Cryptic Species of a Cascade Frog from Southeast Asia: Taxonomic Revisions and Descriptions of Six New Species Author BAIN, RAOUL H. Author LATHROP, AMY Author MURPHY, ROBERT W. Author ORLOV, NIKOLAI L. Author CUC, HO THU text American Museum Novitates 2003 2003-10-29 3417 1 60 http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29417%3C0001%3ACSOACF%3E2.0.CO%3B2 journal article 3413 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)417<0001:CSOACF>2.0.CO;2 0464179d-9549-4885-9ddd-32ffef32942e 0003-0082 4734880 Rana leporipes Werner, 1930 HOLOTYPE : Two figures ( Werner, 1930: 49 , pl. IV) of Mell no. 15660, an adult female from Lung Tao Shan , North Kwangtung , China ( 700 m a.s.l. ) collected on 4 July 1919 by R. Mell. The voucher specimens of the type series have been lost and the photographs of the holotype become the iconotype. DIAGNOSIS (from text and plates of original description): Rana leporipes is characterized by a combination of the following attributes: (1) body dorsoventrally compressed; (2) SVL reported for females between 52 and 102 mm ; (3) vomerine teeth in rows oblique to choanae; (4) lip­stripe white; (6) tympanum very distinct, TMP:EYE is 0.5; (7) supratympanic fold milky white; (8) dorsal skin smooth, flanks weakly granular, dorsolateral folds slightly distinguishable, venter smooth; (9) dorsum dark green, flanks stony gray with white marbling, legs not banded; (11) disks on fingers and toes only slightly enlarged (<2× base of phalanges); (12) feet fully webbed to base of distal phalanges; (13) subarticular tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercle large, projecting; (14) terminal phalanges oblong, somewhat pointed. COMPARISONS: Rana leporipes superficially resembles other Asian cascade ranids, including Huia nasica , Rana andersonii , R. archotaphus , R. chalconota , R. chloronota , R. grahami , R. graminea , R. hainanensis , R. hejiangensis , R. hosii , R. jingdongensis , R. junlianensis , R. kwangwuensis , R. livida , R. margaretae , R. schmackeri , R. sinica and R. tiannensis (table 12). Rana leporipes is unique among all of the above species in having a white supratympanic fold, webbing that only reaches the distal phalanx (not the disk), and oblong, somewhat rounded distal phalanges (T­ shaped in others, unknown for R. hejiangensis , R. junlianensis , and R. kwangwuensis ). The absence of banding on the legs distinguishes R. leporipes from all species listed here, except R. livida (present or absent in R. chalconota and R. hosii ). The presence of a dorsolateral fold also distinguishes it from R. andersonii , R. chloronota , R. hainanensis , R. hejiangensis , R. jingdongensis , R. junlianensis , R. kwangwuensis , R. livida , R. margaretae , R. schmackeri , R. sinica , and R. tiannensis . Whereas Huia nasica has an olive­brown dorsum, R. leporipes is dark green. Rana hainanensis further differs from R. leporipes in its size (SVL R. hainanensis 103 mm ) and relative lengths of fingers (II <IV <I for R. hainanensis , I = II for R. leporipes ). Rana junlianensis has brown lip bands. Rana andersonii has a rough, olive­brown dorsum. Rana grahami has pustules on the dorsum and flanks and no digital disks. Rana schmackeri has a smooth, heavily spotted dorsum. Rana tiannensis has a rough, brown dorsum with large, prominent lateral granulations. Both Rana chalconota and R. archotaphus possess an outer metatarsal tubercle, but R. leporipes does not. Rana hosii can be distinguished from R. leporipes by its feeble tarsal folds. Rana chloronota differs from R. leporipes in that it is larger ( R. chloronota female SVL 80–100 mm ) and it has a different digital formula (II <I <IV <III for R. chloronota ). Dorsum of R. livida is uniform (flanks a different color for R. leporipes ). Fig. 9. Dorsal view of Rana livida : adult female (BMNH 1889.3.25.47) ( left ); neotype, adult female (BMNH 1889.3.25.48) ( right ). Scale equals 5 mm . REMARKS: The original description of R. leporipes reported extensive variation in snout–vent length ( 52–102 mm ) and lacked any description of secondary sex characters. The single male specimen of R. leporipes is significantly larger than males of R. chloronota ( 93 mm vs. a maximum of 53 mm ). However, it is unclear how the male was sexed, as nuptial excrescences and gular pouches are not mentioned. Bourret (who did not indicate whether he had seen the type series) thought the male was an incorrectly identified female and that Werner’s (1930) frogs were all females spanning a range of varying degrees of maturity. We are also skeptical about any males, although this cannot be confirmed, as the type series has been lost.