Glyphoglossus Guenther , 1869

Gorin, Vladislav A., Scherz, Mark D., Korost, Dmitriy V. & Poyarkov, Nikolay A., 2021, Consequences of parallel miniaturisation in Microhylinae (Anura, Microhylidae), with the description of a new genus of diminutive South East Asian frogs, Zoosystematics and Evolution 97 (1), pp. 21-54 : 21

Glyphoglossus Guenther, 1869

Synonymy

(fide Frost 2020).

Glyphoglossus Günther, 1869 “1868”. Type species: Glyphoglossus molossus Günther, 1869 “1868,” by monotypy.

Calluella Stoliczka, 1872. Type species: Megalophrys guttulata Blyth, 1856 “1855,” by original designation.

Colpoglossus Boulenger, 1904. Type species: Colpoglossus brooksi Boulenger, 1904, by monotypy.

Dyscophina Van Kampen, 1905. Type species: Dyscophina volzi Van Kampen, 1905, by monotypy.

Calliglutus Barbour & Noble, 1916. Type species: Calliglutus smithi Barbour & Noble, 1916, by monotypy.

Kalluella Gee & Boring, 1929. Ex errore.

Etymology.

The genus name is derived from the Ancient Greek γλυφή ( gluphé), meaning "a carving," and Greek γλῶσσα (glossa), meaning “tongue.”

Common name.

Balloon Frogs.

Taxonomic content.

Nine species, including: G. brooksii (Boulenger, 1904); G. capsus (Das, Min, Hsu, Hertwig & Haas, 2014); G. flavus (Kiew, 1984); G. guttulatus (Blyth, 1856); G. minutus (Das, Yaakob & Lim, 2004); G. molossus Günther, 1869; G. smithi (Barbour & Noble, 1916); G. volzi (Van Kampen, 1905); and G. yunnanensis (Boulenger, 1919).

Revised diagnosis.

Glyphoglossus Günther, 1869 differs from other Microhylinae genera by the combination of the following osteological characters: (1) frontoparietals separated from exoccipitals (fused to them in G. molossus ); (2) exoccipitals separated from each other; (3) neopalatines obscured by a postchoanal portion of vomers; (4) sphenethmoids separated from parasphenoid; (5) crista parotica ossified; (6) otic ramus of squamosal well-developed; (7) tympanic annulus well-developed; (8) orientation of transverse processes of presacral vertebrae as follows: IV and V posterolateral, II, VII and VIII anterolateral, III and VI at right angle to body axis (in G. molossus IV posterolateral, II, VI-VIII anterolateral, III and V at right angle to body axis); (9) clavicles present (absent in G. molossus ); (10) omosternum absent; (11) prehallux ossified; (12) terminal phalanges of the longest finger and toe simple. The combination of diagnostic external morphological characters includes: (13) large to medium-sized frogs (adult SVL 30.9-94.9 mm); (14) snout rounded or bluntly flattened; (15) supratympanic fold present; (16) ridge on posterior margins of choanae poorly developed or absent; (17) first finger (FI) length greater than ½ FII; (18) discs on digits absent; (19) two metatarsal tubercles; (20) dorsomedial line absent; (21) superciliary tubercles absent; (22) tibiotarsal articulation of the adpressed hindlimb reaching eye or shorter; (23) toe webbing moderately developed (at least one-third webbed, in G. molossus three-quarters webbed); (24) skin on dorsum from feebly granular to tubercular; (25) external tympanum invisible; (26) fossorial microhabitat preference.

Phylogenetic definition.

The genus Glyphoglossus includes all species sharing a more recent common ancestor with Glyphoglossus molossus than with Microhyla achatina and Nanohyla annectens .

Distribution.

From south-western China across Indochina to Myanmar, Thai-Malay Peninsula, islands of Sumatra and Borneo (Fig. 1 ).

Taxonomic comment.

Until recently Glyphoglossus was considered to be a monotypic genus, until it was synonymized with Calluella based on phylogenetic data of Peloso et al. (2016). However, available phylogenetic studies ( Tu et al. 2018; Garg and Biju 2019; Gorin et al. 2020) have not all included comprehensive sampling of Sundaland species (e.g., C. volzi , C. smithi , C. flavus , and C. brooksi ). In our opinion, the variable taxonomic sampling included in previous analyses ( Matsui et al. 2011; Peloso et al. 2016; Tu et al. 2018; Garg and Biju 2019; Gorin et al. 2020) creates uncertainty which, along with the significant morphological disparity among G. molossus and the other species of Glyphoglossus examined (Parker et al. 1934), suggests that the generic taxonomy of the group may not be fully resolved.

Figures

Figure 1. Distribution ranges of the three clades of the Microhyla - Glyphoglossus assemblage. Distribution area of Microhyla I is shown in yellow, of Microhyla II in red, and of Glyphoglossus in blue. Distributional data from Gorin et al. (2020). Question mark denotes the unconfirmed record of " Microhyla annamensis " from Khao Sebab in eastern Thailand by Taylor (1962).