Rhacophorus suffry, Bordoloi, Sabitry, Bortamuli, Tutul & Ohler, Annemarie, 2007

Bordoloi, Sabitry, Bortamuli, Tutul & Ohler, Annemarie, 2007, Systematics of the genus Rhacophorus (Amphibia, Anura): identity of red-webbed forms and description of a new species from Assam, Zootaxa 1653, pp. 1-20 : 9-13

Rhacophorus suffry new species

( Figs. 4–5 )

Five males and seven females of an unrecognized Rhacophorus collected in the month of September, 2005 are described here. As the frogs were collected outside the breeding season, they are not in reproductive state and some individuals are not fully mature.

Description of the holophoront IASST A66, adult male ( Fig. 4 ).— (A) Size and general aspect. (1) Specimen of moderate size (SVL 52.9 mm). Body rather slender.

(B) Head. (2) Head moderate, about as wide (HW 19.5 mm) as long (HL 19.6 mm) and flat above. (3) Snout rounded, protruding longer (SL 8.6 mm) than horizontal diameter of eye (EL 5.76). (4) Canthus rostralis sharp and concave. (5) Interorbital space flat, larger (IUE 5.88 mm) than upper eyelid (UEW 4.8 mm). Distance between front of eyes (IFE 10.5 mm) is 1.7 times in distance between back of eyes (IBE 17.2 mm). (6) Nostril rounded without flap of skin, closer to tip of snout (NS 3.6 mm) than to eye (EN 4.54 mm). (7) Pupil rounded and horizontal. (8) Tympanum ( TYD 2.86 mm) very distinct, rounded, its distance to eye (TYE 1.12 mm) scarcely half of tympanum diameter. (9) Pineal ocellus absent. (10) Vomerine ridge horizontal in position, near anterior corner of nasal opening, very slightly oblique almost horizontal; space between the two ridges is less than the length of the ridge. (11) Tongue moderately notched; median lingual process absent.

(C) Forelimbs. (12) Arms (FLL 10.6 mm) thin, shorter than hand (HAL 15.2 mm), forearm not enlarged. (13) Fingers rather short, thick (TFL 8.62 mm). (14) Relative length of fingers I <II <IV <III. (15) Discs present on tip of fingers, with distinct circum-ventral grooves. (16) Fingers without dermal fringe on inside of fingers. Webbing present, well developed: I 1–2 II 1–2 III 1–1 IV. (17) Subarticular tubercles present, distinct, rounded, single. (18) Prepollex oval, prominent; palmar tubercles indistinct, flat; supernumerary tubercles present on base of fingers II to IV.

(D) Hindlimbs. (19) Shank thin (TL 26.9 mm), five times longer than wide (TW 5.0 mm), longer than foot (FOL 24.3 mm) and thigh (FL 24.9 mm). (20) Toes long and thin (FTL 12.3 mm). (21) Relative length of toes, shortest to longest: I <II <III <V <IV. (22) Discs present on tip of toes, with distinct circum-ventral grooves. (23) Webbing present, complete: I 0 – 0 II 0 – 0 III 0 – 0 IV 0 – 0 V. (24) Dermal fringe present from tip of toe to the base of tarsus, well developed. (25) Subarticular tubercles prominent, rounded and simple. (26) Inner metatarsal tubercle distinct, oval (IMT 1.86 mm), 3.17 in length of toe I (ITL 5.9 mm). (27) Tarsal fold absent. (28) Outer metatarsal tubercle, supernumerary tubercles and tarsal tubercle absent.

(E) Skin. (29) Skin of snout smooth, between eyes granular, side of head smooth with very fine granules. Anterior part of back with minute granules and skin folds, posterior part of back with very fine granules. Upper part of flank and lower part of flank with minute granules. (30) Dermal folds on forearm, heel, tarsus, metatarsus and vent absent; latero-dorsal folds absent; “Fejervaryan”line absent; lateral line system absent; supratympanic fold narrow, flat; cephalic ridges absent; co-ossified skin absent. (31) Forelimb smooth, thigh granular, leg and tarsus smooth. (32) Skin of ventral part of body granular (tree frog belly skin). (33) Macroglands absent.

(F) Life coloration. (34) Dorsal and lateral part of head and body leafy green ( Fig. 5). Flank upper part leafy green lined with light yellow colour. Lower part light green with few, creamy white scattered spots. Loreal region, tympanic region, upper lip and tympanum leafy green. Iris yellowish gold. (35) Forelimb, dorsal part of thigh, dorsal part of leg leafy green. Dorsal part of foot between fourth and fifth toes are green others are orange red. (36) Throat creamy white. Margin of throat light gray. Chest and belly creamy white. Thigh and webbing orange red.

Etymology.—The specific epithet is derived from the name of the onymotope, Suffry tea Estate, and is a noun in apposition, thus invariable.

Variation.—Measurements of males and females are given in Table 3. Size differences reflect differences in age of the specimens. Colour pattern is very similar in all frogs observed.

Comparison.—Specimens collected from Suffry tea Estate in Assam ( India) are clearly members of the genus Rhacophorus as defined by Delorme et al. (2005). The species is unique by the following combination of characters: moderate size, green dorsal colour, web between fingers large but not complete, web on feet large, orange red in colour without spots, no blackish spots on lateral body, absence of dermal fringes or flaps on forelimbs, hindlimbs and vent ( Tab. 4 ).

Dubois (1987) proposed a series of species groups in the genus Rhacophorus . Some of these are now considered to be members of the genera Polypedates and Aquixalus ( Delorme et al. 2005) . The species here studied should be members of the R. reinwardtii species group which includes species that show large webbing on hands. To be complete we also compare the new species to the other groups present in the biogeographic region. This excludes the R. schlegelii species group which is present only in Taiwan and adjacent China and Japan, and the R. fasciatus species group present in Sunda region.

TABLE 3. Measurements of males and females of Rhacophorus suffry new species. Mean value, standard deviation, minimum – maximum values are given.

Among the Rhacophorus from the northern mountain region (Inger, 1999), species from the R. dugritei species group (including the R. dennysii species group) and the R. pardalis species group do not have orange web on feet. The species of the R. dugritei group can be distinguished by the presence of a brownish pattern which forms a line form the tip of snout, over canthus rostralis, eyelids and supratympanic fold.

Rhacophorus reinwardtii ( Ohler & Dubois 2006) and R. kio ( Ohler & Delorme 2006) both show very visible ink black spots on webs and complete webbing between fingers and toes, thus can easily be distinguished from the new species, as they can be distinguished from R. bipunctatus and R. rhodopus . R. maximus Günther, 1859 is a very large sized species (symphoront BMNH 1947.2.8.30: SVL 74.9 mm), bluish on back, brown on lateral side, with a clear cut border, brown on ventral part of body, thigh dark brown and with uniform grayish webbing between fingers and between toes. General size of these species, a relatively broader head, complete web between fingers and color pattern differentiate this species from R. suffry n. sp.

Specimens of R. suffry have orange webbing like R. bipunctatus and R. rhodopus , but never have black spots on flanks. Their colour patters reminds R. yaoshanensis Liu & Hu, 1962 , but this species is smaller in body size, has small webbing between fingers and moderate webbing on feet, whereas the specimens of the new species have large webbing between fingers and large webbing between toes. Sexual size dimorphism seems to be more important in R. yaoshanensis as the only known male is smaller than the males of the Rhacophorus suffry , whereas the only known female is similar in body size to R. suffry females. The tibia is relatively longer (TL/SVL: ♂ 460–515 ‰; Ψ 468–536 ‰) in R. suffry specimens than in the specimens of R. yaoshanensis (TL/SVL: ♂ 452 ‰; Ψ 431 ‰).

Two other species from India also shows reddish webbing: Rhacophorus malabaricus Jerdon, 1870 is distinct from R. suffry by the presence of dermal flaps on border of forelimbs, heels and feet. The other large sized webbed species of Rhacophorus from south-west India, R. pseudomalabaricus Vasudevan & Dutta, 2000 , can be distinguished by its green and black vermiculate dorsal colour. The known distribution area of these two species (south-western peninsular India) is largely separate from the origin of R. suffry , in the northeastern region of India.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Rhacophorus suffry new species. IASST A 66, ♂, SVL 52.9 mm. Dorsal and ventral view.

Tables

TABLE 4. Comparison of male and female size, morphological characters and coloration between green coloured Rhacophorus. N – Number of specimens measured.

Species	Males	Females	Dorsum color	Web on hand	Web on feet Spots on side of body	Dermal fringes	Color of web
R. suffry	38.5–52.1 n=5	31.5–61.0 n=7	Green	Large	Large Absent	Absent	Orange red
R. bipunctatus	37.8–50.4 n=28	37.3–59.1 n=8	Green	Large	Complete 1–3	Present	Red
R. dennysii	68.0–92.0 n=20	83.0–109.0 n=10	Green	Large	Complete Absent	Absent	Whitish
R. chenfui	35.0–38.0 n=8	48.0–55.0 n=4	Green	Small	Moderate Absent	Absent	Brown yellow
R. hungfuensis	30.8–36.8 n=10	45.5 n=1	Green	Small	Small Absent	Absent	Greenish
R. yaoshanensis	33.2 n=1	51 n=1	Green	Small	Moderate Absent	Absent	Red