R. margaretae. Huia nasica has a smooth, olive­brown dorsum with lighter flanks (R. bacboensis is shagreened and uniformly brown with black spots both on the dorsum and flanks), and adult females are smaller than those of R. bacboensis (67 mm vs.&gt; 80 mm). The absence of an outer metatarsal tubercle and the large female SVL also distinguishes R. bacboensis from R. archotaphus and R. chalconota (female SVL 81– 105 mm for R. bacboensis, 59–62 mm and 46–59 mm for R. archotaphus and R. chalconota, respectively). The absence of dorsolateral folds distinguishes R. bacboensis from R. chalconota, R. graminea, R. hosii, and R. leporipes (pustules on the dorsum of R. grahami sometimes form a dorsolateral fold). Rana bacboensis has webbing to the base of the toe pad distinguishing it from R. leporipes (webbing to distal phalanx). Rana sinica can further be distinguished from Rana bacboensis by its indistinct, skin­covered tympanum, and different finger formula (I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica, II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. bacboensis). Rana bacboensis shares a superficial resemblance to R. tiannensis, another large brown cascade ranid, but differs in having shagreened dorsal skin with small lateral granulations (dorsum of R. tiannensis is rough with large, prominent lateral granulations) and smaller toe disk than finger disk (the opposite condition of R. tiannensis). Rana bacboensis most closely resembles R. hainanensis, R. jingdongensis, and R. andersonii. Rana bacboensis further differs from R. hainanensis in its relative lengths of fingers (II &lt;IV &lt;I &lt;III for R. hainanensis) and by its shagreened skin (smooth for R. hainanensis). Rana bacboensis also differs from R. jingdongensis in profile of its snout shape (rounded or obtusely pointed in R. jingdongensis versus rounded in R. bacboensis) and texture of skin (R. jingdongensis dorsum scattered with tubercles and large warts, lips and sides of heads with white spines, all absent in R. bacboensis). Rana bacboensis also differs from R. andersonii in its head shape (obtusely pointed in R. andersonii) and absence of ventral spines in the males.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: A gravid female (ROM 29534), head length greater than width (127%), head width 34% of SVL, length 43% of SVL; snout short, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw, rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile; eye large, prominent, 81% of snout length; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold barely evident, curving posteroventrally from posterior corner of eye to a level above insertion of arm; tympanum round, distinctly visible, separated from eye by distance equal to TMP:EYE 0.62. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, slightly oblique, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately one­half its length.</p> <p>Forearms moderately robust; fingers moderately short, slender; hands 27% of SVL, relative lengths of fingers II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III; ventromedial callous ridge on fingers II and III prominent, extending to proximal tubercle; disks expanded (&lt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, pad length (III) 75% of pad width; ventral circummarginal grooves present; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 60% of SVL; foot length 62% of SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to disks, but as a fringe from distal subarticular tubercle of IV, lateral fringes on toes I and V to terminal phalanges; toes long, slender, with large, rounded triangular disks, relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV k V, pad width (IV) 85% of pad length, circummarginal grooves present; subarticular tubercles prominent, conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum shagreened with heavy granulations, leathery in alcohol preservation; dorsolateral folds absent; small tubercles anterior and posterior to tympanum; flanks with small granulations and large pustules; distinct granules on posterior thighs and around cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly, at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Dorsum, flanks, and loreal region brown (brownish gray) with small black spots, becoming larger on the flanks; upper and lower lips creamy yellow with vertical black bars; dorsal limbs and digits brown with black transverse bands; webbing on feet marbled white and dark brown (black); venter creamy white, sometimes with light spotting on belly, chest, and chin; iris golden, margin of pupil outlined in a striking yellow and red border.</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS: The holotype possesses large, black eggs (2 mm in diameter). The lone male paratype has gular pouches, thickened forearms, and thick white nuptial pads.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 95.1; SNT 12.0; HDL 41.0; HDW 32.2; EYE 9.7; IOD 6.4; TMP 6.0; TEY 5.0; HND 25.6; FGR 21.8; FPL 2.8; FPW 3.7; TIB 56.8; FTL 59.6; TPL 2.4; TPW 2.0.</p> <p>VARIATION OF PARATYPES: Variation in all type material is given in table 15.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF FEMALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 6, ROM 29359, 29526–29530): SVL 95.8 mm ± 6.4 (81.8–105.1); SNT 13.8 ± 1.4 (10.8–15.6); HDL 46.4 ± 3.5 (43.5– 51.2); HDW 35.4 ± 2.9 (34.1–39.6); EYE 9.8 ± 0.5 (9.4–10.8); IOD 7.9 ± 1.7 (5.8– 11.0); TMP 5.3 ± 0.6 (4.0–6.0); TEY 4.9 ± 0.7 (3.6–6.0); HND 25.5 ± 2.8 (18.6–30.3); FGR 20.8 ± 2.3 (14.0–24.1); FPL 3.0 ± 0.3 (2.4–3.6); FPW 3.5 ± 0.6 (2.6–4.3); TIB 58.6 ± 3.7 (50.5–66.2); FTL 70.2 ± 7.8 (55.8–79.1).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF MALE PARATYPE (in mm, FMNH 255611): SVL 54.9, SNT 8.8, HDL 28.0, HDW 18.1, EYE 6.6, IOD 6.1, TMP 4.4, TEY 1.8, HND 16.5, FPL 2.4, FPW 1.8, TIB 32.4, FTL 45.4, TPL 2.4, TPW 1.6.</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: The specific name, derived from Bac Bo, the Vietnamese name for northern Vietnam (often referred to as Tonkin), reflects this species’ distribution.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: Rana bacboensis occurs in forested montane river systems across northern Vietnam. These rivers vary from shallow and slow moving to torrential and deep. Specimens may be found on boulders and logs, both in and around the water and in the adjacent forest. Radiographs revealed that females feed on large invertebrates, including small freshwater crabs. Females were collected in April–May and October. The holotype, collected in October, has fully developed ova, and two females (ROM 26358, 29529) collected in the spring have undeveloped ova suggesting a fall breeding season. No calls are associated with this species. The tadpoles are unknown.</p> <p>REMARKS: Cascade ranids bearing white eggs lay them under rocks, sheltered from the sunlight (Pope, 1931; ROM field notes, 1996). In contrast, the black eggs of R. bacboensis might be found where they are exposed to sunlight to promote development, a requirement for some species with melanic eggs (Duellman and Trueb, 1986).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E0054FFCBFA7FDF8EFBC01F4C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E006EFFC9FA6DDB51FCE41BBC.text	03EF403E006EFFC9FA6DDB51FCE41BBC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana daorum BAIN & LATHROP & MURPHY & ORLOV & CUC 2003	<div><p>Rana daorum, new species</p> <p>(Previously referred to as species 4, ‘‘Small’’)</p> <p>Figures 11E, F, 12G, H, 13C</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: (ROM field no. 19047) ROM 26381 an adult female from approximately 5 km NW of Sa Pa village, near O Qui Ho Pass, Lao Cai Province, Vietnam (22°22̍09̎N, 103°50̍14̎ E, elevation 1400 m) collected on 7 May 1995 along a waterfall beside the road by A. Lathrop and B. Hubley at approximately 1930 hours.</p> <p>PARATYPES: ROM 26382–26397, all males, collected with the holotype, 7 May 1995 by A. Lathrop and B. Hubley at 1030 hours; ROM 38500–38530, 38532–38540, 38542– 43, 38546–38561 collected between 30 April and 15 May 1999 in the vicinity of the type locality approximately 12 km northwest of Sa Pa Village near the O Qui Ho Pass (22°20̍58̎N, 103°46̍14̎E, elevation 1900 m) by R.O. de Sa´, C.T. Ho, A. Lathrop, T. Mason, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. ROM 38547 is a subadult; ROM 38503, 38507, 38512, 38516, and 38530 are gravid females; ROM 38500, 38517, 38526, and 38538 are nongravid females; and the remaining specimens are males with distended gular pouches.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana daorum, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL means of males 36 mm (32–38 mm), females 55 mm (53–58 mm); (3) vomerine teeth absent; (4) lip­stripe white, extending across upper lip, terminating in a glandule above insertion of arm; (5) head not broad, snout rounded in dorsal view, rounded in profile; (6) tympanum round, distinct, TMP:EYE of females (0.45) greater than males (0.29); (7) supratympanic fold weak or absent; (8) dorsal skin smooth, granular near cloaca and tympanum, dorsolateral fold covered with small white granules, ventral skin smooth; (9) dorsum green occasionally with black spots, flanks brown with at least one large white glandular spot; fore­ and hindlimbs goldish brown, with mottling or indistinct transverse bands; (10) median callous pad on proximal two­thirds of fingers II and III; (11) disks on fingers and toes greatly enlarged (&gt;2× base of phalanx), finger pads larger than toe pads; (12) feet fully webbed to disks, but as a fringe from distal subarticular tubercle of IV, lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges, webbing mottled brown; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, conical; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum narrow, forked posteriorly; (16) males with nuptial pads on thumb, paired gular pouches, pectoral spines absent; (17) eggs large, white.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Though bearing a superficial resemblance to other cascade ranids of Southeast Asia, R. daorum is distinct (table 12) by the absence of vomerine teeth, females with larger TMP:EYE than males, and the presence of at least one large white spot on each flank. Its noticeably smaller SVL, dorsolateral folds formed by white granules, and solid, bright green dorsum immediately distinguishes it from H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. bacboensis, R. chloronota, R. grahami (whose dorsal pustules sometimes form a fold), R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis. The entirely white eggs of R. daorum distinguish it from Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri (all with white eggs with a melanic pole), and R. bacboensis (fully pigmented eggs). The presence of gular pouches in males differentiates R. daorum from R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. hainanensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, and R. margaretae. A distinct and uncovered tympanum also distinguishes R. daorum from R. sinica. Rana daorum can be further distinguished from R. livida, R. chloronota, R. maragaretae, and R. schmackeri by its finger formula (II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. daorum, I &lt;II &lt;IV for others listed). Although R. daorum closely resembles A. chunganenesis in size, the presence of white granular dorsolateral folds, and diurnal behavior, A. chunganensis is red­ brown, has vomerine teeth, and males have a TMP:EYE ratio twice that of R. daorum.</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF THE HOLOTYPE: An adult female (ROM 26381), head width 74% of length, length 46% of SVL; snout short, rounded in dorsal view, rounded in profile, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw; eye very large, prominent, 72% of snout; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region vertical, concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold indistinct, slight swelling above tympanum; tympanum round, distinctly visible, separated from eye by distance equal to that of TMP, 41% of EYE. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes absent. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately two­thirds its length.</p> <p>Forearms robust; fingers moderately short, slender, hand 28% of SVL, relative lengths of fingers I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III, ventromedial callous pad on fingers II and III for twothirds length of finger; disks greatly expanded (&gt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, pad length (finger III) equal to pad width, ventral circummarginal grooves present; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 60% of SVL; foot length 84% of SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to disks, but as a fringe from distal subarticular tubercle of IV, lateral fringe on toe V to terminal phalanx; toes long, slender, with enlarged disks, smaller than those on fingers, relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV k V, pad width (IV) 83% of length, each pad with ventral circummarginal grooves; subarticular tubercles prominent and conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum narrow, notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum smooth, dorsolateral folds prominent in form of granules; small tubercles posteroventrally to tympanum, distinct granules on flanks and dorsum to cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Dorsum green (livid blue), flanks brown (brown) and green (gray), each a prominent white spot; granules of dorsolateral fold golden (white); lip­stripe white (silvery white) from nostril to above insertion of arm; tympanum dark brown; loreal region dark brown (black); dorsal surfaces of limbs mottled brown and yellow with indistinct dark brown (black) transverse bands; posterior surface of thighs yellow with brown (black) mottling; webbing marbled white (translucent) and dark brown; venter creamy white; iris golden, pupil outlined in a striking yellow and red border.</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS: Gravid females have immaculate white eggs. They are approximately 1.5 times larger than males. Males have a proportionally smaller tympanum than females (TMP:EYE for males 0.29, for females 0.45). The EYE:SNT is also greater in females (0.72) than it is in males (0.51). Males have velvety nuptial pads extending across thumb, and paired gular pouches located at the angles of the jaw. Pectoral spines are absent.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 55.7; SNT 7.8; HDL 25.4; HDW 18.8; EYE 5.6; IOD 5.6; TMP 2.3; TEY 2.4; HND 15.5; FGR 13.9; FPL 2.8; FPW 2.8; TIB 33.6; FTL 47.0; TPL 2.3; TPW 1.9.</p> <p>VARIATION OF PARATYPES: The loreal region on some specimens varies from dark brown to green. The large white spot on the flanks is sometimes accompanied by smaller ones. Flanks also have varying degrees of white mottling. The venter of some specimens has light mottling on the chest and chin. Variation in all type material is given in table 15.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF FEMALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 8, ROM 38500, 38503, 38507, 38512, 38516, 38517, 38526, 38530): SVL 55.0 ± 1.2 (53.3–57.6); SNT 7.3 ± 0.5 (6.8– 8.3); HDL 17.8 ± 1.6 (16.7–19.4); HDW 17.2 ± 0.6 (15.6–17.6); EYE 5.8 ± 0.4 (5.3– 6.4); IOD 10.0 ± 1.7 (10.0–11.3); TMP 2.5 ± 0.2 (2.3–3.0); FPW 2.3 ± 0.3 (1.8–2.8); TIB 34.3 ± 1.3 (32.7–36.4); TPW 2.3 ± 0.3 (1.8–2.8).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF MALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 7, ROM 26383, 26386, 26387, 26389, 26390, 26392, 26394): SVL 36.2 ± 1.2 (34.8–38.1); SNT 4.5 ± 0.4 (4.0–4.9); HDL 18.4 ± 1.7 (16.5–21.0); HDW 12.3 ± 0.6 (11.1–13.0); EYE 4.2 ± 0.6 (3.2–5.2); IOD 3 ± 0.4 (2.3–3.6); TMP 1.1 ± 0.2 (1.0– 1.9); TEY 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.2–1.0); HND 10.1 ± 0.6 (9.0–11.1); FGR 9.0 ± 0.3 (8.5–9.6); FPL 1.7 ± 0.3 (1.2–2.0); FPW 2.0 ± 0.2 (1.7–2.2); TIB 22.1 ± 1.3 (19.1–23.5); FTL 29.7 ± 4.4 (27.1–40.4); TPL 1.6 ± 0.2 (1.2– 1.7); TPW 1.4 ± 0.1 (1.2–1.6).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: The specific name is a patronym for the –Dao people (pronounced ‘‘zao’’) of northern Vietnam.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: This species is known from the vicinity of Sa Pa village, Lao Cai Province in northern Vietnam. The photograph of a froglet of R. livida (in Karsen et al., 1998) also documents the occurrence of R. daorum in Hong Kong. The distinctive granular dorsolateral fold of R. daorum is clearly visible in the misidentified frog.</p> <p>In early May, male Vietnamese R. daorum are actively calling by 1000 hours on partially submerged rocks in cascades as well as in vegetation adjacent to the streams. Females, although not as common, can be found slightly farther away from streams in more dense vegetation. One male (ROM 26394) was found in amplexus with the holotype (fig. 6E).</p> <p>REMARKS: Rana daorum differs substantially from R. graminea (Boulenger, 1899; Bourret, 1942) despite having a dorsolateral fold. Its small, forked xiphisternum differs from the large, deeply notched element of other members in the Rana chloronota complex and the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990) and more closely resembles that of male Huia nasica (Yang, 1991b). Huia nasica shares range, habitat and morphological similarities with the Rana chloronota complex: greatly expanded finger and toe disks, tremendous sexual dimorphism in size, white eggs, paired gular pouches, and a high chirplike call (Boulenger, 1920; Pope, 1931; Bourret, 1942).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E006EFFC9FA6DDB51FCE41BBC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E006CFFC5FA76DC61FD941B68.text	03EF403E006CFFC5FA76DC61FD941B68.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana hmongorum BAIN & LATHROP & MURPHY & ORLOV & CUC 2003	<div><p>Rana hmongorum, new species</p> <p>(Previously referred to as species 3, ‘‘Speckled’’)</p> <p>Figures 14A, 12I, J, 13D</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: (ROM field no. 19055) ROM 26376 an adult female approximately 5 km NW of Sa Pa village, near O Qui Ho Pass, Lao Cai Province, Vietnam (22°20̍09̎N, 103°50̍14̎E, elevation 1400 m) collected 30 April 1995 by A. Lathrop and B. Hubley between 1900 and 2100 hours. The holotype had leg and liver tissue removed shortly after it was euthanised.</p> <p>PARATYPES: ROM 26370–26375, 26377– 26380, 39235, and 39236 collected in the vicinity of the holotype between 9 and 12 May 1995 by A. Lathrop and B. Hubley. ROM 26380, 39235, and 39236 are males and the remainder females. Additional specimens from the vicinity of the type locality include AMNH A­161480 collected on 27 August 1997 by D.R. Frost and C.J. Raxworthy, and ROM 39867–39896 (22°20̍58̎N, 103°46̍14̎E, elevation 1900 m) collected between 30 April and 2 May 1999 by R.O. de Sa´, C.T. Ho, A. Lathrop, T. Mason, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. Male specimens are ROM 39874–39879, 39888, and 39890–39894; juveniles and subadults ROM 39867, 39868, 39880, 39895, and 39896; all others are females.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana hmongorum, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL means of males 59 mm (54–65 mm), females 80 mm (74– 87 mm); (3) vomerine teeth in rows posteromedial to choanae; (4) lip­stripe yellow, indistinct, extending across upper lip, terminating in a row of glandules; (5) head broad, bluntly rounded in profile; (6) tympanum round, distinct, TMP:EYE in males (0.43) greater than females (0.31); (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin smooth with pustules becoming more pronounced laterally, pustules may form two dorsolateral lines resembling a fold, ventrum smooth; (9) dorsum and forearms green with black spots, flanks reddish brown with yellowish pustules, transverse bars on fore– and hindlimbs; (10) median callous pad on fingers II and III to proximal tubercle; (11) disks on fingers and toes moderately expanded (&lt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to disks, but as a fringe from distal subarticular tubercle of IV, lateral fringes on toes I and V to terminal phalanges, webbing brown­gray; (13) subarticular tubercles distinct, conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly; (16) males with nuptial pad; gular pouches and pectoral spines absent; (17) eggs white.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana hmongorum superficially resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. bacboensis, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. daorum, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis (table 12). The white eggs of R. hmongorum distinguish it from H. nasica, Rana andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri (all with white eggs with a melanic animal pole), and R. bacboensis (fully pigmented eggs). The dorsum and flanks with distinct pustules distinguishes R. hmongorum from all of the above species, except R. jingdongensis, and R. grahami; R. daorum has two distinct rows of granular dorsolateral folds. Absence of gular pouches further differentiates it from H. nasica, R. archotaphus, R. bacboensis, R. chloronota, R. daorum, R. graminea, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. schmackeri, and R. tiannensis. Rana hmongorum has an indistinct yellow lipstripe distinguishing it from all other cascade ranids above, except R. chalconota, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, and R. grahami. The presence of webbing to the base of the toe pad distinguishes R. hmongorum from R. leporipes (webbing to distal phalanx) and R. archotaphus. Larger females and the absence of an outer metatarsal tubercle further distinguish R. hmongorum from R. archotaphus (female SVL 59–62 mm) and R. chalconota (SVL 46–59 mm). Absence of ventral spines in males differentiates R. hmongorum from R. andersonii, R. grahami, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, and R. schmackeri. Rana sinica is further differentiated from R. hmongorum by its indistinct, skin­covered tympanum, the relative length of its digits (I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica, II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. hmongorum), and its rounded distal phalanges (T­ shaped in R. hmongorum). Huia nasica is different in that it has a smooth, olive­brown dorsum, a longer head and smaller size (67 mm vs.&gt; 75 mm for females, 44–49 mm vs. 54–59 for males). The small male of R. hmongorum further distinguishes it from R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. andersonii, and R. grahami (SVL 62–81 mm for R. jingdongensis, 70– 80 mm for R. andersonii, 66–84 mm for R. grahami). The relative length of fingers further distinguishes it from R. hainanensis (II &lt;IV &lt;I &lt;III) and R. hejiangensis (II &lt;I &lt;III &lt;IV).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF THE HOLOTYPE: ROM 26376, an adult female, head length greater than width (136%), head width 36% of SVL, length 49% of SVL; snout short, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw, rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile; eye large, prominent, 88% of snout length; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold indistinct, slight swelling above the tympanum; tympanum round, distinctly visible, separated from eye by distance equal to TMP, 26% of EYE. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately one­half its length.</p> <p>Forearms robust; fingers relatively short, slender, hands 25% of SVL, relative lengths of fingers II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III; ventromedial callous pad on fingers II and III to proximal tubercle, disks moderately expanded (&lt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size III&gt; IV&gt; I&gt; II, pad length (III) 85% of pad width; ventral circummarginal grooves on disks present; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 57% of SVL; foot length 40% of SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to disks, but as a fringe from distal subarticular tubercle of IV, lateral fringes on toes I and V to terminal phalanges; toes long, slender, with large, triangularly rounded disks, relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV k V, pad width (IV) 78% of pad length, ventral circummarginal grooves present; subarticular tubercles prominent and conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum smooth with large pustules, particularly on flanks, sacrum, and around cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Dorsum green (dark brown) and reddish brown (dark brown) with black spots. Sides reddish brown (gray) and yellow (cream), with some black spotting. Pustules on flanks yellowish white (creamy white), with black around the bases. Cloacal region dark brown (black). Lip­stripe creamy white (gray); dorsal surface of forearms with green (gray) patch; limbs mottled yellow (light brown) and brown (dark brown) with black transverse bands; anterior and posterior surfaces of thighs with brown (dark brown) marbling on yellow (cream); webbing uniformly brown; venter creamy white (creamy yellow). Iris greenish yellow or brown, pupil outlined with a yellow border.</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS: Holotype is a gravid female with white eggs, 2 mm diameter. Adult female SVL 135% that of males. Males have slightly larger tympanum than do females, and velvety nuptial pads on thumb. Paired gular pouches and pectoral spines absent. Venter of males varies from immaculate creamy white to darkly mottled brown (gray in preservative).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 86.8; SNT 11.1; HDL 42.3; HDW 31.1; EYE 9.7; IOD 6.4; TMP 2.5; TEY 3.9; HND 22.3; FGR 16.5; FPL 2.3; FPW 2.7; TIB 49.2; FTL 35.0; TPL 3.0; TPW 2.3.</p> <p>VARIATION OF PARATYPES: Pustules can sometimes form dorsolateral lines, which superficially resemble folds. Pustules can be white. Variation in all type material is given in table 15.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF FEMALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 9; ROM 26370–26375, 26377– 26379): SVL 80.2 ± 4.3 (74.3–86.8); SNT 11.0 ± 0.5 (10.1–11.7); HDL 38.8 ± 1.9 (37.0–41.0); HDW 29.8 ± 1.0 (29.2–31.3); EYE 9.3 ± 1.1 (7.6–10.8); IOD 7.0 ± 0.3 (6.4–7.3); TMP 2.9 ± 0.4 (2.5–3.3); TEY 3.0 ± 0.6 (2.1–3.9); HND 23.2 ± 1.3 (22.1– 25.6); FGR 18.6 ± 1.1 (16.5–19.6); FPL 3.0 ± 0.4 (2.3–3.4); FPW 2.6 ± 0.4 (2.0–3.1); TIB 47.6 ± 2.3 (43.1–49.2); FTL 39.6 ± 5.0 (35.0–48.3) TPL 2.8 ± 0.6 (2.0–3.5); TPW 2.4 ± 0.5 (1.9–3.3).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF MALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 12; ROM 26380, 30876, 39235, 39236, 39874, 39875, 39877, 39879, 39888, 39891, 39892; AMNH A­161480): SVL 59.4 ± 3.8 (54.7–65.3); SNT 9.4 ± 0.9 (8.7– 10.4); HDL 24.0 ± 3.0 (20.7–30.4); HDW 20.0 ± 1.2 (18.9–21.1); EYE 7.3 ± 0.5 (6.7– 8.3); IOD 5.3 ± 0.7 (4.3–6.5); TMP 3.0 ± 0.4 (2.4–3.7); TEY 2.5 ± 0.3 (2.2–3.0); HND 17.2 ± 1.4 (14.1–19.4); FGR 13.3 ± 1.2 (12.8–14.8); FPL 2.5 ± 0.5 (1.6–3.6); FPW 2.1 ± 0.6 (1.0–2.4); TIB 38.6 ± 4.5 (33.4–51.2); FTL 47.2 ± 5.7 (30.4–52.1); TPL 2.3 ± 0.4 (1.7–2.9); TPW 1.7 ± 0.4 (0.9–2.2).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: The specific name is a patronym for the Hmong (pronounced ‘‘huhmung’’) people, an ethnic group in the northern montane regions of Vietnam. Their assistance made it possible for us to document the fauna of Hoang Lien Mountains.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: This species is only known only from the vicinity of Mount Fan Si Pan at approximately 1900 m or above. Adults were found along the cascades of a waterfall and along the mossy slopes of a human­made culvert.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E006CFFC5FA76DC61FD941B68	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E0060FFC3F9A5DF05FBC21BF7.text	03EF403E0060FFC3F9A5DF05FBC21BF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana morafkai BAIN & LATHROP & MURPHY & ORLOV & CUC 2003	<div><p>Rana morafkai, new species</p> <p>(Previously referred to as species 5, ‘‘Mottled’’)</p> <p>Figures 12K, L, 13E, 14 B–D</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: (ROM field no. 7301) ROM 39932, a female from Tram Lap, An Khe District, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam (14°26̍39̎N, 108°32̍97̎E, elevation ca. 900 m) collected on 19 June 1996 by R.H. Bain, B. Hubley, A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. The holotype had leg and liver tissue removed shortly after it was euthanised.</p> <p>PARATYPES: ROM 39904–39911, 39930, 39934, 39937, 39947, and 39949 collected with the holotype between 15 and 19 June 1996 by R.H. Bain, B. Hubley, A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov; ROM 39904– 39011, and 39937 are males; the remainder are females. ROM 25094–25097, 25099, 25101, 25104 –25106, 25108–25111, all males collected in Buon Loi, An Khe District, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam (elevation 700–750 m) by I.S. Darevsky and N.L. Orlov on 11 November 1993.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana morafkai, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL means of males 43 mm (39–46 mm), females 88 (80–100 mm); (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) yellow­white lip­stripe extending across upper lip, terminating in glandule above insertion of arm; (5) head broad, bluntly rounded in profile; (6) tympanum round, relatively large, distinct, approximately 96% of eye length in males, 71% in females; (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin smooth or partly shagreened, becoming granular laterally, dorsolateral folds absent; (9) dorsum changing colors between day and night, usually bright green in daylight, brown at night sometimes with black spots; forelimbs and hindlimbs with transverse bars; (10) median callous pad on finger III to proximal tubercle; (11) disks on fingers and toes greatly enlarged (&gt;2× base of phalanges); (12) webbing on feet complete to base of disk in females, sometimes as a fringe on IV; in males to distal tubercle in males, lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges; webbing brown­gray; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle conical, indistinct; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum deeply notched posteriorly; (16) males with nuptial pads on thumb, paired gular pouches, pectoral spines absent; (17) eggs white.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana morafkai resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. bacboensis, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. daorum, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. hmongorum, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis (table 12). It differs from these cascade ranids (except R. chalconota) in having unique nocturnal and diurnal coloration, less distinct subarticular tubercles (all other species bear distinct subarticular tubercles), and a webbing pattern that is unique to each sex (females fully webbed to disk, males to distal subarticular tubercles). Female R. morafkai (SVL 80–100 mm) are considerably larger than female R. archotaphus (59–62 mm), R. chalconota (45–60 mm), R. daorum (55–58 mm), and R. sinica (holotype 66.6 mm). The presence of a large tympanum in the males (TMP:EYE 0.96) differentiates R. morafkai from H. nasica (0.5), R. andersonii (0.7), R. chloronota (0.57), R daorum (0.29), R. grahami (0.53), R. graminea (0.77), R. hainanensis (0.66), R. hmongorum (0.43), and R. hejiangensis (0.5). Its broadly rounded snout distinguishes R. morafkai from H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. schmackeri (obtusely pointed snouts in profile), R. graminea, and R. margaretae (distinctly depressed snouts). The presence of gular pouches differentiates male R. morafkai from those of R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. hainanensis, R. hmongorum, R. jingdongensis, R. hosii, and R. margaretae. The absence of dorsolateral folds distinguishes R. morafkai from R. chalconota, R. daorum, R. graminea, R. hosii, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, and R. margaretae (pustules on the dorsum of R. grahami and R. hmongorum sometimes form a dorsolateral fold). The absence of an outer metatarsal tubercle distinguishes R. morafkai from R. archotaphus and R. chalconota. The presence of completely white eggs differentiates it from R. bacboensis (black eggs), H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, and R. schmackeri (white eggs with a dark melanic pole). The absence of spinules on the venter distinguishes R. morafkai from R. andersonii, R. grahami, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae and R. schmackeri. Rana sinica differs from R. morafkai by its indistinct and skincovered tympanum (distinct and uncovered in R. morafkai), finger formula (I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica, II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. morafkai), rounded distal phalanges (T­ shaped in R. morafkai), and absence of a lip­stripe. Rana leporipes has small disks and white supratympanic folds, both distinguishing it from R. morafkai. The color pattern and skin texture of specimens of R. morafkai may be identical to those of R. chloronota; however, the pronounced sexual dimorphism in the tympanum size (TMP:EYE R. morafkai males 0.96; females 0.71) differentiates it from all Vietnamese populations of Rana chloronota except those from Na Hang (males 0.60, females 0.43).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF THE HOLOTYPE: An adult female (ROM 39932), head width 66% of length, length 50% of SVL; snout short, acutely rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw; eye large, prominent, 38% of snout length; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold curving posteroventrally from posterior corner of eye to a level above the insertion of the arm; tympanum round, distinctly visible, separated from eye by distance equal to TMP, 68% of EYE. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, oblique, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately two­thirds its length.</p> <p>Forearms moderately robust; fingers moderately short, slender, hands 21% of SVL, relative lengths of fingers II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, ventromedial callous pad on finger III to proximal tubercle, disks greatly expanded (&gt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, pad width (III) 90% of pad length, ventral circummarginal grooves present; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 62% of SVL; foot length 82% of SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to toe disk, lateral fringe on I and V to terminal phalanges, toes long, slender, with large, rounded, triangular disks, relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV k V, pad width (IV) 80% of pad length, each with ventral circummarginal grooves; subarticular tubercles prominent and conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum shagreened, light granulations laterally; dorsolateral folds absent; small tubercles posteroventrally to tympanum; prominent granules on flanks and around cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Green (livid blue, with dark spots); flanks yellow and gray (cream and gray) with some white mottling posteroventrally; lip­stripe yellowwhite (creamy white); loreal region brown (black); tympanum beige with dark brown central ring; limbs above brown with black transverse bands, below creamy yellow with black mottling; thighs marbled yellow and brown; cloacal region black; venter creamy white; iris golden, margin of pupil outlined in a striking yellow and red border.</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS: The holotype is a gravid female with creamy white eggs, 2 mm in diameter. Gravid females are approximately twice the SVL of males. Tympanum in males (TMP:EYE 0.96) is larger than in females (0.71). Webbing on females extends to disk, and only to distal subarticular tubercle in males. Males have velvety nuptial pads extending across the thumb, paired gular pouches located at the angle of the jaws, and pectoral spines absent.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 84.4; SNT 14.3; HDL 42.7; HDW 28.2; EYE 5.4; IOD 7.3; TMP 3.7; TEY 4.1; HND 18.0; FGR 14.0; FPL 3.0; FPW 2.7; TIB 52.6; FTL 68.7; TPL 2.9; TPW 2.3.</p> <p>VARIATION OF PARATYPES: The skin on the dorsum can be smooth or partly shagreened. These frogs are often brown at night, but diurnally they can become green over their entirely body or only dorsally. The dorsum is occasionally colored with black spots. Variation in all type material is given in table 15.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF FEMALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 4, ROM 39930, 39934, 39947, 39949): SVL 87.6 ± 6.9 (80.4–99.6); SNT 13.4 ± 1.7 (10.8–15.6); HDL 39.1 ± 2.4 (37.6–38.5); HDW 27.2 ± 1.1 (27.7–28.2); EYE 6.0 ± 0.9 (4.9–7.6); IOD 7.7 ± 0.9 (6.1–9.0); TMP 4.1 ± 0.7 (3.4–5.2); TEY 4.5 ± 1.9 (3.2–8.3); HND 18.8 ± 2.2 (16.7– 21.9); FGR 15.0 ± 2.5 (12.2–18.1); FPL 3.5 ± 0.4 (2.8–3.9); FPW 3.0 ± 0.3 (2.7–3.5); TIB 53.5 ± 4.7 (47.4–61.5); FTL 63.0 ± 11.3 (43.3–76.1) TPL 3.1 ± 0.3 (2.5–3.5); TPW 2.9 ± 0.5 (2.3–3.7).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF MALE PARATYPES (in mm, n =14, ROM 25094–25097, 25099, 25101, 25104–25106, 25108–25111, 39937): SVL 43.2 ± 1.7 (39.2–45.9); SNT 6.8 ± 0.4 (6.2–7.8); HDL 21.3 ± 0.8 (20.5–22.4); HDW 13.8 ± 1.0 (13.2–15.5); EYE 3.5 ± 0.5 (2.5–4.5); IOD 3.9 ± 0.4 (3.2–4.8); TMP 3.3 ± 0.3 (2.8–4.0); TEY 1.2 ± 0.3 (0.8– 1.8); HND 11.8 ± 1.4 (9.0–15.6); FGR 9.6 ± 0.8 (7.9–12.0); FPL 1.8 ± 0.3 (1.16–2.3); FPW 1.6 ± 0.2 (1.4–2.0); TIB 26.0 ± 1.5 (22.8–28.4); FTL 27.1 ± 7.7 (17.5–40.9); TPL 1.7 ± 0.2 (1.3–2.0); TPW 1.3 ± 0.1 (1.1–1.7).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: The specific name honors David Joseph Morafka, Research Associate of the Royal Ontario Museum and California Academy of Sciences, in recognition of his unfailing friendship, his unselfish development and perpetuation of multiple, independent research programs, and for his catapulting the careers of many conservation biologists.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: Rana morafkai is known only from the Tay Nguyen Plateau of the Central Highlands, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam. It inhabits forested montane river systems. Specimens may be found on or near rapids or waterfalls. In at least May and June, male specimens may have distended gular pouches, indicating that this species breeds in spring.</p> <p>REMARKS: This species has been previously referred to as R. livida by Inger and Chanard (1997) and Inger et al. (1999).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E0060FFC3F9A5DF05FBC21BF7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E0066FFDFFA62DFACFC451FFA.text	03EF403E0066FFDFFA62DFACFC451FFA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana banaorum BAIN & LATHROP & MURPHY & ORLOV & CUC 2003	<div><p>Rana banaorum, new species</p> <p>(Previously referred to as species 6, ‘‘Southern Big Eye’’)</p> <p>Figures 12M, N, 13F, 14E, F</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: (ROM field no. 7145) ROM 39944, an adult female from Tram Lap, An Khe District, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam (14°26̍39̎N, 108°32̍97̎E), elevation ca. 900 m, collected on 15 June 1996 by R.H. Bain, A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. The holotype had leg and liver tissue removed shortly after it was euthanised.</p> <p>PARATYPES: Four males (ROM 39912– 39913, 39915–39916) and eight females (ROM 39899–39901, 39928, 39929, 39931, 39936, and 39941) collected with holotype between 15 and 29 June 1996 by R.H. Bain, A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. ROM 39716–39720, 39920 –39922, and 39924–39926 (males); 39942 (subadult) from the Cha River, Buon Loi, An Khe District, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam (elevation ca. 900 m), collected on 27 June 1996 by R.H. Bain and N.L. Orlov. ROM 39700, and 39702–39705 males from Krong Pa, An Khe District, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam (14°20̍29̎ N, 108°28̍46̎E, elevation 850 m), collected on 13–25 August 1997 by C.T. Ho, A. Lathrop, L.A. Lowcock, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. ROM 25084–25086, 25100, 25102, and 25103 (males) collected from Buon Loi, An Khe District, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam (elevation ca. 700–750 m), 5 November 1993 by I.S. Darevsky and N.L. Orlov.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana banaorum, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL means of males 50 mm (42–55 mm), females 93 mm (83–99 mm); (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) white lip­stripe extending across upper lip, terminating in glandule above insertion of arm; (5) head broad, bluntly rounded in profile; (6) tympanum round, distinct, very large, TMP:EYE in males (0.89) greater than females (0.75); (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin shagreened, becoming granular laterally, with slight dorsolateral folds; (9) dorsum usually brown with yellow and black spots, sometimes green with black spots; legs brown, lightly banded; (10) median callous pad on fingers II, and III to proximal tubercle; (11) disks on fingers and toes greatly enlarged (&gt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to disks, except medial side of IV, where it reaches disk as a fringe, lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges, webbing brown; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, conical; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly; (16) males with nuptial pads, paired gular pouches, pectoral spines absent; (17) eggs white.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Among Asian cascade ranids, R. banaorum is most similar to sympatric R. morafkai and particularly R. chloronota but it can be anatomically distinguished from both by its dorsolateral folds (table 12). Rana banaorum can further be distinguished from R. morafkai by its larger males (SVL 42–55 mm, versus 39–45 mm). Some Rana banaorum males have indistinct, microscopic spinules on the dorsal surface of the leg extending to the feet, forming a ‘‘saw­tooth’’ formation along the lateral edge of toe V, which is present only to a slight degree or absent in R. chloronota. Its broad, rounded snout differs from the obtusely pointed snouts of H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. chalconota, and R. schmackeri and from the depressed snouts of R. graminea and R. margaretae. A white lip­stripe differentiates R. banaorum from R. andersonii, R. bacboensis, R. grahami, R. hainanensis, R. hmongorum, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, R. sinica, R. schmackeri, and R. tiannensis. The gular pouches of R. banaorum distinguish it from R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. hainanensis, R. hmongorum, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, and R. margaretae. The dorsolateral folds of R. banaorum distinguish it from H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. bacboensis, R. chloronota, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. morafkai, R. livida, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis; the dorsolateral folds of R. daorum are composed of distinct white granules, and dorsolateral pustules sometimes form folds on R. grahami and R. hmongorum. The absence of an outer metatarsal tubercle immediately differentiates R. banaorum from R. archotaphus and R. chalconota. The presence of white eggs differentiates R. banaorum from R. bacboensis (black eggs), Huia nasica, R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae and R. schmackeri (white eggs with a dark melanic pole). The absence of spinules on the venter distinguishes R. banaorum from R. andersonii, R. grahami, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, and R. schmackeri. Rana banaorum further differs from Huia nasica by its larger females (83–99 mm vs. 67 mm in H. nasica). It is further differentiated from R. sinica by its uncovered, distinct tympanum (indistinct, covered by skin in R. sinica), large disks (small in R. sinica) and its relative finger lengths (I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica, II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. banaorum) and T­ shaped distal phalanges (rounded in R. sinica). Rana leporipes further differs from R. banaorum with its white supratympanic fold (not colored in R. banaorum), webbing to distal phalanges (webbing to disks in R. banaorum), and T­ shaped distal phalanges (oblong, somewhat rounded in R. leporipes).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: ROM 39944, an adult female, head width 78% head length, length 46% SVL; snout short, acutely rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw; eye large, prominent, 50% snout length; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold curving posteroventrally from posterior corner of eye to a level above the insertion of arm; tympanum very large, round, distinctly visible, separated from eye by distance equal to TMP, 80% of eye length. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, oblique, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately two­thirds its length.</p> <p>Forearms moderately robust; fingers moderately short, slender, hands 23% SVL, relative finger lengths II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, ventromedial callous pad on fingers II and III to proximal tubercle, disks greatly expanded (&gt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, pad length (III) 94% of pad width, ventral circummarginal grooves present; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 65% SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet very large, 82% of SVL, fully webbed to terminal phalanges except the inner side of IV where the webbing reaches the disk as a fringe; lateral fringe on toes I and V to terminal phalanges; toes long, slender, with large, rounded triangular disks; relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV&gt; V, pad length (IV) equals pad width; each pad with ventral circummarginal grooves; subarticular tubercles prominent and conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum shagreened, with small pustules on flanks; dorsolateral folds weak; small tubercles posteroventral to tympanum; prominent granules on flanks and around cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly, at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Dark brown (olive­brown, beige), flanks gray with yellow spots (white spots); lip­stripe brown anteriorly and creamy white from level of the eye posteriorly (white); loreal dark brown (black); tympanum beige with dark brown central ring; iris golden brown; dorsal limbs grayish brown with black banding; cloacal region dark brown (black); webbing marbled white on dark brown (uniformly brown); venter creamy white, ventral surfaces of limbs creamy yellow with black mottling.</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS: The holotype is a gravid female with immaculate white eggs (2 mm in diameter). Gravid females have an SVL nearly twice that of males (mean SVL female, 93 mm; male 50 mm). Male TMP:EYE (0.89) is larger than females (0.75). Males have velvety nuptial pads on the thumb and paired gular pouches located at the angle of jaw. Pectoral spines are absent.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 98.0; SNT 13.5; HDL 45.4; HDW 35.6; EYE 6.8; IOD 7.4; TMP 5.4; TEY 4.7; HND 22.7; FGR 19.4; FPL 3.1; FPW 3.3; TIB 63.7; FTL 80.0; TPL 3.4; TPW 3.4.</p> <p>VARIATION OF PARATYPES: The skin on the dorsum varies from smooth to shagreened with small pustules on flanks. The lip­stripe varies from creamy yellow (white in alcohol) throughout its length to brown anteriorly and creamy white from the level of the eye posteriorly. The dorsal skin is variable from light green to dark brown (olive, brown, beige, or livid blue in alcohol) with or without large black spots. Variation in all type material is given in table 15.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF FEMALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 8, ROM 39899–39901, 39928, 39929, 39931, 39936, and 39941): SVL 92.7 ± 5.6 (83.4–98.7); SNT 13.8 ± 1.6 (12.4– 16.8); HDL 43.8 ± 3.2 (37.5–48.8); HDW 30.6 ± 1.5 (26.7–33.4); EYE 6.1 ± 0.7 (4.7– 6.9); IOD 8.2 ± 0.9 (6.8–10.1); TMP 4.5 ± 0.6 (3.5–5.6); TEY 4.5 ± 0.6 (3.5–5.2); HND 22.3 ± 2.8 (17.5–25.0); FGR 18.2 ± 2.8 (12.9–20.8); FPL 3.4 ± 0.4 (2.8–4.3); FPW 3.1 ± 0.2 (2.8–3.5); TIB 58.1 ± 3.2 (52.7–63.7); FTL 68.0 ± 7.0 (58.3–78.0) TPL 3.4 ± 0.6 (2.3–4.3); TPW 2.8 ± 0.4 (2.4–3.4).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF MALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 14, ROM 25084–25086, 25100, 25102, 25103, 39912, 39913, 39915, 39916, 39920–39922, 39924): SVL 50.5 ± 3.7 (42.5–54.6); SNT 7.4 ± 1.5 (3.1–8.7); HDL 26.1 ± 1.4 (24.6–28.1); HDW 17.4 ± 0.6 (17.8–18.3); EYE 4.0 ± 0.5 (3.1–5.1); IOD 3.8 ± 0.4 (3.4–4.7); TMP 3.5 ± 0.6 (2.0– 4.7); TEY 1.7 ± 0.6 (0.9–3.6); HND 14.0 ± 1.2 (11.8–16.0); FGR 11.1 ± 1.1 (9.2–12.7); FPL 1.9 ± 0.3 (1.4–2.6); FPW 1.6 ± 0.2 (1.4–2.0); TIB 30.6 ± 4.6 (24.1–43.6); FTL 32.6 ± 6.8 (23.3–42.7); TPL 1.9 ± 0.4 (1.3– 2.4); TPW 1.5 ± 0.3 (1.1–2.1).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: The specific name is a patronym for the Ba Na people, an ethnic group living on the Tay Nguyen Plateau (Central Highlands) of south­central Vietnam where this species occurs.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: Rana banaorum is known only from the Tay Nguyen Plateau of the Central Highlands, Gia Lai Province, Vietnam. It inhabits forested montane river systems on or near rapids or waterfalls of primary and disturbed second growth. In May and June males have tight, leathery gular pouches, suggesting that they are not calling and that the breeding season occurs during some other time.</p> <p>REMARKS: Inger and Chanard (1997) and Inger et al. (1999) noted that specimens of Rana chloronota (as R. livida) from An Khe have more pronounced dorsolateral folds than elsewhere in Vietnam. These frogs do not fit Bourret’s (1942) interpretation of R. graminea as a ‘‘northern variety’’ of R. chloronota. These differences likely reflect the occurrence of three sympatric species of the R. chloronota complex from this region. Some male R. banaorum have indistinct, microscopic spinules on the dorsal surface of the leg extending to the feet, forming a ‘‘saw­tooth’’ formation along the lateral edge of toe (seen in FMNH specimens that are not part of the type series).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E0066FFDFFA62DFACFC451FFA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E007AFFDAFB9CDBAEFDA21892.text	03EF403E007AFFDAFB9CDBAEFDA21892.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana megatympanum BAIN & LATHROP & MURPHY & ORLOV & CUC 2003	<div><p>Rana megatympanum, new species</p> <p>(Previously referred to as species 7, ‘‘Large’’) Figures 12O, P, 13G, 14G, H</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: (ROM field no. 12999) ROM 39684, a gravid adult female from Khe Moi River, approximately 24 km west of Con Cuong village (by road), Con Cuong District, Nghe An Province, Vietnam (18°56̍30̎N, 104°48̍35̎E) found between 24 and 29 October 1994 by I.S. Darevsky, L.A. Lowcock, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. The holotype had leg and liver tissue removed shortly after it was euthanised.</p> <p>PARATYPES: Eight females (ROM 39263, 39685–39691) collected with holotype between 24 and 29 October 1994 by I.S. Darevsky, L.A. Lowcock, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov. Four males (ROM 39237–39240) from Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam (22°21̍54̎N, 105°25̍40̎E) found along waterfalls between 26 and 27 May 1996 by A. Lathrop and R.W. Murphy between 193 and 0200 hours. ROM 26398– 26400 Con Cuong District, Nghe An Province, Vietnam (18°56̍30̎N, 104°48̍35̎E), collected 5 June 1995 by B. Hubley, A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and N.L. Orlov.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Rana megatympanum, a member of the subgenus Odorrana (sensu Fei et al., 1990), is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL means of males 52 mm (48–55 mm), females 100 mm (93–105 mm); (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) yellow lip­stripe present in males, absent or indistinct in females; (5) head broad, bluntly rounded in profile; (6) tympanum round, distinct, TMP:EYE in males enormous (1.20), greater than in females (0.51); (7) supratympanic fold weak; (8) dorsal skin shagreened, dorsolateral folds present only in males; (9) dorsum olive to brown sometimes with black spots; flanks marbled yellow and brown­gray; forelimbs and hindlimbs barred; (10) ventromedial callous pad on fingers II, III, and IV to proximal tubercle, fringes on fingers II, III, and IV; (11) disks on fingers and toes greatly enlarged (&gt;2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to toe disk, lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges, webbing brown; (13) subarticular tubercles and an internal metatarsal tubercle distinct, conical; (14) terminal phalanges T­ shaped; (15) xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly; (16) males with nuptial pads, paired gular pouches, pectoral spines absent; (17) eggs white.</p> <p>COMPARISONS: Rana megatympanum superficially resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica, Rana andersonii, R. archotaphus, R. bacboensis, R. banaorum, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. daorum, R. grahami, R. graminea, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. hmongorum, R. hosii, R. morafkai, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. livida, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis (table 12). It can be differentiated from all other Odorrana by the enormous sexual dimorphism in tympanum size (TMP:EYE 1.20 in males, 0.51 in females). Male R. megatympanum have a yellow lip­stripe and females have an indistinct or absent yellow lip­stripe, differentiating it from H. nasica, R. archotaphus, R. banaorum, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. daorum, R. graminea, R. hejiangensis, R. hosii, R. morafkai, R. leporipes, and R. livida (all with white lip­stripes); R. andersonii, R. bacboensis, R. hainanensis, R. jingdongensis, R. margaretae, and R. tiannensis have vertical lip­bars; R. junlianensis has a yellow lipstripe with brown lip­bars; R. schmackeri has no lip­stripe or vertical lip­bars. The broad, rounded snout differentiates R. megatympanum from H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. chalconota, and R. schmackeri (obtusely pointed) and from R. graminea and R. margaretae (depressed). Its gular pouches distinguish R. megatympanum from R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. hainanensis, R. hmongorum, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, and R. margaretae. Dorsolateral folds immediately differentiate male R. megatympanum from R. andersonii, R. bacboensis, R. chloronota, R. hainanensis, R. hejiangensis, R. morafkai, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. livida, R. schmackeri, R. sinica, and R. tiannensis. The dorsolateral fold of male R. megatympanum differs from that of R. daorum, which is composed of minute white granules, R. hmongorum and R. grahami, whose dorsolateral pustules sometimes form a dorsolateral fold, and R. banaorum and R. chalconota, which have folds that are distinct and continuous, extending to the groin. The olive brown coloration with black spots of R. megatympanum differentiates it from H. nasica (olive­brown dorsum, lighter brown laterally) and from R. archotaphus, R. chalconota, R. chloronota, R. daorum, R. graminea, R. hejiangensis, R. hmongorum, R. hosii, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. kwangwuensis, R. leporipes, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri, R. sinica (all with green). Rana megatympanum lacks an external metatarsal tubercle present in R. archotaphus and R. chalconota. Absence of ventral spines in male R. megatympanum separates them from R. andersonii, R. grahami, R. jingdongensis, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, and R. schmackeri. The presence of white eggs differentiates R. megatympanum from H. nasica, R. andersonii, R. chalconota, R. grahami, R. junlianensis, R. margaretae, R. schmackeri (white eggs with melanic poles), and R. bacboensis (eggs completely melanic). Rana megatympanum differs from R. sinica by its distinct, uncovered tympanum (indistinct and covered with a layer of skin in R. sinica), its disk size (small in R. sinica), its relative finger lengths (I &lt;II &lt;IV for R. sinica, II &lt;I &lt;IV for R. megatympanum), and its T­ shaped distal phalanges (rounded in R. sinica). Rana megatympanum can be distinguished from R. leporipes by its webbing (only to the basal end of the distal phalanx in R. leporipes, to the disk in R. megatympanum), supratympanic fold (colored white in R. leporipes), and its T­ shaped distal phalanges (oblong, somewhat rounded in R. leopripes). Rana megatypmanum also differs from R. hejiangensis by its finger formula (II &lt;I &lt;III &lt;IV for R. hejiangensis), and by its large disks (small for R. hejiangensis). Rana megatympanum closely resembles R. andersonii, R. hainanensis, R. jingdongensis, and R. tiannensis. In addition, R. megatympanum differs from R. andersonii in that its males are smaller (53–78 mm for males of R. andersonii), and its finger and toe­disks are relatively larger. Rana megatympanum differs from R. hainanensis in its smaller SVL (R. hainanensis males 49–62 mm, females 75–122 mm, R. megatympanum males 48–55 mm, females 93–105 mm) and its relative finger lengths (II &lt;IV &lt;I &lt;III for R. hainanensis, II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III for R. megatympanum). Rana megatympanum further differs from R. jingdongensis by its smaller males (R. jingdongensis SVL 62–81 mm) and skin (R. jingdongensis dorsum scattered with tubercles and large warts, lips and sides of heads with white spines, all absent in R. megatympanum). Rana megatympanum most closely resembles R. tiannensis, another large brown cascade ranid, but differs from it by having shagreened dorsal skin with small lateral granulations (dorsum of R. tiannensis is rough with large, prominent lateral granulations), and toe disks are smaller than those on fingers (the opposite condition of R. tiannensis).</p> <p>DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: ROM 39684, a gravid female, head width 77% of head length, length 50% of SVL; snout short, acutely rounded in dorsal view, bluntly rounded in profile, protruding beyond margin of lower jaw; eye very large, prominent, 73% of snout length; eyelid broader than interorbital distance. Top of head flat; canthus rostralis rounded; loreal region concave; lip flared just anterior to orbit; nostril about three­fourths distance from eye to tip of snout; supratympanic fold curving posteroventrally from posterior corner of eye to a level above the insertion of arm; tympanum round, distinctly visible, separated from eye by distance equal to TMP, 52% of EYE. Choanae ovoid; vomerine dentigerous processes prominent, oblique, posteromedial to choanae, each bearing numerous teeth. Tongue cordiform, distinctly notched posteriorly, free for approximately two­thirds its length.</p> <p>Forearms moderately robust; fingers moderately short, slender, hands 27% of SVL, relative lengths of fingers II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, lateral fringes on finger II, III, and IV, with median callous pads to proximal tubercle; disks greatly expanded (&gt;2× base of phalanges), relative pad size II &lt;I &lt;IV &lt;III, pad width (III) 87% of pad length, ventral circummarginal grooves present; terminal phalanges T­ shaped; subarticular tubercles conical. Hindlimbs moderately robust; tibia length 69% of SVL; foot length 53% of SVL; relative toe lengths I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; inner tarsal fold absent; feet fully webbed to base of toe pads, lateral fringes on I and V to terminal phalanges; toes long, slender, with large, rounded triangular disks, relative pad size I = II = III&gt; IV k V, pad width (IV) 75% of pad length, each with ventral circummarginal grooves; subarticular tubercles prominent and conical; inner metatarsal tubercle ovoid, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p> <p>Xiphisternum large, deeply notched posteriorly.</p> <p>Skin on dorsum shagreened, becoming increasingly granular laterally; dorsolateral folds absent; small tubercles posteroventral to tympanum; prominent granules on flanks and around cloaca; cloacal opening unmodified, directed posteriorly, at upper level of thighs.</p> <p>COLOR IN LIFE (in preservative): Dorsum olive­brown, flanks yellow and brown­gray (gray to olive); lip­stripe absent (tympanum beige with dark brown center ring); loreal brown (black); iris gold; top one­third red, dorsal limbs brown with black banding (brown); posterior surface of thighs brown with black marbling (cloacal region black, thighs gray with white mottling); webbing marbled white on dark brown (brown on white); venter creamy white (creamy yellow with black mottling).</p> <p>SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS: The eggs of the holotype are creamy white and 2 mm in diameter. Adult females have SVL approximately twice that of males. Males have a yellow lip­stripe, and females either lack one or have an indistinctly yellow lip. Males also possess a weak dorsolateral fold, whereas females do not. Males have a larger tympanum than females, velvety nuptial pads extending across the thumb, paired gular pouches located at the angle of the jaw, and no pectoral spines.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF HOLOTYPE (in mm): SVL 93.6; SNT 15.0; HDL 46.5; HDW 35.7; EYE 10.8; IOD 6.8; TMP 5.6; TEY 4.1; HND 25.7; FGR 19.6; FPL 3.0; FPW 2.6; TIB 65.0; FTL 49.7; TPL 3.2; TPW 2.4.</p> <p>VARIATION OF PARATYPES: Variation in all type material is given in table 15.</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF FEMALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 10, ROM 26398–26400, 39685– 39691): SVL 100.3 ± 4.2 (93.6–105.3); SNT 14.8 ± 0.8 (13.8–16.5); HDL 45.1 ± 3.3 (41.3–47.6); HDW 35.2 ± 0.7 (34.1–35.7); EYE 10.2 ± 0.7 (9.3–11.6); IOD 8.8 ± 1.0 (6.8–10.0); TMP 5.3 ± 0.4 (4.6–5.9); TEY 4.7 ± 0.3 (4.1–5.0); HND 25.2 ± 2.5 (20.6– 29.7); FGR 21.0 ± 1.0 (19.6–22.6); FPL 3.5 ± 0.6 (2.8–4.4); FPW 3.0 ± 0.5 (2.5–3.8); TIB 63.0 ± 3.3 (55.8–67.7); FTL 72.0 ± 12.1 (49.7–88.0) TPL 3.4 ± 1.0 (1.9–5.2); TPW 2.8 ± 0.4 (2.2–3.4).</p> <p>MEASUREMENTS OF MALE PARATYPES (in mm, n = 4, ROM 39237–39240): SVL 52.3 ± 3.4 (48.6–55.2); SNT 8.7 ± 0.8 (8.3–9.6); HDL 28.0 ± 1.4 (24.6–27.1); HDW 18.5 ± 0.8 (18.0–19.1); EYE 4.1 ± 0.9 (3.17–4.6); IOD 5.0 ± 0.5 (4.7–5.6); TMP 4.7 ± 0.3 (4.3–5.1); TEY 1.7 ± 0.3 (1.5–2.0); HND 15.2 ± 0.4 (14.8–15.5); FGR 12.5 ± 0.4 (12.2–13.0); FPL 2.0 ± 0.5 (1.6–2.5); FPW 1.9 ± 0.4 (1.4–2.3); TIB 32.7 ± 0.4 (32.3– 33.1); FTL 38.3 ± 7.3 (29.9–42.8) TPL 1.8 ± 0.6 (1.3–2.5); TPW 1.6 ± 0.1 (1.5–1.6).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: The specific name is a noun in opposition, derived from the Latin prefix ‘‘mega’’ (meaning very large) and ‘‘tympanum’’, in reference to the relatively large tympanum of this species.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY: Rana megatympanum is known from northern and north­central Vietnam. It occurs in montane rivers that vary from shallow and slow moving to torrential and deep. It may be found on boulders and logs, both in and around the water as well as in the adjacent forest. Radiographs revealed that large invertebrates (both insects and crustaceans) form part of the diet. Vocalizations and tadpoles are unknown.</p> <p>REMARKS: The dorsolateral fold and very large tympanum of male R. megatympanum potentially make it Bourret’s (1942) ‘‘northern form’’ of R. chloronota (= R. graminea). However, R. graminea is bright green above (Boulenger, 1899) in contrast to the olivebrown dorsum of R. megatympanum.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E007AFFDAFB9CDBAEFDA21892	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
03EF403E007FFFDBFBA2DAA6FD1F1A74.text	03EF403E007FFFDBFBA2DAA6FD1F1A74.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rana chloronota	<div><p>KEY TO VIETNAMESE SPECIES IN THE RANA CHLORONOTA COMPLEX</p> <p>The Rana chloronota complex in Vietnam includes species that are dorsoventrally compressed with long legs. Snout–vent length of females is approximately twice that of males (table 14). The dorsum may be green, brown, or a combination thereof; dorsum usually smooth, sometimes shagreened, often becoming more rugose laterally. Tympanum is distinct. Venter is entirely smooth. Legs with transverse bands or mottled with indistinct bands, posterior surface of thighs marbled yellow and black. An outer metatarsal tubercle is absent. Disks on fingers and toes well dilated, with ventral circummarginal grooves. Webbing is complete or nearly so, extending to most distal tubercle or to base of toe pad (as a fringe in some species). Males have velvety nuptial pads.</p> <p>VARIABLE CHARACTERS: Lip­stripe is present in most species and is usually white. Vomerine teeth, if present, are in rows oblique to the internal choanae. Males usually have paired gular pouches. Eggs completely pigmented or unpigmented.</p> <p>HABITAT: Ubiquitous throughout highland waterways of Southeast Asia. Found in and around water, including the forest floor and canopy of surrounding forests. Commonly found perched on rocks beside or among the cascades.</p> <p>1. Dorsolateral fold distinct, composed of small gold (white in preservative) granules; noticeably smaller than other cascade ranids (males 35 mm, females 55 mm), large white lateral spot, and vomerine teeth absent.............................. R. daorum</p> <p>– Dorsolateral fold not as above or granules absent.............................. 2</p> <p>2. Indistinct glandular dorsolateral folds present................................. 3</p> <p>– Dorsolateral folds absent............... 4</p> <p>3A. Lip­stripe indistinct yellow or absent in females, yellow in males; male tympanum 120% of eye length, 51% for females; skin completely shagreened, brown, and snout– vent length notably large (males 52 mm, females 100 mm)... R. megatympanum</p> <p>3B. White lip­stripe present in both males and females; dorsum green to olive, shagreened or incompletely smooth, flank gray; male tympanum 89% eye, females 75%; SVL males 50 mm, females 93 mm.......................... R. banaorum</p> <p>3C. Dorsum bright green with or without black spots, completely smooth; flank brownish; male tympanum 77% eye, females 56%; SVL males 46 mm, females 94 mm........................... R. graminea</p> <p>4. Dorsum completely smooth; dorsum bright green, vomerine teeth present, white lipstripe present, eggs immaculate, and SVL females 93 mm, males 46 mm............................. R. chloronota</p> <p>– Dorsum in part smooth and shagreened, or with heavy granulations............ 5</p> <p>5. Dorsum with heavy granulations; skin heavily granulated laterally and on pelvis, dorsum bright green with black spots, males without gular pouches, SVL females 80 mm, males 60 mm...................................... R. hmongorum</p> <p>– Dorsum shagreened or in part smooth... 6</p> <p>6. Black vertical bar on lip; dorsum shagreened, brown with some black spots, lip bands black, extend vertically across mandible, (white lip­stripe absent), webbing marbled white on dark brown to toes, eggs pigmented black, SVL 95 females, 55 mm males)................ R. bacboensis</p> <p>– No black vertical bar on lip; dorsum shagreened or incompletely smooth, color variable green to brown in daylight, changing to brown at night, white lip­stripe present, webbing brown, eggs immaculate white, SVL females 88 mm, males 43 mm........................... R. morafkai</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF403E007FFFDBFBA2DAA6FD1F1A74	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	BAIN, RAOUL H.;LATHROP, AMY;MURPHY, ROBERT W.;ORLOV, NIKOLAI L.;CUC, HO THU	BAIN, RAOUL H., LATHROP, AMY, MURPHY, ROBERT W., ORLOV, NIKOLAI L., CUC, HO THU (2003): Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species. American Museum Novitates 3417: 1-60, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
