Feihyla hansenae (Cochran, 1927)

Hakim, Jonathan, Trageser, Scott J., Ghose, Animesh, Rashid, Sheikh Muhammad Abdur & Rahman, Shahriar Caesar, 2020, Amphibians and reptiles from Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh, Check List 16 (5), pp. 1239-1268 : 1247-1248

Feihyla hansenae (Cochran, 1927)

Figure 5B

Material examined. BANGLADESH • 1, 25 mm adult; Sylhet Division, Moulvibazar District, Kamalganj Upazila, LNP, pond near Lawachara Station ; 24°19.58′N, 091°47.04′E; 17 Jun. 2015; 20:26; photo voucher ZRC ( IMG) 1.127 .

Identification. This is a tan-to-yellowish treefrog with pale dorsolateral stripe (which often fades during daylight hours), no dark spots on the dorsum, and an indistinct tympanum, thus keying out to Chiromantis vittatus (Boulenger, 1887) (now F. vittata ) as defined by Wilkin- son et al. (2003). It failed to key out to F. hansenae because the tympanum was not distinct, though Wilkinson et al. (2003) noted that the distinct tympanum was not a consistent feature and considered F. hansenae to be a possible junior synonym of F. vittata . Aowphol et al. (2013) showed that F. hansenae and F. vittata in Thailand had clear genetic separation and were distinguishable on account of their distinct calls. We repeatedly observed males making a single-note “peep” call of 20– 30 ms with a dominant frequency of 4300–4600 Hz. These calls align the specimens with F. hansenae and are nothing like the 500+ ms trills reported for F. vittata . This identification of our specimens as F. hansenae based on both appearance and calls was confirmed by Attapol Rujirawan (pers. comm.) and the identifica- tion of the calls was further confirmed by Sinlan Poo (pers. comm.).

Taxonomic notes. This new identification represents a country record for the species in Bangladesh and a range extension of 850 km northwest from the closest known locality of Mae Hong Son, Thailand (Yodthong et al.

2014). Attapol Rujirawan (pers. comm.) suggests that previous misidentifications were likely commonplace and that the range of F. hansenae could be far larger than is currently known. Khan’s (2008) report of F. vittata from Bangladesh described a call which matches that of F. hansenae as reported here, suggesting that this misidentification may occur across the country. The pres- ence of F. vittata in LNP (as C. vittatus ) was published in Kabir et al. (2010), but we now believe that this is a misidentification of F. hansenae for the reasons described above.

Habitat. These frogs were encountered in both permanent and temporary ponds in mature forest, disturbed forest, and village habitat. Males were found calling from leaves anywhere from 20 cm to 2 m above the surface of the water, sometimes hanging on the underside of a leaf.