identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
C30487CAFFF1FFB1838AED5BFE544E1D.text	C30487CAFFF1FFB1838AED5BFE544E1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nanorana laojunshanensis Tang, Liu & Yu 2023	<div><p>The case of Nanorana laojunshanensis Tang, Liu &amp; Yu, 2023 and another new taxon of the genus.</p><p>Tang et al. (2023) described N. laojunshanensis from the Hengduan Mountains in Yunnan province, China, as the sister lineage of the lineage leading to Nanorana pleskei Günther, 1896 and Nanorana ventripunctata Fei &amp; Huang, 1985 . Morphologically, N. laojunshanensis exhibits a distinct combination of characteristics from known congeners, such as the presences of a tympanum, equal lengths of fingers I and II, a small body size, a yellow ventral surface of limbs, distinct vomerine teeth, indistinct subarticular tubercles, a head width greater than head length, slender supratympanic fold, the absence of the dorsolateral fold, the presence of nuptial spines on fingers I and II in adult males, the absence of a vocal sac, and paired brown spines on the chest. Within the nominal subgenus Nanorana, this new taxon is distinguished by indistinct subarticular tubercles and by “ lacking dark blotches on ventral surface and ventral surface of limbs yolk yellow ” (Tang et al. 2023).</p><p><a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Coincidently</a>, another species, Nanorana huangi Ji, Shi, Ma, Shen, Chang &amp; Jiang, 2023, was described from the exact same area and published by a different team (Ji et al., 2023) during the same period (<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Autumn</a> 2023). <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">The</a> type locality of N. huangi (26.874593° N, 99.544008° E; 3389 m a. s. l) is distanced by only about 30 km (by air line; Fig. 1C) from the type locality of N. laojunshanensis (<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Mt. Laojun</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Lijiang</a>, Yunnan, China; 26°37’ N, 99°42’ E, 3982 m a.s.l.) and both populations are morphologically similar. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">In</a> this respect, the morphological assessment of N. huangi is based on a greater sample size than N. laojunshanensis, and accordingly captures higher intraspecific variability (particularly for quantitative traits), which challenges the characteristics previously reported as diagnostic for N. laojunshanensis (e.g., body size, shape of supratympanic fold, coloration). <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Our</a> re-analysis of 16S and COI also reveals strong similarities, with both species sharing identical or closely related haplotypes (Fig. 1A, B) with low level of genetic diversity (π= 0.2 %), and we therefore consider N. huangi and N. laojunshanensis as subjective synonyms (Fig. 1A, B). <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Since</a> the description of N. huangi was published on September 28, 2023, [vs. November 7, 2023, for N. laojunshanensis], N. huangi is treated as the oldest available name. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">The</a> genetic distances highlighted by Tang et al. (2023) to justify the split of the new taxon from its closest relatives N. ventripunctata and N. pleskei, are relatively low, namely 1.6 % for 16S and 7.4 % for COI, suggesting a young divergence (see also comment in Dufresnes and Litvinchuk 2022). <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">These</a> distances are typically lower than those presented for other species of the genus at the same loci (i.e., Liu et al. 2021). <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">In</a> addition, the study lacks a comparative analysis for a nuclear, biparentally inherited marker alone, although sequences of the nuclear gene RAG1 were included. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=99.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=26.616667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 99.7/lat 26.616667)">Given</a> the relatively low observed genetic distances for the mtDNA markers, we expect the RAG1 variability in the investigated sequences between taxa to be also low. Here, we found little differentiation in RAG1 (for comparison with other species pairs, see Hofmann et al. 2023a), namely 0.18 % between N. laojunshanensis and N. pleskei, 0.43 % between N. laojunshanensis and N. ventripunctata, and 0.18 % between N. pleskei and N. ventripunctata (all individual sequences were homozygous). Besides, the sequence KY172605 specified by the authors in their RAG1 dataset is a tyrosinase fragment. Drawing from these points, we advise caution towards the distinction of N. huangi as a separate species (see the topology in Fig. 1) without additional genetic (ideally genomic) evidence. This example is paradigmatic of hasty species descriptions and represents a certain trend observed in current taxonomic research that is not always beneficial for taxonomy/species conservation itself.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C30487CAFFF1FFB1838AED5BFE544E1D	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	Daniel JABLONSKI;Sylvia HOFMANN	Daniel JABLONSKI, Sylvia HOFMANN (2024): Over-splitting and inconsistently applied criteria: a response to recent changes on the taxonomy of mountain spiny frogs (Dicroglossidae, Nanorana). Alytes 41 (1 - 4): 40-48, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16903363
C30487CAFFF7FFB083E4EA10FC174D1C.text	C30487CAFFF7FFB083E4EA10FC174D1C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nanorana minica (Dubois 1975)	<div><p>The case of Nanorana minica (Dubois, 1975)</p><p>as the new subgenus Minipaa Tang, Liu &amp; Yu, 2023</p><p>The up ranking of N. minica as its own subgenus, Minipaa, is inconsistent with the phylogenetic evidence. Depending on analysis, this taxon is alternatively placed within an unsupported clade that includes some but not all representatives of Chaparana, Paa Dubois, 1975, and Allopaa (16S tree), or as the sister lineage of the clade regrouping Paa and Nanorana (the concatenated four genes phylogeny). For lumping Allopaa into Chaparana and erect N. minica as a separate subgenus, Tang et al. (2023) used published genetic data (see their Fig. 4) and mention two morphological information for N. minica taken from the Ohler &amp; Dubois (2006), namely “ transculent or creamy nuptial spines and entirely whitish or creamy eggs, without colored animal pole.”. However, only 15 of the 34 known species of the genus Nanorana (and only 9 of 13 species of the subgenus Paa) have been evaluated at that time by Ohler &amp; Dubois (2006). Moreover, neither of those two features are included in the original description of N. minica . Whether these two characteristics are unique to N. minica thus remain to be demonstrated by investigating other spiny frogs. In addition, the molecular background of the new subgenus still requires confirmation because it remains unclear if the sequences attributed to N. minica in Tang et al. (2023) belong to this species. Thus, for reasons of taxonomic stability, N. minica should continue to be treated as member of the subgenus Paa (Ohler &amp; Dubois 2006) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C30487CAFFF7FFB083E4EA10FC174D1C	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	Daniel JABLONSKI;Sylvia HOFMANN	Daniel JABLONSKI, Sylvia HOFMANN (2024): Over-splitting and inconsistently applied criteria: a response to recent changes on the taxonomy of mountain spiny frogs (Dicroglossidae, Nanorana). Alytes 41 (1 - 4): 40-48, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16903363
C30487CAFFF7FFB1833BEDC7FC26494C.text	C30487CAFFF7FFB1833BEDC7FC26494C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Odorrana arunachalensis Saikia, Sinha & Kharkongor 2017	<div><p>The case of Odorrana arunachalensis Saikia, Sinha &amp; Kharkongor, 2017 in Nanorana</p><p>Reassigning this species to a different genus than Nanorana (where it was placed by Qi et al. 2019) was recently discussed by Hofmann et al. (2023 a), based on its phylogenetic position in a 16S mitochondrial tree and its high sequence differentiation (&gt;14 %) from any other Nanorana members. However, the type locality was not genetically assessed, and whether the analyzed vouchers correspond to this taxon deserves confirmation. Therefore, enforcing this species in Nanorana as Tang et al. (2023) suggested appears premature, and because its phylogenetic, and therefore taxonomic placement is unsettled, it would be correct and more parsimonious to classify this taxon as “ insertae sedis ”, and continue to refer to it as Odorrana arunachalensis Saikia, Sinha &amp; Kharkongor, 2017 (for more details see the discussion in Hofmann et al. 2023 a).</p><p>The case of Allopaa hazarensis (Dubois &amp; Khan, 1979) in subgenus Chaparana Bourret, 1939</p><p>In the 16S Bayesian phylogeny of Tang et al. (2023; Fig. 3), this taxon, endemic to northern Pakistan, branches (without support) as the sister lineage of Nanorana unculuanus (Liu, Hu, Yang, 1960) (subgenus Chaparana), noting that none of the known Nanorana subgenera form a monophyletic clade in this analysis. In their concatenated four genes phylogeny, A. hazarensis is robustly retrieved as the sister lineage of Chaparana . Based on these conflicting observations, Tang et al. (2023) present Allopaa as being lumped with Chaparana . However, the authors do not discuss this new arrangement, which otherwise appears superficial. According to Hofmann et al. (2021 a, 2023 a), the extremely disjunct distribution range ( Allopaa is the westernmost Himalayan taxon among Nanorana, while Chaparana members occur at the opposite side of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen), as well as the morphological data of Ohler &amp; Dubois (2006) on Allopaa, this taxon should continue to be treated as a separate subgenus of Nanorana (Hofmann et al. 2024) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C30487CAFFF7FFB1833BEDC7FC26494C	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	Daniel JABLONSKI;Sylvia HOFMANN	Daniel JABLONSKI, Sylvia HOFMANN (2024): Over-splitting and inconsistently applied criteria: a response to recent changes on the taxonomy of mountain spiny frogs (Dicroglossidae, Nanorana). Alytes 41 (1 - 4): 40-48, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16903363
C30487CAFFF6FFB08327EEC0FA9848BE.text	C30487CAFFF6FFB08327EEC0FA9848BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nanorana bangdaensis Rao, Hui, Zhu & Ma 2022	<div><p>The additional case of Nanorana bangdaensis Rao, Hui, Zhu &amp; Ma, 2022</p><p>In addition to the above-mentioned four cases, our re-analysis of the 16S data available on GenBank also offer the opportunity to discuss the status of the recently described N. bangdaensis Rao, Hui, Zhu &amp; Ma, 2022, which is nested within Nanorana parkeri (Stejneger, 1927) (Fig. 1A, D). Since the sequences of the latter originated from very different localities across the Tibetan Plateau (Fig. 1E), we suspect that N. bangdaensis might be conspecific with N. parkeri . This alpine species has been intensively studied by population genomics and standard single barcoding-gene approaches using sampling that covers its entire distribution range (Zhou et al. 2014, Wang et al. 2018). These studies revealed major populations [(E)ast and (W)est], defining them as evolutionarily significant units, and up to four subpopulations (E1-E4) with only low whole-genomic differentiation among them. A similar east-west population structure has been previously identified in the endemic Tibetan snake Thermophis baileyi (Wall, 1907) (Hofmann et al. 2014), consistent with a scenario of range expansion from different refugia during interglacial and post-glacial times. Since one of the eastern N. parkeri subpopulation (E4; KJ811207 and KJ811261) corresponds to the type locality of N. bangdaensis ( Bangda, [Baxoi County], Qamdo Prefecture, Tibet Autonomous Region, China), we used the COI-sequence data of N. bangdaensis and of the N. parkeri (sub)populations W and E1 ― E4, comprehended by N. bangdaensis / N. parkeri sequence data of Ji et al. (2023) and Tang et al. (2023), to assess their respective sequence divergence (Fig. 1D, E). As suspected, the COI sequences of N. bangdaensis are identical to sequences representatives of the East lineage of N. parkeri suggesting that N. bangdaensis and N. parkeri are weakly differentiated and likely belong to the same species. The lack of clear morphological diagnostic features further supports this assessment (https://www.amphibiachina.org as cited from Rao et al. 2020; original in Chinese: “ The length of the head is approximately equal to the width of the head; the tympanic membrane is not obvious; the skin on the back is smooth, with a few short warts or skin folds on the back; the back is gray-green in life, with no obvious dark spots; the sides of the body are light in color, mixed with irregular spots. ”). While examples of “super-cryptic species” (i.e., cryptic species that experienced a mitochondrial capture, thus necessitating nuclear data for their detection; Dufresnes et al. 2019) do exist, and notwithstanding the possibility for an unusually young speciation event, it appears more parsimonious to assume that N. bangdaensis is part of the high intraspecific variability of N. parkeri, and might either be synonymized or be distinguished as a subspecies (see genetic distances, Fig. 1D).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C30487CAFFF6FFB08327EEC0FA9848BE	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	Daniel JABLONSKI;Sylvia HOFMANN	Daniel JABLONSKI, Sylvia HOFMANN (2024): Over-splitting and inconsistently applied criteria: a response to recent changes on the taxonomy of mountain spiny frogs (Dicroglossidae, Nanorana). Alytes 41 (1 - 4): 40-48, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.16903363
