From 88c973329ca475f621cc106a418f4dedf5fcba19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ggserver Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:42:32 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Add updates up until 2024-07-23 18:36:28 --- .../87/F94587D784641641FDEBFA94977EA2DD.xml | 1865 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1865 insertions(+) create mode 100644 data/F9/45/87/F94587D784641641FDEBFA94977EA2DD.xml diff --git a/data/F9/45/87/F94587D784641641FDEBFA94977EA2DD.xml b/data/F9/45/87/F94587D784641641FDEBFA94977EA2DD.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..1a74534b551 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/F9/45/87/F94587D784641641FDEBFA94977EA2DD.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1865 @@ + + + +A New Species of Microhyla (Anurα: Microhylidαe) from Nilphαmαri, Bαnglαdesh + + + +Author + +Howlader, Mohammad Sajid Ali +Ecological Genetics Research Unit, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, + + + +Author + +Nair, Abhilash +Ecological Genetics Research Unit, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, + + + +Author + +Gopalan, Sujith V. +Molecular Ecology Laboratory, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India + + + +Author + +Merilä, Juha +Ecological Genetics Research Unit, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, + +text + + +PLoS ONE + + +2015 + +e 0119825 + + +2015-03-25 + + +10 + + +3 + + +1 +18 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119825 + +journal article +10.1371/journal.pone.0119825 +1932-6203 +PMC4373918 +25806804 +12630525 + + + + + + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. + +urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: +11E1D35F-7FC1–43C1–8318– 747F9FC0C882 + + + + + + +Etymology. +The species name is derived from the name of the +type +locality Nilphamari, where the +type +specimens were collected. + + + + + + +Holotype +. + +Adult male, MZH-2362, collected from grass-field (25° + +48 + +0 + +06.12"N + +, 88° + +53 + +0 + +59.21"E + +), Koya Golahut, Saidpur, Nilphamari, +Bangladesh +; collected by +M. S. A. Howlader +, + +June 9, 2012 + +. + + + + +Paratopotypes +. + +MZH-2360 (adult female), MZH-2361 (adult female), MZH-2363 (adult female), MZH-2364 (adult female), MZH-2365 (adult female), and MZH-2366 (adult female) collected from the same locality as the +holotype +; collected by M. S. A. Howlader and Abdur Razzaque, +June 9, 2012 +. + + + + +Diagnosis. + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +is characterized by a combination of the following characters: HL 77% of +HW +, +EN +roughly six times greater than +NS +, +IN +roughly five times greater than +NS +, +IOD +two times greater than +IN +, +MBE +15% of HL, small ovoid-shaped inner metacarpal tubercle, very small rounded outer metacarpal tubercle, toes with rudimentary webbing, absence of digital discs, inner metatarsal tubercle small and round, outer metatarsal tubercle ovoid-shaped, minute, and indistinct. + +Description of taxa + + + + + +Holotype +(adult male). + +Small sized frog ( +SVL +17.36 mm +). Head large, triangular, wider than long, HL 77% of +HW +, +HW 27 +% of +SVL +, +HL 21 +% of +SVL +, +MFE 67 +% of HL, +MBE 15 +% of HL. Snout nearly rounded in lateral view, SL 46% of HL; canthus rostralis indistinct, loreal region concave. Nostrils much closer to snout tip than to eyes, +NS 16 +% of +EN +; +NS 1 +% of +SVL +, +EN 7 +% of +SVL +; nostrils rounded and very small, +NS 20 +% of +IN +, +MN 92 +% HL. Eye large, +EL 52 +% of HL, +EL 11 +% of +SVL +; interorbital distance greater than maximum width of upper eyelid greater, +UEW 41 +% of +IOD +, +UEW 44 +% +EL +, +UEW 4 +% +SVL +. Interorbital space convex, +IN 49 +% of +IOD +. Tympanum is hidden. + + + +Arms moderately long, +FAL +74% +HAL +, +FAL +16% of +SVL +, +HAL +22% +SVL +. Fingers small, free of webbing, tips are flattened. Relative length of fingers, shortest to longest: 1 <2 <4 <3; fingers lacking dermal ridge. Palm with ovoid-shaped inner metacarpal tubercle, small rounded outer metacarpal tubercle. Subarticular tubercle prominent, rounded, single tubercle per digit. + + +Hind limbs relatively long, TL 42% of +SVL +, +THIGHL +86% of TL; FOL 49% +SVL +and TL 86% FOL, FOL 71% of +TFOL +. Toes long, thin, tips rounded; webbing between toes weakly developed [1(1), 2i (1.75), 2e (1), 3i (2.5), 3e (2), 4i (3), 4e (3.25), 5(1.75)]. Relative lengths of toes, shortest to longest: 1 <2 <5 <3 <4. Inner metatarsal tubercle small and round, present at base of first toe; outer metatarsal tubercle is ovoid-shaped, minute, indistinct; subarticular tubercles well-developed, nearly ovoid-shaped. Dorsal surface smooth with some tiny tubercles on the back and on the sides the body; tiny granules on upper eyelids, loreal, and cloacal region. Dorsal surface of forelimbs, thigh and tarsi glandular. Throat, chest, abdomen and ventral part of thigh and tibia smooth. + + +Basic dorsal coloration light brown with distinct dark brown diamond-shaped marking over the back, beginning between the eyes and extending to both the eyelids, narrowing behind the head and widening above the shoulder, then narrowing again and finally broadening out, sending a stripe to the groin and thigh ( +Fig. 2 +). A dark streak extends along the sides from back of the eye to shoulder. Limbs with dark cross bars. The belly is dull white; the throat and chest are brown. + + + + +Measurements (in mm). +Male ( +holotype +): +SVL +17.36; HL 3.74; +HW +4.82; +MN +3.47; SL 1.75; +MFE +2.52; +MBE +0.57; +IN +1.03; +IOD +2.09; +EN +1.25; +NS +0.21; +EL +1.95; +UEW +0.86; +HAL +3.93; +FAL +2.91; LAL 1.72; +THIGHL +6.41; TL 7.45; +TFOL +11.96; FOL 8.61. Female ( +paratopotype +): +SVL +17.84; HL 3.85; +HW +5.02; +MN +3.57; SL 1.79; +MFE +2.61; +MBE +0.6; +IN +1.06; +IOD +2.16; +EN +1.27; +NS +0.22; +EL +1.98; +UEW +0.89; +HAL +4; +FAL +2.97; LAL 1.81; +THIGHL +6.44; TL 7.51; +TFOL +12.07; FOL 8.71. + + +Variation. +Morphometric variability is described in +Table 1 +. + + + + +Distribution. + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +is known only from the +type +locality ( +Fig. 1 +). However, Matsui +et al +. [ +18 +] and Hasan +et al +. [ +6 +] found individuals from Dinajpur district carrying haplotypes similar to those found from the +type +locality, suggesting that the distribution area might extend beyond the +type +locality. + + +Natural history. +The new species was observed only at night during the rain. At the +type +locality, specimens were found in a grass-field near temporary pools. + + +Molecular phylogeny and genetic divergence of new species. +The sequence divergences between + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +and other congeneric species were significant, ranging from 5.7% to 13.2% for 16S rRNA ( +Table 2 +). Intraspecific genetic divergence within the new species was estimated at 0.5%. + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +formed a distinct clade in the phylogenetic analyses with high bootstrap ( +ML +method) and posterior probability support (Bayesian method; +Fig. 3 +). + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +was identified as a sister taxa to + +M +. +ornata + +( +Fig. 3 +). Molecular phylogeny suggests that + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +belongs to the Indian clade of + +Microhyla +species + +group (including + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +), rather than having closer affinity to Southeast Asian species ( +Fig. 3 +). + + + + +Fig 2. Photographs of + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. + +(A) Dorso-lateral view of male (holotype, live), (B) Dorsal view of male (holotype). (C) Ventral view of foot and (D) palm. + +doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119825.g002 + + +Morphological comparison. + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +is morphologically distinct from the closely related species + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +in the following qualitative characters + + +( +Fig. 4 +): inner metacarpal tubercle small and ovoid-shaped ( +vs +. large and goblet-shaped in + +M +. +ornata + +; elongated in + +M +. +rubra + +), outer metacarpal tubercle very small and rounded ( +vs +. very large, prominent and heart-shaped in + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +), inner metatarsal tubercle small and round ( +vs +. elongated, large and very prominent in + +M +. +ornata + +; shovel-shaped in + +M +. +rubra + +), outer metatarsal tubercle ovoid-shaped, minute, and indistinct ( +vs +. compressed and large in size in + +M +. +ornata + +; shovel-shaped and large in + +M +. +rubra + +). Quantitative diagnostic characters include (see also: +Table 1 +, S +2 +Fig.): head length 77% of head width ( +vs +. roughly equal to head width in + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +), distance from front of eyes to the nostril roughly six times greater than nostril–snout length ( +vs +. over one and a half times greater than nostril–snout length in + +M +. +ornata + +; over single time greater than nostril–snout length in + +M +. +rubra + +), internarial distance five times greater than nostril–snout length ( +vs +. nearly two times greater than nostril– snout length in + +M +. +ornata + +; less than two times greater than nostril–snout length in + +M +. +rubra + +), interorbital distance two times greater than internarial distance ( +vs +. more than three times greater than internarial distance in + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +), distance from back of mandible to back of the eye 15% of head length ( +vs +. more than 36% of head length in + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +). These two closely related + +Microhyla +species + +are morphologically clearly distinct from the new species also according to MANOVA (F +34,18 += 334.93, P <0.001), and according to a discriminant analysis which correctly classifies all individuals to their respective species along two significant (Eigenvalues 194.51, F 36.47, P <0.001) canonical axes ( +Fig. 5A +). In a principal component (PC) analysis, the three species are significantly different from each other (Tukey’ s +HSD +; P> +0.05 in +all pairwise comparisons) along the first PC-axis (Eigenvalue = 14.07; 82.8% variance explained), which correspond to variation in overall size (all traits loading positively and roughly equally on this axis), + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +being the smallest species ( +Fig. 5B +). The second PC-axis (Eigenvalue = 1.48; 8.7% variance explained) captures shape differences, but in this axis + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov +differs significantly only from + +M +. +ornata + +(Tukey’ s +HSD +, P <0.05). Nevertheless, that the + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +is clearly differentiated from + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +can also be depicted from bivariate scatterplots (S2 Fig.) showing that it’ s diagnostic ratios (see above) do not overlap with those of + +M +. +ornata + +and + +M +. +rubra + +. + + + +Table 1. Summary of quantitative and qualitative diagnostic characters in + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +and its closest morphological and phylogenetic congeners. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. + + + +Microhyla ornate + + + +Microhyla rubra + +
+Male (n = 1) + +Female (n = 6) + +Male (n = 6) + +Female (n = 4) + +Male (n = 1) + +Female (n = 3) +
+HL:HW +0.770.76±0.010.95±0.030.97±0.020.910.96±0.01
(0.74–0.77)(0.89–0.97)(0.95–1.00)(0.95–0.97)
+HL:SVL +0.210.22±0.010.28±0.010.28±0.020.30.34±0.01
(0.21–0.23)(0.27–0.29)(0.26–0.30)(0.33–0.35)
+MBE:HL +0.150.15±0.010.45±0.130.45±0.150.40.36±0.01
(0.14–0.16)(0.31–0.64)(0.31–0.59)(0.35–0.38)
+EL:HL +0.520.52±0.010.49±0.030.47±0.030.520.43±0.05
(0.51–0.54)(0.45–0.54)(0.43–0.50)(0.37–0.46)
+UEW:EL +0.440.42±0.020.39±0.030.39±0.020.40.53±0.04
(0.39–0.45)(0.34–0.41)(0.36–0.42)(0.51–0.57)
+EN:NS +5.955.92±0.081.51±0.231.60±0.221.080.97±0.13
(5.77–5.98)(1.24–1.92)(1.43–1.92)(0.81–1.04)
+IN:NS +4.94.84±0.041.68±0.361.77±0.410.911.03±0.12
(4.91–4.81)(1.30–1.86)(1.37–2.32)(0.89–1.10)
+IOD:IN +2.032.02±0.033.09±0.442.87±0.233.913.30±0.09
(1.98–2.05)(2.79–3.65)(2.6–3.12)(3.19–3.38)
+SL: HL +0.470.47±0.010.41±0.020.39±0.010.40.37±0.04
(0.45–0.49)(0.38–0.43)(0.38–0.41)(0.32–0.39)
+Metacarpal tubercle +Ovoid-shaped inner metacarpal tubercle; very small rounded outer metacarpal tubercleLarge goblet-shaped inner metacarpal tubercle; very large and prominent, heart shaped outer metatarsal tubercle which appears as two tubercles fusing to form a single one.Elongated inner metacarpal tubercle; very large and prominent, heart-shaped outer metatarsal tubercle.
+Metatarsal tubercle +Inner metatarsal tubercle small round shaped; outer metatarsal tubercle is ovoid, minute, and indistinct.Inner metatarsal tubercle elongated, large and very prominent; outer metatarsal tubercle is compressed and large in size.Inner metatarsal tubercle shovelshaped, bearing longitudinal groove, large and prominent; outer metatarsal tubercle is also shovelshaped and large.
Morphological ratios are given as mean ± standard deviation.
+ + +doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119825.t001 + + + +Table 2. Pairwise genetic divergence (number of base substitutions per site) among + +Microhyla +species + +based on 446 bp mtDNA (16S gene) sequences. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+(a) + +(b) + +(c) + +(d) + +(e) + +(f) + +(g) + +(h) + +(i) + +(j) + +(k) + +(l) + +(m) + +(n) + +(o) + +(p) + +(q) + +(r) + +(s) + +(t) + +(u) + +(v) + +(w) +
+(a) + + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +(Holotype) +
+(b) + + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +0.005
+(c) + + +M +. +ornate + +0.0570.060
+(d) + + +M +. +butleri + +0.1230.1230.141
+(e) + + +M +. +okinavensis + +0.0960.0960.1210.133
+(f) + + +M +. +fissipes + +0.1050.1080.1100.1340.057
+(g) + + +M +. +heymonsi + +0.1230.1190.1370.1510.0900.087
+(h) + + +M +. +perparva + +0.1500.1500.1320.1240.1400.1390.147
+(i) + + +M +. +rubra + +0.0750.0820.1010.1290.1280.1150.1410.152
+(j) + + +M +. +berdmorei + +0.0950.1020.1070.1350.1070.1040.1120.1390.113
+(k) + + +M +. +mixture + +0.1020.1020.1200.1160.0190.0570.0870.1200.1220.110
+(l) + + +M +. +malang + +0.1100.1130.1270.1330.0920.0780.0650.1530.1120.1160.089
+(m) + + +M +. +achatina + +0.1080.1080.1200.1470.0960.0900.0830.1520.1240.0890.0810.077
+(n) + + +M +. +mantheyi + +0.1120.1120.1350.1440.0880.0880.0710.1460.1200.1100.0790.0660.063
+(o) + + +M +. +pulchra + +0.1140.1070.1190.1340.1120.1150.1210.1590.1210.0860.1150.1380.1150.132
+(p) + + +M +. +superciliaris + +0.1140.1140.1120.0990.1210.1100.1290.1190.1150.1250.1150.1200.1330.1250.147
+(q) + + +M +. +fowleri + +0.0950.1020.1210.1380.1110.1130.1160.1390.1100.0210.1140.1100.0890.1030.0950.129
+(r) + + +M +. +annectens + +0.1320.1280.1320.1300.1540.1340.1450.0960.1420.1000.1400.1480.1420.1390.1500.1230.112
+(s) + + +M +. +palmipes + +0.1290.1290.1210.1330.1440.1130.1560.1100.1430.1430.1290.1530.1570.1550.1470.1120.1420.135
+(t) + + +M +. +marmorata + +0.1200.1200.1150.1240.1280.1210.1270.0810.1190.1180.1150.1220.1260.1270.1450.1170.1210.0540.130
+(u) + + +M +. +petrigena + +0.1300.1300.1210.1370.1510.1320.1320.0650.1290.1200.1290.1450.1370.1420.1420.1150.1250.0820.1100.085
+(v) + + +M +. +mukhlesuri + +0.0990.1030.0980.1270.0550.0140.0790.1300.1050.1080.0550.0700.0810.0890.1130.0980.1180.1410.1210.1150.122
+(w) + + +M +. +mymensinghensis + +0.0980.0980.1030.1380.0590.0390.0810.1290.1240.1120.0530.0850.0850.0890.1210.1120.1160.1390.1270.1140.1270.034
+ + +doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119825.t002 + + + + +Fig 3. Phylogenetic relationships among all known species in the genus + +Microhyla + +. + +Analysis is based on 446 bp of mtDNA (16S gene) sequence, showing the position of + +Microhyla nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. + +Chaperina fusca + +was used as an outgroup. The + +Microyla ornata + +sequence is from Karnataka (Western Ghats, India). Numbers on branches represent bootstrap support values for Maximum-likelihood, and Bayesian posterior probabilities, respectively. + +doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119825.g003 + + +Genetic divergence of + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +from all other species in the Southeast Asian clade is 10% to 13% ( +Fig. 3 +). Likewise, the new species is morphologically different from all known Southeast Asian species in comparison to the original descriptions [ +39 +– +55 +]. Morphological characters of the other Southeast Asian species ( + +M +. +berdmorei + +, + +M +. +borneensis + +, + +M +. +achatina + +, + +M +. +butleri + +, + +M +. +palmipes + +, + +M +. +annamensis + +, + +M +. +annectens + +, + +M +. +heymonsi + +, + +M +. +mantheyi + +, + +M +. +superciliaris + +, + +M +. +malang + +, + +M +. +chakrapanii + +, + +M +. +marmorata + +, + +M +. +nanapollexa + +, + +M +. +pulverata + +, + +M +. +arboricola + +, + +M +. +darevskii + +, + +M +. +minuta + +, + +M +. +pineticola + +, + +M +. +pulchella + +, + +M +. +perparva + +, + +M +. +mixtura + +, + +M +. +fowleri + +, + +M +. +maculifera + +, + +M +. +petrigena + +, + +M +. +orientalis + +) such as webbed toes with distinct digital discs, and leaf vain-type dorsal surface markings separate them from + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +, which has reduced webbing, absent discs and irregular dorsal surface markings. + +M +. +sholigari + +also differs from + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +as it has discs on fingers ( +Fig. 4 +). Shovel-shaped inner metatarsal tubercle and a more rounded snout separate + +M +. +picta + +from + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +[ +56 +]. + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +lacks the minutely shagreened dorsum, mid-dorsal ridge, and deeply furrowed outer metacarpal tubercle of + +M +. +fusca + +[ +57 +]. + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +differs from + +M +. +pulchra + +[ +58 +] and + +M +. +erythropoda + +[ +59 +] in having a rounder snout, smaller body size, and rudimentary foot webbing ( + +M +. +pulchra + +and + +M +. +erythropoda + +have obtuse or obtusely pointed snouts, larger body size and half-webbed toes). + +M +. +karunaratnei + +[ +60 +] and + +M +. +zeylanica + +[ +61 +] are two species endemic to +Sri Lanka +, and differ from + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +by extensive digital webbing, presence of digital discs, +IOD +1.6 times greater than +UEW +( +vs +. rudimentary digital webbing, absence of digital discs, +IOD +2.43 times greater than +UEW +). Absence of digital discs differentiates + +M +. +nilphamariensis + +sp. nov. +from + +M +. +mukhlesuri + +, + +M +. +fissipes + +and + +M +. +mymensinghensis + +, in which digital discs are present. + + + + \ No newline at end of file