Research Article
Print
Research Article
A new species of the horned toad Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Anura, Megophryidae) from southwest China
expand article infoNing Xu‡, Shi-Ze Li‡§|, Jing Liu|, Gang Wei‡, Bin Wang‡§
‡ Guiyang College, Guiyang, China
§ Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chengdu, China
| Moutai Institute, Renhuai, China

Corresponding author: Bin Wang ( wangbin@cib.ac.cn )

Academic editor: Annemarie Ohler
© 2020 Ning Xu, Shi-Ze Li, Jing Liu, Gang Wei, Bin Wang.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation: Xu N, Li S-Z, Liu J, Wei G, Wang B (2020) A new species of the horned toad Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Anura, Megophryidae) from southwest China. ZooKeys 943: 119-144. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.943.50343
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:67E72902-EF7D-486A-8BBC-5D8C0A114C52
Open Access

Abstract

A new species of the genus Megophrys is described from Guizhou Province, China. Molecular phylogenetic analyses based on mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA sequences all strongly supported the new species as an independent clade sister to M. minor and M. jiangi. The new species could be distinguished from its congeners by a combination of the following characters: body size moderate (SVL 43.4–44.1 mm in males, and 44.8–49.8 mm in females; vomerine teeth absent; tongue not notched behind; a small horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid; tympanum distinctly visible, rounded; two metacarpal tubercles on palm; relative finger lengths II < I < V < III; toes without webbing; heels overlapping when thighs are positioned at right angles to the body; tibiotarsal articulation reaching the level between tympanum and eye when leg stretched forward; in breeding males, an internal single subgular vocal sac in male, and the nuptial pads with black spines on dorsal surface of bases of the first two fingers.

Keywords

Taxonomy, molecular phylogenetic analysis, morphology

Introduction

The Asian horned toad Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 (Anura: Megophryidae Bonaparte, 1850) is widely distributed in eastern and central China, throughout southeastern Asia, and extending to the islands of the Sunda Shelf and the Philippines (Frost 2020). The taxonomic arrangements especially on generic assignments of the group have been controversial for a long time (e.g., Tian and Hu 1983; Dubois 1987; Lathrop 1997; Rao and Yang 1997; Jiang et al. 2003; Delorme et al. 2006; Fei et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2016; Fei and Ye 2016; Deuti et al. 2017; Mahony et al. 2017; Frost 2019). Nevertheless, all molecular phylogenetic studies revealed this group as a monophyletic group which corresponds to the family (Chen et al. 2016; Mahony et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018; Li et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2020), and thus many researchers considered it as a large genus Megophrys sensu lato (Mahony et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2018, 2020; Frost 2020; Wang et al. 2020) although several studies divided the taxa of the group into different genera and subgenera, thus introducing better resolution of relationships within the family (Chen et al. 2016; Fei and Ye 2016; Deuti et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018).

The large genus Megophrys currently contains 98 species, of which 41 species were described in the last decade (Frost 2020; Liu et al. 2020). Many cryptic species in the genus are indicated by molecular phylogenetic analyses (Chen et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2018) of which several have been described recently (e.g., Wang et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2020). Obviously, more cryptic species need to be verified and described in detail.

During field surveys in the Chishui National Nature Reserve, Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China, we collected a series of Megophrys specimens. Our molecular phylogenetic analyses and morphological comparisons support it as an undescribed species, and it is described herein as a new species.

Materials and methods

Sampling

Three adult males and five adult females of the undescribed species were collected in Chishui National Nature Reserve, Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China (Suppl. material 1: Table S1; Fig. 1). In the field, the toads were euthanized using isoflurane, and the specimens were fixed in 75% ethanol. Tissue samples were taken and preserved separately in 99% ethanol prior to fixation. The specimens were deposited in Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CIB, CAS).

Figure 1. 

Geographical location of the type locality, Chishui National Nature Reserve, Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China, of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov.

Molecular data and phylogenetic analyses

Six specimens of the undescribed species were included in the molecular analyses (Suppl. material 2: Table S2). Total DNA was extracted using a standard phenol-chloroform extraction protocol (Sambrook et al. 1989). Two fragments of the mitochondrial genes encoding16S rRNA and cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) were amplified using the primers in Simon et al. (1994) and Che et al. (2012), respectively. PCR were under the following conditions: 37 cycles at 94 °C for 4 min, 95 °C for 1 min, 53 °C (for 16S rRNA)/47 °C (for COI) for 30 sec, and 72 °C for 1 min followed by a 8-min extension at 72 °C. The nuclear gene sequences encoding brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and recombination activating gene 1 (RAG1) were amplified using the primers and protocols in Vieites et al. (2007) and Shen et al. (2013), respectively (Suppl. material 3: Table S3). All PCR products were purified with spin columns, and then were sequenced with primers same as used in PCR. Sequencing was conducted using an ABI3730 automated DNA sequencer in Shanghai DNA BioTechnologies Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). All sequences were deposited in GenBank (for accession numbers see Suppl. material 2: Table S2).

For molecular analyses, the available sequence data for congeners of Megophrys were downloaded from GenBank (Suppl. material 2: Table S2), primarily from previous studies (Chen et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018). For phylogenetic analyses, corresponding sequences of one Leptobrachella oshanensis (Liu, 1950) and one Leptobrachium boringii (Liu, 1945) were also downloaded (Suppl. material 2: Table S2), and used as outgroups according to Mahony et al. (2017). Sequences were assembled and aligned in BioEdit v. 7.0.9.0 (Hall 1999) with default settings. Alignments were checked by eye and revised manually if necessary. To avoid bias in alignments, GBLOCKS v. 0.91.b (Castresana 2000) with default settings was used to extract regions of defined sequence conservation from the length-variable 16S gene fragments. Non-sequenced fragments were defined as missing loci. For phylogenetic analyses, two datasets were obtained, i.e., two-mitochondrial genes concatenated dataset of 16S+COI and two-nuclear genes concatenated dataset of RAG1+BDNF.

Table 1.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Measurements of the adult specimens of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. Units are given in mm. See abbreviations for the morphological characters in Materials and methods section.

Male (N = 3) Female (N = 5)
Range Mean ± SD Range Mean ± SD
SVL 43.4–44.1 43.6 ± 0.4 44.8–49.8 47.8 ± 2.0
HDL 11.4–11.9 11. 7 ± 0.3 11.2–12.7 11.7 ± 0.6
HDW 13.0–13.9 13.5 ± 0.5 13.8–15.4 14.7 ± 0.6
SL 4.2–5.3 4.8 ± 0.6 4.3–5.4 4.9 ± 0.4
IND 5.0–5.2 5.1 ± 0.1 4.5–5.8 5.1 ± 0.6
IOD 3.1–3.5 3.3 ± 0.2 3.1–4.3 3.5 ± 0.5
ED 4.4–5.0 4.7 ± 0.3 4.9–5.7 5.4 ± 0.3
UEW 4.1–4.9 4.4 ± 0.4 4.1–5.2 4.7 ± 0.4
TYD 2.8–3.5 3.2 ± 0.4 2.2–3.1 2.7 ± 0.3
LAL 18.4–20.0 19.0 ± 0.9 20.3–22.0 21.3 ± 0.7
LW 4.5–4.7 4.6 ± 0.1 3.2–3.6 3.4 ± 0.2
HLL 59.4–65.1 63.0 ± 3.1 64.2–75.6 70.7 ± 4.1
THL 17.2–21.3 19.8 ± 2.2 20.4–23.8 22.1 ± 1.3
TL 18.0–21.7 20.1 ± 1.9 22.0–24.0 23.2 ± 0.8
TW 4.6–5.1 4.9 ± 0.3 5.0–5.8 5.3 ± 0.3
TFL 28.0–30.2 28.9 ± 1.2 30.1–33.0 31.3 ± 1.1
FL 18.5–19.2 18.9 ± 2.3 18.8–22.1 21.0 ± 1.4

Phylogenetic relationships were reconstructed based on the mitochondrial DNA data and nuclear DNA data, respectively. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted using maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI) methods, implemented in PhyML v. 3.0 (Guindon et al. 2010) and MrBayes v. 3.12 (Ronquist and Huelsenbeck 2003), respectively. To avoid under- or over-parameterization (Lemmon and Moriarty 2004; McGuire et al. 2007), the best partition scheme and the best evolutionary model for each partition were chosen for the phylogenetic analyses using PARTITIONFINDER v. 1.1.1 (Robert et al. 2012). In the analyses, 16S, each codon position of the protein-coding genes (COI, RAG1 and BDNF) were defined, and Bayesian Inference Criteria (BIC) was used. As a result, the analyses selected the best partition scheme (i.e., 16S gene/each codon position of COI gene) and the GTR+ G + I model for each partition for mitochondrial DNA dataset, and as well, selected the best partition scheme (i.e., each codon position of RAG1 and BDNF genes) and the GTR+ G + I as the best model for all codon position of RAG1 and BDNF genes. For the ML tree, branch supports were drawn from 10000 non-parametric bootstrap replicates. In BI analyses, two runs each with four Markov chains were run for 40 million generations with sampling every 1000 generations. The first 25% of generations were removed as the “burn-in” stage followed by calculation of Bayesian posterior probabilities and the 50% majority-rule consensus of the post burn-in trees sampled at stationarity. Finally, genetic distance between species under uncorrected p-distance model was estimated on 16S gene sequences using MEGA v. 6.06 (Tamura et al. 2011).

Morphological comparisons

All adult specimens of the undescribed species were measured. The terminology and methods followed Fei et al. (2009). Measurements were taken with a dial caliper to 0.1 mm. Seventeen morphometric characters of adult specimens were measured:

ED eye diameter (distance from the anterior corner to the posterior corner of the eye);

FL foot length (distance from tarsus to the tip of fourth toe);

HDL head length (distance from the tip of the snout to the articulation of jaw);

HDW maximum head width (greatest width between the left and right articulations of jaw);

HLL hindlimb length (maximum length from the vent to the distal tip of the Toe IV);

IND internasal distance (minimum distance between the inner margins of the external nares);

IOD interorbital distance (minimum distance between the inner edges of the upper eyelids);

LAL length of lower arm and hand (distance from the elbow to the distal end of the Finger IV);

LW lower arm width (maximum width of the lower arm);

SL snout length (distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior corner of the eye);

SVL snout-vent length (distance from the tip of the snout to the posterior edge of the vent);

TFL length of foot and tarsus (distance from the tibiotarsal articulation to the distal end of the Toe IV);

THL thigh length (distance from vent to knee);

TL tibia length (distance from knee to tarsus);

TYD maximal tympanum diameter;

TW maximal tibia width;

UEW upper eyelid width (greatest width of the upper eyelid margins measured perpendicular to the anterior-posterior axis).

We compared morphological characters of the undescribed species with Megophrys congeners. Comparative data were obtained from related species as described in literature (Table 2).

Table 2.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

References for morphological characters for congeners of the genus Megophrys.

Species Literature
M. aceras Boulenger, 1903 Taylor 1962
M. acuta Wang, Li & Jin, 2014 Li et al. 2014
M. ancrae Mahony, Teeling & Biju, 2013 Mahony et al. 2013
M. angka Wu, Suwannapoom, Poyarkov, Chen, Pawangkhanant, Xu, Jin, Murphy & Che, 2019 Wu et al. 2019
M. auralensis Ohler, Swan & Daltry, 2002 Ohler et al. 2002
M. baluensis (Boulenger, 1899) Boulenger 1899
M. baolongensis Ye, Fei & Xie, 2007 Ye et al. 2007
M. binchuanensis Ye & Fei, 1995 Ye and Fei 1995
M. binlingensis Jiang, Fei & Ye, 2009 Fei et al. 2009
M. boettgeri (Boulenger, 1899) Fei et al. 2012
M. brachykolos Inger & Romer, 1961 Inger and Romer 1961
M. carinense (Boulenger, 1889) Fei et al. 2009
M. caobangensis Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen, Luong & Ziegler, 2020 Nguyen et al. 2020
M. caudoprocta Shen, 1994 Fei et al. 2012
M. cheni (Wang & Liu, 2014) Wang et al. 2014
M. chuannanensis (Fei, Ye & Huang, 2001) Fei et al. 2012
M. damrei Mahony, 2011 Mahony 2011
M. daweimontis Rao & Yang, 1997 Fei et al. 2012
M. dongguanensis Wang & Wang, 2019 Wang et al. 2019
M. dringi Inger, Stuebing & Tan, 1995 Inger et al. 1995
M. edwardinae Inger, 1989 Inger 1989
M. elfina Poyarkov, Duong, Orlov, Gogoleva, Vassilieva, Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, Che & Mahony, 2017 Poyarkov et al. 2017
M. fansipanensis Tapley, Cutajar, Mahony, Nguyen, Dau, Luong, Le, Nguyen, Nguyen, Portway, Luong & Rowley, 2018 Tapley et al. 2018
M. feae Boulenger, 1887 Fei et al. 2009
M. feii Yang, Wang & Wang, 2018 Yang et al. 2018
M. flavipunctata Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018 Mahony et al. 2018
M. gerti (Ohler, 2003) Ohler 2003
M. gigantica Liu, Hu & Yang, 1960 Fei et al. 2012
M. glandulosa Fei, Ye & Huang, 1990 Fei et al. 2012
M. hansi (Ohler, 2003) Ohler 2003
M. himalayana Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018 Mahony et al. 2018
M. hoanglienensis Tapley, Cutajar, Mahony, Nguyen, Dau, Luong, Le, Nguyen, Nguyen, Portway, Luong & Rowley, 2018 Tapley et al. 2018
M. huangshanensis Fei & Ye, 2005 Fei et al. 2012
M. insularis (Wang, Liu, Lyu, Zeng & Wang, 2017) Wang et al. 2017a
M. intermedia Smith, 1921 Rao and Yang 1997
M. jiangi Liu, Li, Wei, Xu, Cheng, Wang & Wu, 2020 Liu et al. 2020
M. jingdongensis Fei & Ye, 1983 Fei et al. 2012
M. jinggangensis (Wang, 2012) Wang et al. 2012
M. jiulianensis Wang, Zeng, Lyu & Wang, 2019 Wang et al. 2019
M. kalimantanensis Munir, Hamidy, Matsui, Iskandar, Sidik & Shimada, 2019 Munir et al. 2019
M. kobayashii Malkmus & Matsui, 1997 Malkmus and Matsui 1997
M. koui Mahony, Foley, Biju & Teeling, 2017 Mahony et al. 2017
M. kuatunensis Pope, 1929 Fei et al. 2012
M. lancip Munir, Hamidy, Farajallah & Smith, 2018 Munir et al. 2018
M. leishanensis Li, Xu, Liu, Jiang, Wei & Wang, 2018 Li et al. 2018
M. lekaguli Stuart, Chuaynkern, Chan-ard & Inger, 2006 Stuart et al. 2006
M. liboensis (Zhang, Li, Xiao, Li, Pan, Wang, Zhang & Zhou, 2017) Zhang et al. 2017
M. ligayae Taylor, 1920 Taylor 1920
M. lini (Wang & Yang, 2014) Wang et al. 2014
M. lishuiensis (Wang, Liu & Jiang, 2017) Wang et al. 2017b
M. longipes Boulenger, 1886 Taylor 1962
M. major Boulenger, 1908 Mahony et al. 2018
M. mangshanensis Fei & Ye, 1990 Fei et al. 2012
M. maosonensis Bourret, 1937 Bourret 1937
M. medogensis Fei, Ye & Huang, 1983 Fei et al. 2012
M. megacephala Mahony, Sengupta, Kamei & Biju, 2011 Mahony et al. 2011
M. microstoma (Boulenger, 1903) Fei et al. 2012
M. minor Stejneger, 1926 Fei et al. 2012
M. montana Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822 Kuhl and Van Hasselt 1822
M. monticola (Günther, 1864) Mahony et al. 2018
M. mufumontana Wang, Lyu & Wang, 2019 Wang et al. 2019
M. nankiangensis Liu & Hu, 1966 Fei et al. 2012
M. nankunensis Wang, Zeng & Wang, 2019 Wang et al. 2019
M. nanlingensis Lyu, Wang, Liu & Wang, 2019 Wang et al. 2019
M. nasuta (Schlegel, 1858) Taylor 1962
M. obesa Wang, Li & Zhao, 2014 Wang et al. 2014
M. ombrophila Messenger & Dahn, 2019 Munir et al. 2019
M. omeimontis Liu, 1950 Fei et al. 2009
M. oreocrypta Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018 Mahony et al. 2018
M. oropedion Mahony, Teeling & Biju, 2013 Mahony et al. 2013
M. orientalis Li, Lyu, Wang & Wang, 2020 Li et al. 2020
M. pachyproctus Huang, 1981 Fei et al. 2009
M. palpebralespinosa Bourret, 1937 Fei et al. 2012
M. parallela Inger & Iskandar, 2005 Inger and Iskandar 2005
M. parva (Boulenger, 1893) Fei et al. 2009
M. periosa Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018 Mahony et al. 2018
M. popei (Zhao, Yang, Chen, Chen & Wang, 2014) Zhao et al. 2014
M. robusta Boulenger, 1908 Mahony et al. 2018
M. rubrimera Tapley, Cutajar, Mahony, Chung, Dau, Nguyen, Luong & Rowley, 2017 Tapley et al. 2017
M. sangzhiensis Jiang, Ye & Fei, 2008 Jiang et al. 2008
M. serchhipii (Mathew & Sen, 2007) Mathew and Sen 2007
M. shapingensis Liu, 1950 Fei et al. 2009
M. shuichengensis Tian & Sun, 1995 Fei et al. 2009
M. shunhuangensis Wang, Deng, Liu, Wu & Liu, 2019 Wang et al. 2019a
M. spinata Liu & Hu, 1973 Fei et al. 2009
M. stejnegeri Taylor, 1920 Taylor 1920
M. synoria (Stuart, Sok & Neang, 2006) Stuart et al. 2006
M. takensis Mahony, 2011 Mahony 2011
M. tuberogranulata Shen, Mo & Li, 2010 Fei et al. 2012
M. vegrandis Mahony, Teeling & Biju, 2013 Mahony et al. 2013
M. wawuensis Fei, Jiang & Zheng, 2001 Fei et al. 2012
M. wugongensis Wang, Lyu & Wang, 2019 Wang et al. 2019b
M. wuliangshanensis Ye & Fei, 1995 Fei et al. 2012
M. wushanensis Ye & Fei, 1995 Fei et al. 2012
M. xianjuensis Wang, Wu, Peng, Shi, Lu & Wu, 2020 Wang et al. 2020
M. zhangi Ye & Fei, 1992 Fei et al. 2012
M. zunhebotoensis (Mathew & Sen, 2007) Mathew and Sen 2007

Bioacoustics notes

Ten advertisement calls from two individuals of the new species were recorded on 18 May 2018 between 21:00–23:00 in Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China in the field. SONY PCM-D50 digital sound recorder was used to record within 20 cm of the calling individuals. The sound files in wave format were resampled at 48 kHz with sampling depth 24 bits. The sonograms and waveforms were generated by WaveSurfer software (Sjöander and Beskow 2000) from which all parameters and characters were measured. Ambient temperature was taken by a digital hygrothermograph.

Results

Phylogenetic analyses

Aligned sequence matrix of 16S+COI and RAG1+BDNF contains 1104 bp and 1582 bp, respectively. ML and BI trees of the mitochondrial DNA dataset presented almost consistent topology (Fig. 2), and as well, ML and BI trees of the nuclear DNA dataset showed almost identical topology (Fig. 3), though relationships of many lineages were unresolved (Figs 2, 3). In mitochondrial DNA trees, the undescribed species was clustered as an independent clade sister to a clade in comprising of M. minor Stejneger, 1926 and M. jiangi Liu, Li, Wei, Xu, Cheng, Wang & Wu, 2020, but in nuclear DNA trees, the undescribed species clade was sister to M. jiangi, and then was clustered together with M. minor.

Figure 2. 

Maximum likelihood (ML) tree of the genus Megophrys reconstructed based on the 16S rRNA and COI gene sequences. Bayesian posterior probability/ML bootstrap supports were denoted beside each node. Samples 1–88 refer to Suppl. material 2: Table S2.

Genetic distances on16S gene with uncorrected p-distance model between samples of the undescribed species were below 0.2%. The genetic distance between the undescribed species and its closest related species M. minor was 2.2% on 16S gene, which was higher or at the same level with those among many pairs of congeners, for example, 1.7% between M. spinata Liu & Hu, 1973 and M. sangzhiensis Jiang, Ye & Fei, 2008, 2.1% between M. omeimontis Liu, 1950 and M. binlingensis Jiang, Fei & Ye, 2009, and 2.2% between M. cheni (Wang & Liu, 2014) and M. nankunensis Wang, Zeng & Wang, 2019; Suppl. material 4: Table S4).

Figure 3. 

Maximum likelihood (ML) tree of the genus Megophrys reconstructed based on the nuclear DNA sequences of RAG1 and BDNF genes. Bayesian posterior probability/ML bootstrap supports were denoted beside each node. Samples 1–88 refer to Suppl. msterial 2: Table S2.

Taxonomic accounts

Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/20B6A80B-E937-4443-88A2-E357B77DB6CA
Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Type material

Holotype. CIBCS20190518031 (Figs 4, 5), adult male, from Chishui National Nature Reserve, Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China (28.436708N, 105.997794E, ca. 460 m a. s. l.), collected by Shi-Ze Li on 18 May 2019.

Figure 4. 

Photos of the holotype CIBCS20190518031 of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. in life A dorsal view B ventral view C dorsal view of hand D ventral view of hand E ventral view of foot.

Paratype. Two adult males and five adult females from the same place as holotype, collected by Shi-Ze Li and Jing Liu. Two females CIBCS20190518022 and CIBCS20190518023 collected by Jing LIU on 18 May 2019, two adult males CIBCS20190518019 and CIBCS20190518021 and three adult females CIBCS20190518025, CIBCS20190518027 and CIBCS20190518030 collected by Shi-Ze Li on 18 May 2019.

Diagnosis

Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. is assigned to the genus Megophrys based on molecular phylogenetic analyses and the following generic diagnostic characters: snout shield-like; projecting beyond the lower jaw; canthus rostralis distinct; chest glands small and round, closer to the axilla than to midventral line; femoral glands on rear part of thigh; vertical pupils (Fei et al. 2009).

Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. could be distinguished from its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: (1) body size moderate (SVL 43.4–44.1 mm in males, and 44.8–49.8 mm in females; (2) vomerine teeth absent; (3) tongue not notched behind; (4) a small horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid; (5) tympanum distinctly visible, rounded; (6) two metacarpal tubercles on palm; (7) relative finger lengths II < I < V < III; (8) toes without webbing; (9) heels overlapping when thighs are positioned at right angles to the body; (10) tibiotarsal articulation reaching the level between tympanum and eye when leg stretched forward. In breeding male, (11) an internal single subgular vocal sac; (12) nuptial pads with black spines on dorsal surface of bases of the first two fingers.

Description of holotype

(Figs 4, 5). SVL 43.4 mm; head width larger than head length (HDW/HDL ratio about 1.2); snout obtusely pointed, protruding well beyond the margin of the lower jaw in ventral view; loreal region vertical and concave; canthus rostralis well-developed; top of head flat in dorsal view; a small horn-like tubercle at the edge of the upper eyelid; eye large, eye diameter 43.9% of head length; pupils vertical; nostril orientated laterally, closer to snout than eye; tympanum distinct, TYP/EYE ratio 0.64; vomerine ridges and vomerine teeth absent; margin of tongue smooth, not notched behind.

Figure 5. 

The holotype specimen CIBCS20190518031 of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. A dorsal view B ventral view C lateral view D ventral view of hand E ventral view of foot.

Forelimbs slender, the length of lower arm and hand 42.4% of SVL; fingers slender, relative finger lengths: II < I < V < III; tips of digits globular, without lateral fringes; subarticular tubercle distinct at the base of each finger; two metacarpal tubercles, prominent, the outer one long and thin, the inner one oval-shaped.

Hindlimbs slender, 1.48 times SVL; heels overlapping when thighs are positioned at right angles to the body, tibiotarsal articulation reaching tympanum to eye when leg stretched forward; tibia length longer than thigh length; relative toe lengths I < II < V < III < IV; tips of toes round, slightly dilated; subarticular tubercles absent; toes without webbing; no lateral fringe; inner metatarsal tubercle oval-shaped; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.

Dorsal skin rough, with numerous granules; several large warts scattered on flanks; a small horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid; tubercles on the dorsum forming a weak X-shaped ridge, the V-shaped ridges disconnect; two discontinuous dorsolateral parallel ridges on either side of the X-shaped ridges; an inverted triangular brown speckle between two upper eyelids; several tubercles on the flanks and dorsal surface of thighs and tibias and forming four transverse tubercle rows; supratympanic fold distinct.

Ventral surface smooth; chest with small and round glands, closer to the axilla than to midventral line; femoral glands on rear of thighs, numerous white granules on outer thighs; posterior end of the body distinctly protruding and forming an arc-shaped swelling above the anal region.

Coloration of holotype in life

(Fig. 4). An inverted triangular brown speckle between the eyes; X-shaped ridges on the dorsum, four transverse bands on the dorsal surface of the thigh and shank; several dark brown and white vertical bars on the lower and upper lip; venter purple grey, some white spots on the ventral surface of body and limbs; palms and soles uniform purple grey, tip of digits pinkish; pectoral and femoral glands white.

Coloration of holotype in preservation

(Fig. 5). Color of dorsal surface fades to olive; the inverted triangular brown speckle between the eyes, X-shaped ridges on dorsum and transverse bands on limbs and digits distinct; ventral surface greyish white; creamy-white substitutes the pinkish on tip of digits; the posterior of ventral surface of body, inner of thigh and upper of tibia light red.

Variations

In CIBCS20190518027, the back is brown with some brick-red granules (Fig. 6A); in CIBCS20190518030, the X-shaped marking on back of trunk consists of a ridge with brown spots (Fig. 6B), and the throat and anterior belly are purplish, with grey spots on the posterior belly and black spots on the flank belly (Fig. 6E); in CIBCS20190518025, the marking on the back consists of a V-shaped ridge (Fig. 6C), and the anterior belly is brownish with some black spots on flank and belly, and posterior belly is beige (Fig. 6F); in CIBCS20190518019, the whole ventrum is purplish except the posterior belly that shows white blotches (Fig. 6D).

Figure 6. 

Color variation in Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. A dorsolateral view of the female specimen CIBCS20190518027 B dorsolateral view of the female specimen CIBCS20190518030 C dorsal view of the female specimen CIBCS20190518025 D ventral view of the male specimen CIBCS20190518019 E ventral view of the female specimen CIBCS20190518030 F ventral view of the female specimen CIBCS20190518025.

Advertisement call

The call description is based on recordings of the holotype CIBCS20190518031 (Fig. 7) from the shrub leaf near the streamlet, and the ambient air temperature was 24.5 °C. Each call consists of 14–20 (mean 16.14 ± 1.95, N = 10) notes. Call duration was 2.10–3.18 second (mean 2.51 ± 0.33, N = 7). Call interval was 0.92–1.32 seconds (mean 1.13 ± 0.15, N = 6). Each note had a duration of 0.07– 0.12 seconds (mean 0.98 ± 0.01, N = 113) and the intervals between notes 0.038–0.085 seconds (mean 0.056 ± 0.011, N = 106). Amplitude modulation within note was apparent, beginning with moderately high energy pulses, increasing slightly to a maximum by approximately mid note, and then decreasing towards the end of each note. The average dominant frequency was 5859 ± 118.02.61 (5733–6064 Hz, N = 7).

Figure 7. 

Visualization of advertisement calls of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. A waveform showing one note B sonogram showing one notes C waveform showing 16 notes of one call D sonogram showing 16 notes of one call.

Secondary sexual characters

Adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm, larger than adult males with 43.4–44.1 mm. Adult males have a single subgular vocal sac. In breeding males, brownish red nuptial pads are present on dorsal surface of the bases of the first and second fingers with black spines obvious under microscope.

Comparisons

By having medium body size, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. aceras Boulenger, 1903, M. auralensis Ohler, Swan & Daltry, 2002, M. carinense Boulenger, 1889, M. caudoprocta Shen, 1994, M. chuannanensis (Fei, Ye & Huang, 2001), M. damrei Mahony, 2011, M. edwardinae Inger, 1989, M. feae Boulenger, 1887, M. flavipunctata Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018, M. gigantica Liu, Hu & Yang, 1960, M. glandulosa Fei, Ye & Huang, 1990, M. himalayana Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018, M. intermedia Smith, 1921, M. jingdongensis Fei & Ye, 1983, M. kalimantanensis Munir, Hamidy, Matsui, Iskandar, Sidik & Shimada, 2019, M. lekaguli Stuart, Chuaynkern, Chan-ard & Inger, 2006, M. liboensis (Zhang, Li, Xiao, Li, Pan, Wang, Zhang & Zhou, 2017), M. major Boulenger, 1908, M. mangshanensis Fei & Ye, 1990, M. maosonensis Bourret, 1937, M. medogensis Fei, Ye & Huang, 1983, M. omeimontis Liu, 1950, M. oreocrypta Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018, M. orientalis (Li, Lyu, Wang & Wang, 2020), M. periosa Mahony, Kamei, Teeling & Biju, 2018, M. popei (Zhao, Yang, Chen, Chen & Wang, 2014), M. sangzhiensis Jiang, Ye & Fei, 2008, M. shapingensis Liu, 1950, M. shuichengensis Tian & Sun, 1995, and M. takensis Mahony, 2011 (maximum SVL < 49.8 mm in the new species vs. minimum SVL > 53 mm in the latter), and differs from M. acuta Wang, Li & Jin, 2014, M. angka (Wu, Suwannapoom, Poyarkov, Chen, Pawangkhanant, Xu, Jin, Murphy & Che, 2019), M. caobangensis Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen, Luong & Ziegler, 2020, M. damrei Mahony, 2011, M. dongguanensis Wang & Wang, 2019, M. cheni, M. jiangi, M. jinggangensis (Wang, 2012), M. jiulianensis Wang, Zeng, Lyu & Wang, 2019, M. kuatunensis Pope, 1929, M. lini (Wang & Yang, 2014), M. lishuiensis (Wang, Liu & Jiang, 2017), M. mufumontana (Wang, Lyu & Wang, 2019), M. minor, M. nanlingensis (Lyu, Wang, Liu & Wang, 2019), M. obesa Wang, Li & Zhao, 2014, M. pachyproctus Huang, 1981, M. palpebralespinosa Bourret, 1937, M. serchhipii Mathew & Sen, 2007, M. shunhuangensis Wang, Deng, Liu, Wu & Liu, 2019, M. vegrandis Mahony, Teeling & Biju, 2013, M. wuliangshanensis Ye & Fei, 1995, M. wushanensis Ye & Fei, 1995, M. zunhebotoensis Mathew & Sen, 2007, M. xianjuensis Wang, Wu, Peng, Shi, Lu & Wu, 2020, and M. zhangi Ye & Fei, 1992 (vs. maximum SVL < 42 mm in the latter).

By the absence of vomerine teeth, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. aceras, M. ancrae Mahony, Teeling & Biju, 2013, M. carinense, M. baluensis (Boulenger, 1899), M. caudoprocta, M. chuannanensis, M. damrei, M. daweimontis Rao & Yang, 1997, M. dongguanensis, M. fansipanensis Tapley, Cutajar, Mahony, Nguyen, Dau, Luong, Le, Nguyen, Nguyen, Portway, Luong & Rowley, 2018, M. flavipunctata, M. glandulosa, M. hoanglienensis Tapley, Cutajar, Mahony, Nguyen, Dau, Luong, Le, Nguyen, Nguyen, Portway, Luong & Rowley, 2018, M. himalayana, M. insularis (Wang, Liu, Lyu, Zeng & Wang, 2017), M. intermedia, M. jingdongensis, M. jinggangensis, M. jiulianensis. M. kalimantanensis, M. kobayashii Malkmus & Matsui, 1997, M. lancip Munir, Hamidy, Farajallah & Smith, 2018, M. lekaguli, M. liboensis, M. ligayae Taylor, 1920, M. longipes Boulenger, 1886, M. major, M. mangshanensis, M. maosonensis, M. medogensis, M. megacephala Mahony, Sengupta, Kamei & Biju, 2011, M. montana Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822, M. nasuta (Schlegel, 1858), M. nankunensis, M. nanlingensis, M. omeimontis, M. oropedion Mahony, Teeling & Biju, 2013, M. oreocrypta, M. palpebralespinosa, M. parallela Inger & Iskandar, 2005, M. parva (Boulenger, 1893), M. periosa, M. popei, M. robusta Boulenger, 1908, M. rubrimera Tapley, Cutajar, Mahony, Chung, Dau, Nguyen, Luong & Rowley, 2017, M. sangzhiensis, M. stejnegeri Taylor, 1920, M. takensis, M. zhangi, and M. zunhebotoensis (vs. present in the latter).

By having a small horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. binchuanensis Ye & Fei, 1995, M. binlingensis, M. damrei, M. gigantica, M. minor, M. monticola (Günther, 1864), M. nasuta, M. nankiangensis Liu & Hu, 1966, M. oropedion, M. pachyproctus, M. spinata, M. stejnegeri, M. takensis, M. wuliangshanensis, M. wushanensis, M. zhangi, and M. zunhebotoensis (vs. lacking tubercle in the latter), and differs from M. carinense, M. feae, M. gerti (Ohler, 2003), M. hansi (Ohler, 2003), M. intermedia, M. kalimantanensis, M. koui Mahony, Foley, Biju & Teeling, 2017, M. latidactyla, M. liboensis, M. microstoma (Boulenger, 1903), M. palpebralespinosa, M. popei, M. shuichengensis, and M. synoria (Stuart, Sok & Neang, 2006) (vs. having a prominent and elongated tubercle in the latter).

By having a tongue not notched behind, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. ancrae, M. baolongensis Ye, Fei & Xie, 2007, M. binlingensis, M. boettgeri (Boulenger, 1899), M. carinense, M. cheni, M. chuannanensis, M. damrei, M. dringi Inger, Stuebing & Tan, 1995, M. fansipanensis, M. feae, M. feii Yang, Wang & Wang, 2018, M. flavipunctata, M. gerti, M. glandulosa, M. hoanglienensis, M. huangshanensis Fei & Ye, 2005, M. insularis, M. jiulianensis. M. jingdongensis, M. kalimantanensis, M. kuatunensis, M. liboensis, M. mangshanensis, M. maosonensis, M. medogensis, M. minor, M. nankiangensis, M. nanlingensis, M. omeimontis, M. oropedion, M. pachyproctus, M. parallela, M. popei, M. robusta, M. sangzhiensis, M. shapingensis, M. shuichengensis, M. spinata, M. vegrandis, M. wawuensis Fei, Jiang & Zheng, 2001, M. zhangi, and M. zunhebotoensis (vs. tongue notched behind in the latter).

By lacking lateral fringes on the toes, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. acuta, M. auralensis, M. baolongensis, M. binchuanensis, M. boettgeri, M. carinense, M. cheni, M. chuannanensis, M. elfina Poyarkov, Duong, Orlov, Gogoleva, Vassilieva, Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, Che & Mahony, 2017, M. feae, M. feii, M. flavipunctata, M. gigantica, M. glandulosa, M. hansi, M. intermedia, M. jingdongensis, M. jinggangensis, M. kuatunensis, M. latidactyla, M. lini, M. major, M. maosonensis, M. nankiangensis, M. omeimontis, M. palpebralespinosa, M. popei, M. rubrimera, M. sangzhiensis, M. serchhipii, M. shapingensis, M. shuichengensis, M. spinata, M. vegrandis, M. xianjuensis, M. zhangi, and M. zunhebotoensis (vs. present in these species).

By having toes without webs at bases, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. brachykolos Inger & Romer, 1961, M. carinense, M. flavipunctata, M. jingdongensis, M. jinggangensis, M. lini, M. major, M. palpebralespinosa, M. popei, M. shuichengensis, M. spinata (vs. at least one-fourth webbed).

By heels overlapping when thighs are positioned at right angles to the body, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. acuta, M. brachykolos, M. dongguanensis, M. huangshanensis, M. kuatunensis, M. nankunensis, M. obesa, M. ombrophila Messenger & Dahn, 2019, and M. wugongensis Wang, Lyu & Wang, 2019 (vs. not meeting).

With tibiotarsal articulation reaching to the level between tympanum and eye when leg is stretched forward, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. baolongensis, M. nankiangensis, M. pachyproctus, M. shuichengensis and M. tuberogranulata Shen, Mo & Li, 2010 (vs. just reaching posterior corner of the eye in the latter); differs from M. daweimontis, M. glandulosa, M. lini, M. major, M. medongensis, M. obesa, and M. sangzhiensis (vs. reaching the anterior corner of the eye or beyond eye or nostril and tip of snout in the latter); differs from M. leishanensis Li, Xu, Liu, Jiang, Wei & Wang, 2018 (vs. reaching middle part of eye in this group of species); and differs from M. mufumontana (vs. reaching tympanum in males and to the eye in females).

By having an internal single subgular vocal sac in male, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. caudoprocta, M. shapingensis, and M. shuichengensis (vs. vocal sac absent).

By having nuptial pads and nuptial spines on dorsal surface of the base of the first two fingers in breeding males, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. differs from M. acuta, M. feii, M. shapingensis, and M. shuichengensis (vs. lacking in these species).

The congeners M. carinense, M. jiangi, M. leishanensis, M. liboensis, M. shuichengensis, and M. spinata have sympatric distribution with Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. (Fei et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2020) . The new species can be distinguished from these species by a series of morphological characters as follows. The new species vs. M. carinense: body size smaller (adult males with 43.4–44.1 mm and adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm vs. adult males with 92–123 mm and adult females with SVL 137mm), vomerine teeth absent (vs. present), horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid small (vs. prominent), tongue not notched behind (vs. notched behind), lacking lateral fringe in toes (vs. present), and toes without webs at bases (vs. one-fourth webbed). The new species vs. M. jiangi: body size bigger (adult males with 43.4–44.1 mm and adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm vs. adult males with 34.4–39.2 mm and adult females with SVL 39.5–40.4 mm), and relative finger lengths II < I < V < III vs. I < II < V < III. The new species vs. M. leishanensis: body size bigger (adult males with 43.4–44.1 mm and adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm vs. adult males with 30.4–38.7 mm and adult females with SVL 42.3 mm), and tibiotarsal articulation reaching forward to the region between tympanum and eye when hindlimb is stretched along the side of the body vs. reaching middle part of eye. The new species vs. M. liboensis: body size smaller in adult females (adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm vs. adult females with SVL 60.8–70.6 mm), vomerine teeth absent vs. vomerine teeth present, and horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid is small vs. prominent. The new species vs. M. shuichengensis: body size smaller (adult males with 43.4–44.1 mm and adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm vs. adult males with 102.0–118.3 mm and adult females with SVL 99.8–115.6 mm), horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid is small vs. prominent, tongue not notched behind vs. tongue notched behind, lacking lateral fringe in toes vs. present, toes without webs at bases vs. one-fourth webbed, having an internal single subgular vocal sac in male vs. absent, and having nuptial pads and nuptial spines on the dorsal base of the first two fingers in breeding male vs. lacking. The new species vs. M. spinata: body size is smaller (adult males with 43.4–44.1 mm and adult females with SVL 44.8–49.8 mm vs. adult males with 47.2–54.4 mm and adult females with SVL 54.0–55.0 mm), horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid is small vs. lacking tubercle, tongue not notched behind vs. notched behind, lacking lateral fringe in toes vs. present, and toes without webs at bases vs. one-fourth webbed.

Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. is phylogenetically closest to M. minor, and this new species could be identified from the latter distinctly by having larger body size (SVL 43.4–44.1 mm in males vs. 34.5–41.2 mm in males of M. minor), having a small horn-like tubercle at the edge of each upper eyelid (vs. absent in the latter), tongue not notched behind (vs. notched in the latter), tibiotarsal articulation reaching the level between tympanum to eye when leg stretched forward (vs. reaching the level between eye and tip of snout in the latter), and having two metatarsal tubercles in each hand (vs. absent in the latter).

Distribution and habitats

Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. is known from the type locality, Chishui National Nature Reserve (28.38–28.45N, 106.05–109.75E), Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China at elevations between 270–604 m. The individuals of the new species were frequently found in bamboo forest nearby the streams (Fig. 8), and five sympatric amphibian species were also found: Megophrys omeimontis, Odorrana margaratae (Liu, 1950), Zhangixalus omeimontis (Stejneger, 1924), and Rana omeimontis Ye & Fei, 1993.

Figure 8. 

Habitats of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. in the type locality, Chishui National Nature Reserve, Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China A landscape of montane forests B a mountain stream (the inset illustrates the holotype on stone).

Etymology

The specific name chishuiensis refers to the distribution of this species, Chishui City, Guizhou Province, China. We propose the common name “Chishui horned toad” and its Chinese name as Chi Shui Jiao Chan (赤水角蟾).

Discussion

The new species, Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov., resembles M. minor and M. jiangi, and detailed comparison with different data sets are important for recognizing them. Our molecular phylogenetic data on mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA, and morphological comparisons both separated the new species from the two closely related species. Megophrys minor were reported to be distributed widely through the provinces of Sichuan, Guizhou, Chongqing, Yunnan, Guangxi, Jiangxi and north of Vietnam (Fei et al. 2012), but detailed investigations with multiple data suggested that several populations of the species should contain cryptic species (including Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. and M. jiangi). In recent years, a lot of new species of the genus Megophrys have been gradually described, of which, a large part of number of species were found in China (Frost 2020). To now, among the 97 species of Megophrys, 51 species were discovered in China. Even so, dozens of cryptic species need to be described (Chen et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2018) just in China. Obviously, we should conduct more investigations on the differentiation of the populations and explore the species identity in the wide range.

Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov. with a narrow distribution also fits the “micro-endemism” model like many other congeners (Liu et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019). Besides, the new species is likely to be threatened by several factors, i.e., developing tourism in Chishui National Nature Reserve, constructions in this area and increasing pollution from tourists. Reasonable managements of tourism in this area may probably facilitate the protection of the populations of the toad and other animal species.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to editors and reviewers for their work on this manuscript. This work was supported by Laboratory on Biodiversity Conservation and Applied Ecology of Guiyang College GYU-KYZ (2019~2020) PT14–02, National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NSFC31960099), Biodiversity Conservation Key Laboratory of Guizhou Province Education Department, Guiyang College, Basic research project of science and technology department of Guizhou Province (Nos. [2020] 1Y083), Science and technology support project of science and technology department of Guizhou Provincial (No. [2020] 4Y029) and Guizhou Provincial Department of Education Youth Science and Technology Talents Growth Project (Nos. KY[2018]455 and KY[2018]468).

References

  • Boulenger GA (1886) Description of a new frog of the genus Megalophrys. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1885: 1–850.
  • Boulenger GA (1887) Description of a new frog of the genus Megalophrys. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 2, 4: 512–513.
  • Boulenger GA (1889) Description of a new batrachian of the genus Leptobrachium, obtain by M. L. Burma. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova. Serie 2, 7: 748–750.
  • Boulenger GA (1899a) Descriptions of three new reptiles and a new batrachian from Mount Kina Balu, North Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 7(4): 1–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222939908678228
  • Boulenger GA (1899b) On a collection of reptiles and batrachians made by Mr. J. D. La Touche in N.W. Fokien, China. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1899: 159–172.
  • Boulenger GA (1903) Report on the batrachians and reptiles. Annandale, N., and H. C. Robinson eds., Fasciculi Malayenses. Anthropological and Zoological Results of an Expedition to Perak and the Siamese Malay States 1901–1903 undertaken by Nelson Annandale and Herbert C. Robinson under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh and the University of Liverpool. Volume 2, Zoology, Part 1: 131–176.
  • Bourret R (1937) Notes herpétologiques sur l’Indochine française. XIV. Les batraciens de la collection du Laboratoire des Sciences Naturelles de l’Université. Descriptions de quinze espèces ou variétés nouvelles. Annexe au Bulletin Général de l’Instruction Publique Hanoi, 1937: 5–56.
  • Chen JM, Zhou WW, Poyarkov Jr NA, Stuart BL, Brown RM, Lathrop A, Wang YY, Yuan ZL, Jiang K, Hou M, Chen HM, Suwannapoom C, Nguyen SN, Duong TV, Papenfuss TJ, Murphy RW, Zhang YP, Che J (2017) A novel multilocus phylogenetic estimation reveals unrecognized diversity in Asia toads, genus Megophrys sensu lato (Anura: Megophryidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 106: 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.09.004
  • Deuti K, Grosjean S, Nicolas V, Vasudevan K, Ohler A (2017) Nomenclatural puzzle in early Megophrys nomina (Anura, Megophryidae) solved with description of two new species from India (Darjeeling hills and Sikkim). Alytes 34: 20–48.
  • Dubois A (1987) Miscellanea taxinomica batrachologica (I). Alytes 1987 [1986]: 7–95.
  • Dubois A, Ohler A (1998) A new species of Leptobrachium (Vibrissaphora) from northern Vietnam, with a review of the taxonomy of the genus Leptobrachium (Pelobatidae, Megophryinae). Dumerilia 4(14): 1–32.
  • Fei L, Hu SQ, Ye CY, Huang YZ (2009) Fauna Sinica. Amphibia (Vol. 2). Anura. Science Press, Beijing, 328–481. [In Chinese]
  • Fei L, Ye CY, Huang YZ (1983) Two new subspecies of Megophrys omeimontis Liu from China (Amphibia, Pelobatidae). Acta Herpetologica Sinica. New Series, Chengdu 2(2): 49–52. [In Chinese with English abstract]
  • Fei L, Ye CY, Huang YZ (1990) Key to Chinese Amphibians. Publishing House for Scientific and Technological, Chongqing, China, 96–103. [In Chinese]
  • Fei L, Ye CY, Huang YZ (2001) The Colour Handbook of the Amphibians of Sichuan, Science Press, Beijing, China, 141–151. [In Chinese]
  • Fei L, Ye CY (2005) Two new species of Megophryidae from China. In: Fei et al. (Ed.) The Key and Illustration of Chinese. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, Chongqing, China, 253–255. [In Chinese]
  • Fei L, Ye CY, Jiang JP (2012) Colored atlas of Chinese Amphibians and their distributions. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, Chengdu, 135–247. [In Chinese]
  • Fei L, Ye CY, Jiang JP (2016) Genus Liuophrys Fei, Ye and Jiang, new genus; Subgenus Atympanophrys (Borealophrys) Fei, Ye and Jiang, new subgenus; Subgenus Atympanophrys (Gigantophrys) Fei, Ye and Jiang, new subgenus; Genus Boulenophrys Fei, Ye and Jiang, 2016, new genus; Subgenus Xenophrys (Tianophrys) Fei, Ye and Jiang, new subgenus. In: Fei L, Ye CY (Eds) Amphibians of China (Vol. I). Science Press, Beijing, 611–735.
  • Günther ACLG (1864) The reptiles of British India. Ray Society. London, 414 pp.
  • Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O (2010) New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Systematic Biology 59(3): 07–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syq010
  • Hall TA (1999) BIOEDIT: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41(41): 95–98.
  • Hu SX, Zhao EM, Liu CZ (1966) A herpetological survey of the Tsinling and Ta-pa shan region. Acta Zoologica Sinica 18(1): 57–89.
  • Hu SX, Zhao EM, Liu CZ (1973) A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Kweichow province, including a herpetofauna analysis. Acta Zoologica Sinica 19(2): 149–171.
  • Huang YZ, Fei L (1981) Two new species of amphibians from Xizang. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 6: 211–215.
  • Inger RF (1989) Four new species of frogs from Borneo. Malayan Nature Journal. Kuala Lumpur 42: 229–243.
  • Inger RF, Stuebing RB, Lian TF (1995) New species and new records of Anurans from Boreno. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Singapore 43(1): 115–131.
  • Inger RF, Iskandar DT (2005) A collection of amphibians from west Sumatra, with description of a new species of Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Singapore 133–142.
  • Jiang JP, Ye CY, Fei L (2008) A New Horn Toad Megophrys sangzhiensis from Hunan, China (Amphibia, Anura). Zoological Research 29(2): 219–222. [In Chinese with English abstract] https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1141.2008.00219
  • Kuhl H, Van Hasselt JC (1822) Uittreksels uit breieven van de Heeren Kuhl en van Hasselt, aan de Heeren C. J. Temminck, Th. van Swinderen en W. de Haan. Algemeene Konst-en Letter-Bode 7: 99–104.
  • Li YL, Jin MJ, Zhao J, Liu ZY, Wang YY, Pang H (2014) Description of two new species of the genus Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Heishiding Nature Reserve, Fengkai, Guangdong, China, based on molecular and morphological data. Zootaxa 3795(4): 449–471. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3795.4.5
  • Li SZ, Xu N, Liu J, Jiang JP, Wei G, Wang B (2018) A new species of the Asian toad genus Megophrys sensu lato (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Guizhou Province, China. Asian Herpetological Research 9(4): 224–239. https://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.180072
  • Li Y, Zhang DD, Lyu ZT, Wang J, Li YL, Liu ZY, Chen HH, Rao DQ, Jin ZF, Zhang CY, Wang YY (2020) Review of the genus Brachytarsophrys (Anura: Megophryidae), with revalidation of Brachytarsophrys platyparietus and description of a new species from China. Zoological Research 41(2): 105−122. https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.033
  • Liu CZ, Hu SQ, Yang HH (1960) Amphibian of Yunnan collected in 1958. Acta Zoological Sinica 12(2): 149–174.
  • Liu ZY, Zhu TQ, Zeng ZC, Lyu ZT, Wang J, Messenger K, Greenberg AJ, Gou ZX, Yang ZH, Shi SH, Wang YY (2018) Prevalence of cryptic species in morphologically uniform taxa-Fast speciation and evolutionary radiation in Asian frogs. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 127: 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.06.020
  • Liu J, Li SZ, Wei G, Xu N, Cheng YL, Wang B, Wu J (2019) A new species of the Asian toad genus Megophrys sensu lato (Anura: Megophryidae) from Guizhou Province, China. Asian Herpetological Research 11(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.190041
  • Mahony S, Sengupta S, Kamei RG, Biju SD (2011) A new low altitude species of Megophrys Kuhl and van Hasselt (Amphibia: Megophryidae), from Assam, Northeast India. Zootaxa 3059: 36–46. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3059.1.2
  • Mahony S, Teeling EC, Biju SD (2013) Three new species of horned frogs, Megophrys (Amphibia: Megophryidae), from northeast India, with a resolution to the identity of Megophrys boettgeri populations reported from the region. Zootaxa 3722(2): 143–169. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3722.2.2
  • Mahony S, Nicole MF, Biju SD, Teeling EC (2017) Evolutionary history of the Asian Horned Frogs (Megophryinae): integrative approaches to timetree dating in the absence of a fossil record. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34(3): 744–771. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw267
  • Mahony S, Kamei RG, Teeling EC, Biju SD (2018) Cryptic diversity within the Megophrys major species group (Amphibia: Megophryidae) of the Asian Horned Frogs: Phylogenetic perspectives and a taxonomic revision of South Asian taxa, with descriptions of four new species. Zootaxa 4523: 1–96. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4523.1.1
  • Malkmus R, Matsui M (1997) Megophrys kobayashii, ein neuer pelobatider Frosch vom Mount Kinabalu. Sauria, Berlin 19: 31–37.
  • Mathew R, Sen N (2007) Description of two new species of Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from North-east India. Cobra 1: 18–28.
  • McGuire JA, Witt CC, Altshuler DL, Remsen JV (2007) Phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of hummingbirds: Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses of partitioned data and selection of an appropriate partitioning strategy. Systematic Biology 56(5): 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701656360
  • Messenger KR, Dahn HA, Liang YR, Xie P, Wang Y, Lu CH (2019) A new species of the genus Megophrys Gunther, 1864 (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Mount Wuyi, China. Zootaxa 4554(2): 561–583. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4554.2.9
  • Mo XY, Shen YH, Li HH, Wu MS (2010) A new species of Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from the northwestern Hunan Province, China. Current Zoology 56(4): 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/56.4.432
  • Munir M, Hamidy A, Farajallah A, Smith EN (2018) A new Megophrys Kuhl and Van Hasselt (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from southwestern Sumatra, Indonesia. Zootaxa 4442: 389–412. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4442.3.3
  • Munir M, Hamidy A, Matsui M, Iskandar DT, Sidik I, Shimada T (2019) A new species of Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from Borneo allied to M. nasuta (Schlegel, 1858). Zootaxa 4679: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4679.1.1
  • Ohler A, Swan SR, Daltry JC (2002) A recent survey of the amphibian fauna of the Cardamom Mountains, Southwest Cambodia with descriptions of three new species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Singapore 50(2): 465–481.
  • Ohler A (2003) Revision of the genus Ophryophryne Boulenger, 1903 (Megophryidae) with description of two new species. Alytes 21(1): 23–44.
  • Orlov NL, Pyarkov Jr NA, Nguyen TT (2015) Taxonomic notes on Megophrys frogs (Megophryidae: Anura) of Vietnam, with description of a new species. Russian Journal of Herpetology 22: 206–218.
  • Pope CH (1929) Four new frogs from Fukien Province, China. American Museum Novitates 352: 1–5.
  • Poyarkov NA, Duong Jr TV, Orlov NL, Gogoleva SI, Vassilieva AB, Nguyen LT, Nguyen VDH, Nguyen SN, Che J, Mahony S (2017) Molecular, morphological and acoustic assessment of the genus Ophryophryne (Anura, Megophryidae) from Langbian Plateau, southern Vietnam, with description of a new species. ZooKeys 672: 49–120. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.672.10624
  • Rao DQ, Yang DT (1997) The karyotypes of Megophryinae (Pelobatidae) with a discussion on their classification and phylogenetic relationships. Asian Herpetological Research 7: 93–102. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.18858
  • Robert L, Brett C, Simon YWH, Stephane G (2012) PartitionFinder: Combined Selection of Partitioning Schemes and Substitution Models for Phylogenetic Analyses. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 29(6): 1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss020
  • Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1659 pp.
  • Shen MM, Liang D, Feng YJ, Chen MY, Zhang P (2013) A versatile and highly efficient toolkit including 102 nuclear markers for Vertebrate phylogenomics, tested by resolving the higher level relationships of the Caudata. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30(10): 2235–2248. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst122
  • Shen YH (1994) A new pelobatid toad of the genus Megophrys from China (Anura: Pelobatidae). In: Zoological Society of China (China Zoological Society, Institute of zoology, Chinese academy of sciences, School of life sciences, Peking University, Department of biological science and technology, Tsinghua university) The 60th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Zoological Society of China, Nanking (China), September 1994. China Science and Technology Publishing House, 603–606.
  • Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P (1994) Evolution, weighting and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87(6): 651–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/87.6.651
  • Sjöander K, Beskow J (2000) Wavesurfer (Anura: Pelobatidae). Acoustical society of China Editor. The International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Beijing (China), October 2000. Military Yiwen Publishing House, 464–467.
  • Stejneger L (1926) Two new tailless amphibians from western China. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 39: 53–54.
  • Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Fiipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis, version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 2725–2729. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197
  • Tapley B, Cutajar T, Mahony S, Nguyen CT, Dau VQ, Nguyen TT, Luong HV, Rowley JJL (2017) The Vietnamese population of Megophrys kuatunensis (Amphibia: Megophryidae) represents a new species of Asian horned frog from Vietnam and southern China. Zootaxa 4344(3): 465–492. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4344.3.3
  • Tapley B, Cutajar TP, Mahony S, Nguyen CT, Dau VQ, Luong AM, Le DT, Nguyen TT, Nguyen TQ, Portway C, Luong HV, Rowley JJL (2018) Two new and potentially highly threatened Megophrys Horned frogs (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from Indochina’s highest mountains. Zootaxa 4508: 301–333. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4508.3.1
  • Tian YZ, Sun A (1995) A new species of Megophrys from China (Amphibia: Pelobatidae). Journal of Liupanshui Teachers College 52(3): 11–15. [In Chinese]
  • Tian WS, Hu QX (1983) Taxonomic study on genus Megophrys, with descriptions of two genera. Acta Herpetologica Sinica 2: 41–48.
  • Vieites DR, Min MS, Wake DB (2007) Rapid diversification and dispersal during periods of global warming by plethodontid salamanders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 19903–19907. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705056104
  • Wang J, Liu ZY, Lyu ZT, Wang YY (2017a) A new species of the genus Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from an offshore island in Guangdong Province, southeastern China. Zootaxa 4324(3): 541–556. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4324.3.8
  • Wang YE, Liu BQ, Jiang K, Jin W, Xu JN, Wu CH (2017b) A new species of the Horn Toad of the genus Xenophrys from Zhejiang, China (Amphibia: Megophryidae). Chinese Journal of Zoology 52: 19–29. [in Chinese with English abstract]
  • Wang YY, Zhang TD, Zhao J, Sung YH, Yang JH, Pang H, Zhang Z (2012) Description of a new species of the genus Megophrys Günther, 1864 (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Mount Jinggang, China, based on molecular and morphological data. Zootaxa 3546: 53–67. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3546.1.4
  • Wang YY, Zhao J, Yang JH, Zhou ZM, Chen GL, Liu Y (2014) Morphology, molecular genetics, and bioacoustics support two new sympatric Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura Megophryidae) species in Southeast China. Plos ONE 9: e93075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093075
  • Wang J, Lyu ZT, Liu ZY, Liao CK, Zeng ZC, Li YL, Wang YY (2019b) Description of six new species of the subgenusPanophrys within the genus Megophrys (Anura, Megophryidae) from southeastern China based on molecular and morphological data. ZooKeys 851: 113–164. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.851.29107
  • Wang B, Wu YQ, Peng JW, Shi SC, Lu NN, Wu J (2020) A new Megophrys Kuhl and Van Hasselt (Amphibia: Megophryidae) from southeastern China. ZooKeys 851: 113–164. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.904.47354
  • Wu YH, Suwannapoom C, Poyarkov Jr NA, Chen JM, Pawangkhanant P, Xu K, Jin JQ, Murphy RW, Che J (2019) A new species of the genus Xenophrys (Anura: Megophryidae) from northern Thailand. Zoological Research 40: 564–574. https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2019.032
  • Ye CY, Fei L (1992) A new Pelobatid toda of the genus Megophrys from Xizang, China. Acta Herpetologica Sinica 1–2: 50–52. [In Chinese]
  • Ye CY, Fei L (1995) Taxonomic studies on the small type Megophrys in China including descriptions of the new species (subspecies) (Pelobatidae: genus Megophrys). Herpetologica Sinica 4–5: 72–81. [In Chinese]
  • Ye CY, Fei L, Xie F (2007) A new species of Megophryidae Megophrys baolongensis from China (Amphibia, Anura). Herpetologica Sinica 11: 38–41. [In Chinese]
  • Zhang Y, Li G, Xiao N, Li J, Pan T, Wang H, Zhang B, Zhou J (2017) A new species of the genus Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryicae) from Libo County, Guizhou, China. Asian Herpetological Research 8: 75–85. https://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.160041
  • Zhao J, Yang JH, Chen GL, Chen CQ, Wang YY (2014) Description of a new species of the genus Brachytarsophrys Tian and Hu, 1983 (Amphibia: Anura: Megophryidae) from Southern China based on molecular and morphological data. Asian Herpetological Research 5(3): 150–160. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1245.2014.00150

1 Contributed equally as the first authors.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1 

Table S1

Ning Xu, Shi-Ze Li, Jing Liu, Gang Wei, Bin Wang

Explanation note: Measurements of the adult specimens of Megophrys chishuiensis sp. nov.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (11.11 kb)
Supplementary material 2 

Table S2

Ning Xu, Shi-Ze Li, Jing Liu, Gang Wei, Bin Wang

Explanation note: Localities, voucher information, and GenBank accession numbers for molecular samples used in this study.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (17.91 kb)
Supplementary material 3 

Table S3

Ning Xu, Shi-Ze Li, Jing Liu, Gang Wei, Bin Wang

Explanation note: Primer sequences used in this study.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (33.00 kb)
Supplementary material 4 

Table S4

Ning Xu, Shi-Ze Li, Jing Liu, Gang Wei, Bin Wang

Explanation note: Uncorrected p-distances between the Megophrys species based on the 16S gene sequences.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (36.32 kb)
login to comment