Research Article
Print
Research Article
Hidden in the jungle of Vietnam: a new species of Quasipaa (Amphibia, Anura, Dicroglossidae) from Ngoc Linh Mountain
expand article infoCuong The Pham‡§, Chung Van Hoang‡|, Tien Quang Phan‡, Truong Quang Nguyen‡§, Thomas Ziegler#
‡ Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
§ Graduate University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
| Forest Resources and Environment Center, Hanoi, Vietnam
¶ AG Zoologischer Garten Köln, Cologne, Germany
# University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Corresponding author: Cuong The Pham ( cuongiebr@gmail.com )

Corresponding author: Thomas Ziegler ( ziegler@koelnerzoo.de )

Academic editor: Annemarie Ohler
© 2022 Cuong The Pham, Chung Van Hoang, Tien Quang Phan, Truong Quang Nguyen, Thomas Ziegler.
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: Pham CT, Hoang CV, Phan TQ, Nguyen TQ, Ziegler T (2022) Hidden in the jungle of Vietnam: a new species of Quasipaa (Amphibia, Anura, Dicroglossidae) from Ngoc Linh Mountain. ZooKeys 1124: 23-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1124.89282
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CDEBD126-15A5-41E2-A3B1-AED70B30D728
Open Access

Abstract

A new species of Quasipaa is described from Ngoc Linh Mountain of the Kon Tum Massif in central Vietnam. The new species is morphologically distinguishable from its congeners on the basis of a combination of the following diagnostic characters: SVL 79.6–84.3 mm in males and 64.6–69.9 mm in females; head broader than long; vomerine teeth present; external vocal sacs absent; tympanum slightly visible; dorsum with lines of thick ridges and small round tubercles; flanks covered by oval and round tubercles; supratympanic fold present; dorsolateral fold absent; ventrolateral sides, ventral surface of arms, and all fingers with spines in males; the absence of spines on chest and belly in males; toes fully webbed to distal portion of terminal phalanx; in life, dorsum dark brown, chest and belly immaculate white. Phylogenetic analyses found that the genetic divergence of the new species and its congeners ranged from 4.2–5.1% (compared with Quasipaa boulengeri) to 7.6–8.1% (compared with Q. shini) in the 16S gene.

Keywords

Kon Tum Province, molecular phylogeny, Quasipaa taoi sp. nov., taxonomy

Introduction

The genus Quasipaa Dubois, 1992 is known from China through the Indochina region and south to Thailand. The genus currently contains 12 recognized species, including Quasipaa acanthophora Dubois & Ohler, 2009, Q. boulengeri (Günther, 1889), Q. courtoisi (Angel, 1922), Q. delacouri (Angel, 1928), Q. exilispinosa (Liu & Hu, 1975), Q. fasciculispina (Inger, 1970), Q. jiulongensis (Huang & Liu, 1985), Q. robertingeri (Wu & Zhao, 1995), Q. shini (Ahl, 1930), Q. spinosa (David, 1875), Q. verrucospinosa (Bourret, 1937), and Q. yei (Chen, Qu & Jiang, 2002) (Frost 2022). Recent phylogenetic studies have shown that there are still several unnamed distinct lineages in the genus, indicating that its species richness remains underestimated (Che et al. 2009, 2010; Yan et al. 2021).

During our recent fieldwork in the Central Highlands of Vietnam, specimens of Quasipaa were collected in the evergreen forests of Ngoc Linh Mountain, Kon Tum Province. These specimens were identified as members of the “Quasipaa sensu stricto” species group (Group II-2) (Che et al. 2010) and Quasipaa sp. 1 (Yan et al. 2021) based on molecular data. Closer morphological examination showed that the population from Ngoc Linh Mountain in the Central Highlands of Vietnam could be clearly distinguished from other Quasipaa species by a combination of morphological features. Also, in phylogenetic analyses, this taxon was clearly separated from its congeners. Therefore, we describe here the unnamed taxon from the Central Highlands of Vietnam, based on our integrative taxonomical analyses, as a new species.

Materials and methods

Sampling

A field survey was conducted in March 2019 in Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Dak Giei District, Kon Tum Province. Frogs were collected between 19:00 and 23:00. After taking photographs of living specimens, they were anaesthetized and euthanized in a closed vessel with a piece of cotton wool containing ethyl acetate (Simmons 2002), fixed in 80% ethanol for 5 h, and later transferred to 70% ethanol for permanent storage. Tissue samples were preserved separately in 70% ethanol prior to fixation. Voucher specimens referred to in this paper were deposited in the collections of the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR), Hanoi, Vietnam.

Molecular data and phylogenetic analyses

In this study, 15 samples of five species of Quasipaa were used for molecular analysis (Table 1). Tissue samples were extracted using PureLink™ RNA Micro Scale Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific company), following the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA was amplified using PCR Applied Biosystems. PCR volume consisted of 25 μl, including 12 μl of Mastermix, 6 μl of water, 1 μl of each primer at concentration of 10 pmol/μl, and 5 μl of DNA. A fragment of the mitochondrial gene (16S) with ~570 base pairs length was amplified using the primer pair LR-N-13398 (5´-CGCCTGTTTACCAAAAACAT-3´; forward) and LR-J 12887 (5´-CCGGTCTGAACTCAGATCACGT-3´; reverse) (Simon et al. 1994). PCR conditions: 94 °C for 5 min of initial denaturation; with 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 56 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 45 s; and the final extension at 72 °C for 7 min. PCR products were sent to Apical Scientific company for sequencing (https://apicalscientific.com).

Table 1.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

GenBank accession numbers and associated samples that used in this study.

Species Location Genbank No. References
1 Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. Kon Tum, Vietnam OP326684 This study
2 Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. Kon Tum, Vietnam OP326685 This study
3 Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. Kon Tum, Vietnam EU979804 Che et al. (2009)
4 Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. Xekong, Laos EU979803 Che et al. (2009)
5 Q. verrucospinosa Vinh Phuc, Vietnam EU979813 Che et al. (2009)
6 Q. verrucospinosa Tuyen Quang, Vietnam OP326686 This study
7 Q. verrucospinosa Tuyen Quang, Vietnam OP326687 This study
8 Q. verrucospinosa Tuyen Quang, Vietnam OP326688 This study
9 Q. spinosa Yunnan, China DQ118480 Che et al. (2009)
10 Q. robertingeri Sichuan, China EU979814 Che et al. (2009)
11 Q. robertingeri Sichuan, China DQ118478 Che et al. (2009)
12 Q. boulengeri Cao Bang, Vietnam OP326689 This study
13 Q. boulengeri Cao Bang, Vietnam OP326690 This study
14 Q. boulengeri Cao Bang, Vietnam OP326691 This study
15 Q. boulengeri Cao Bang, Vietnam OP326692 This study
16 Q. boulengeri Cao Bang, Vietnam OP326693 This study
17 Q. exilispinosa Fujian, China DQ118484 Che et al. (2009)
18 Q. jiulongensis Fujian, China KF199149 Zhang et al. (2018)
19 Q. acanthophora Lang Son, Vietnam OP326694 This study
20 Q. acanthophora Lang Son, Vietnam OP326695 This study
21 Q. yei Henan, China DQ118488 Che et al. (2009)
22 Q. shini Guangxi, China DQ118487 Che et al. (2009)
23 Quasipaa sp. Xekong, Laos EU979812 Che et al. (2009)
24 Q. delacouri Tuyen Quang, Vietnam OP326696 This study
25 Q. delacouri Tuyen Quang, Vietnam OP326697 This study
26 Q. delacouri Tuyen Quang, Vietnam OP326698 This study
Outgroup
Fejervarya limnocharis Vinh Phuc, Vietnam EU979847 Che et al. (2009)

In addition, we used 11 available sequences of 16S rRNA of nine species of the genus Quasipaa in GenBank for phylogenetic analyses (Che et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2018). A sequence of Fejervarya limnocharis was included in the analysis as the outgroup (Che et al. 2009). For locality information and accession numbers for all sequences used in this study, see Table 1.

Phylogenetic trees were constructed by using maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI). Chromas Pro software (Technelysium Pty Ltd., Tewantin, Australia) was used to edit the sequences, which were aligned using the ClustalW (Thompson et al. 1997) option in MEGA X (Kumar et al. 2018) with default parameters and subsequently optimized manually in BioEdit v. 7.0.5.2 (Hall 1999). We then checked the initial alignments by eye and adjusted slightly. Prior to ML and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses, we chose the optimum substitution models for entire sequences using Kakusan 4 (Tanabe 2011) based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC). The BI was performed in MrBayes v. 3.2 (Ronquist et al. 2012). The BI summarized two independent runs of four Markov Chains for 10 million generations. A tree was sampled every 100 generations and a consensus topology was calculated for 70 000 trees after discarding the first 30 001 trees (burn in = 3 000 000) (Nguyen et al. 2017). We checked parameter estimates and convergence using Tracer v. 1.7.1 (Rambaut et al. 2018). The strength of nodal support in the ML tree was analyzed using non-parametric bootstrapping (MLBS) with 1000 replicates. We regarded tree nodes in the ML tree with bootstrap values of 75% or greater as sufficiently resolved (Hillis and Bull 1993; Huelsenbeck and Hillis 1993), and nodes with a BPP of 95% or greater as significant in the BI analysis (Leaché and Reeder 2002).

Morphological characters

Measurements were taken with digital calipers to the nearest 0.1 mm. The following abbreviations were used:

SVL snout–vent length;

HL head length (measured as a parallel line with the vertebral column from posterior margin of mandible to tip of snout);

HW maximum head width (at rictus);

RL rostral length (from anterior corner of orbit to tip of snout);

NS distance from nostril to tip of snout;

EN distance from anterior corner of orbit to nostril;

IND internarial distance;

IOD interorbital distance;

ED eye diameter;

UEW maximum width of upper eyelid;

DAE distance between anterior margins of orbits;

DPE distance between posterior margins of orbits;

MN posterior margin of mandible to nostril;

MFE posterior margin of mandible to anterior margin of orbit;

MBE posterior margin of mandible to posterior margin of eye;

TD tympanum diameter;

TYE distance from anterior margin of tympanum to posterior corner of orbit;

UAL upper arm length (from axilla to elbow);

FAL forearm length (from elbow to tip of third finger);

FL1–4 finger length I–IV (from inner to outer);

NPL nuptial pad length - finger I;

FeL femur length (from vent to knee);

TbL tibia length (from knee to tarsus);

TbW maximum tibia width;

FoL foot length (from tarsus to tip of fourth toe);

TL 1–5 toe length I–V;

IMT inner metatarsal tubercle length.

For webbing formula, we followed Glaw and Vences (2007). Sex was determined by gonadal inspection.

Morphological data were obtained by comparison of the new species with specimens of other members of the genus Quasipaa (see Appendix 1) and from literature (e.g., Angel 1928; Bourret 1937, 1942; Liu 1950; Inger 1970; Liu and Hu 1975; Huang and Liu 1985; Wu and Zhao 1995; Inger et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2002; Ohler and Dubois 2006; Dubois and Ohler 2009; Fei et al. 2009, 2012).

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Measurements were used to compare the morphometric difference between the new species from Kon Tum Province (three males and three females) vs Quasipaa boulengeri from Cao Bang Province (six males and five females). All statistical analyses were performed using PAST v. 2.17b software (Hammer et al. 2001).

Results

Phylogenetic analyses

The combined matrix contained 495 aligned characters. Of those, 416 sites were conserved, and 78 sites were variable, of which 62 were found to be potentially parsimony informative. The estimated Transition/Transversion bias (R) is 3.86. Substitution pattern and rates were estimated under the Tamura (1992) model. The nucleotide frequencies are A = 26.91%, T/U = 26.91%, C = 23.09%, and G = 23.09%. In terms of pairwise genetic distance, interspecific uncorrected p-distance of the Quasipaa species ranged from 1.4% (between Quasipaa sp. from Laos and Q. delacouri), 1.6–1.9% (between Q. boulengeri and Q. robertingeri) to 7.6–8.1% (between Q. shini and the new form) (Table 2). The genetic divergence of the new form and its congeners ranged from 4.2–5.1% (Q. boulengeri) to 7.6–8.1% (Q. shini), which was greater than genetic distances between Q. boulengeri and Q. robertingeri (1.6–1.9%); between Q. boulengeri and Q. jiulongensis (3.8–4.0%); and between Q. boulengeri and Q. delacouri (4.0–4.5%) (Table 2).

Table 2.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Uncorrected p-distance matrix showing percentage pairwise genetic divergences (%) for the 16SrRNA gene between members of the genus Quasipaa.

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. 0.0–0.8
2 Q. verrucospinosa 6.4–7.1 0.0–0.2
3 Q. spinosa 6.7–7.1 3.1–3.3 0.0
4 Q. robertingeri 5.3–5.8 5.3–5.5 4.4 0.0
5 Q. boulengeri 4.2–5.1 5.1–5.8 4.6–4.9 1.6–1.9 0.0–0.4
6 Q. exilispinosa 6.7–6.9 6.5–6.7 6.7 6.2 4.9–5.1 0.0
7 Q. jiulongensis 4.9–5.5 5.5–5.8 5.8 4.7 3.8–4.0 3.3 0.0
8 Q. acanthophora 6.2–6.9 7.1–7.6 7.8–8.0 7.1–7.4 5.8–6.2 2.7–2.9 3.3–3.5 0.0–0.2
9 Q. yei 5.8–6.4 6.0–6.2 6.4 5.1 4.7–4.9 5.8 5.1 5.3–5.5 0.0
10 Q. shini 7.6–8.1 7.4–7.6 7.8 6.4 6.2–6.7 7.2 6.0 7.0–7.2 5.6 0.0
11 Quasipaa sp. 4.9–5.6 6.0–6.2 6.2 4.7 3.6–4.0 5.1 3.4 4.2–4.4 4.5 5.6 0.0
12 Q. delacouri 4.9–5.8 5.8–6.0 6.7 5.1 4.0–4.5 5.1 4.2 4.2–4.5 3.8 5.6 1.4 0.0

The ML and BI analyses produced topologies with –ln L = 1672.0337 and 1729.0216, respectively, with a gamma shape parameter (G: 0.1363 in ML and 0.1767 in BI). Phylogenetic analyses employing ML and BI methods were nearly identical, with most well-supported nodes on the ML tree also well-supported on the BI tree, and only the BI tree is presented in Fig. 1. In both analyses, the newly collected Quasipaa specimens from Kon Tum Province were recovered as a separate branch from the Q. boulengeri group (Q. boulengeri, Q. robertingeri, and Q. verrucospinosa), the Q. shini group (Q. shini and Q. yei), and the Q. delacouri group (Q. delacouri and Quasipaa sp.).

Figure 1. 

Bayesian phylogram based on a partial 16S mitochondrial fragment. Numbers above and below branches are MP/ML bootstrap values and Bayesian posterior probabilities (>50%), respectively. Hyphen denotes < 50% value. Bold text highlights new samples collected within this study.

Our phylogenetic results were in general agreement with those supported by analyses in Che et al. (2009). Although, unlike the topology supported by Zhang et al. (2018), the clade containing the Q. acanthophora (haplotypes from Lang Son Province, Vietnam) was recovered as a sister clade to Q. exilispinosa with rather strong nodal support from both analyses (0.71/80.4); the clade containing the Q. delacouri (haplotypes from Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam) was recovered as a sister clade to Quasipaa sp. from Laos with strong nodal support from both analyses (0.98/98.6) (Fig. 1).

In the following, based on the distinct molecular divergence in concert with diagnostic morphological differences compared to congeners, we describe the Quasipaa population from Ngoc Linh based on our integrative taxonomic analysis, as new species to science.

Taxonomic account

Quasipaa taoi sp. nov.

https://zoobank.org/EEE47B08-108A-49F0-B89E-3512EF353BB1
Figs 2, 3, 4

Holotype

IEBR A.4997, adult male, collected by T. Q. Phan and T. D. Tran on 6 March 2019 (15°05'23.3"N, 107°51'17.5"E, at an elevation of 1,560 m asl.) in the evergreen forest of Ngoc Linh Natural Reserve, Xop Commune, Dak Glei District, Kon Tum Province, Vietnam.

Paratypes

IEBR A.4998, adult male; IEBR A.4999, adult male; IEBR A.5000, adult female; IEBR A.5037, adult female; IEBR A.5038, adult female, the same data as the holotype.

Diagnosis

Both morphological characters (body very stout, skin rough with dermal ridges and tubercles, forelimbs of males strongly enlarged, with inner side of arms or fingers or chest and belly with black spines (see Fei et al. 2009) and molecular data revealed the new species to be nested within Quasipaa. Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. is distinguishable from its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: (1) SVL 79.6–84.3 mm in males, 64.6–69.9 mm in females; (2) head broader than long (HL/HW 0.90 in males, 0.92 in females); (3) vomerine teeth present; (4) external vocal sacs absent; (5) tympanum slightly visible; (6) dorsum with lines of thick ridges and small round tubercles; (7) flanks covered by oval and round tubercles; (8) supratympanic fold present; (9) dorsolateral fold absent; (10) ventrolateral sides, ventral surface of arms, and all fingers with spines in males; (11) the absence of spines on chest and belly in males; (12) toes fully webbed to distal end of terminal phalanx; (13) in life, dorsum dark brown, chest and belly immaculate white.

Figure 2. 

Quasipaa taoi sp. nov., holotype (IEBR A.4997, male) in life A dorsolateral view B ventral view.

Figure 3. 

Quasipaa taoi sp. nov., holotype (IEBR A.4997, male) in preservative A dorsolateral view B ventral view.

Figure 4. 

Quasipaa taoi sp. nov., holotype (IEBR A.4997, male) A upper right hand B lower right hand C lower right foot.

Description of holotype

A large frog (SVL 84.3 mm); habitus robust with enlarged head (HL/SVL 0.40, HW/SVL 0.43); head broader than long (HL 33.5 mm, HW 36.3 mm); snout round anteriorly in dorsal view, projecting beyond lower jaw; nostril lateral, closer to eye than to the tip of snout (NS 7.6 mm, EN 5.5 mm); canthus rostralis indistinct; loreal region oblique and slightly concave; rostral length greater than eye diameter (RL 13.1 mm, ED 9.7 mm); internarial distance wider than interorbital distance and upper eyelid width (IND 8.6 mm, IOD 6.2 mm, UEW 7.7 mm); tympanum slightly visible (TYD 4.1 mm) smaller than the distance from tympanum to eye (TYE 4.9 mm); vomerine teeth in two oblique ridges; tongue cordiform, notched posteriorly; external vocal sac absent.

Forelimbs: arms short; upper arm length (UAL) 17.1 mm, forearm length (FAL) 41.5 mm; relative finger lengths: II<I<IV<III; fingers free of webbing; dermal ridge on sides of fingers present on fingers I, II, III; tips of fingers swollen, not expanded; subarticular tubercles prominent, round, formula 1, 1, 2, 2; inner metatarsal tubercle round; outer metatarsal tubercle elongate; finger I with nuptial pad.

Hindlimbs: tibia length longer than thigh length (FeL 44.2 mm, TbL 49.7 mm), approximately 3.4 times longer than wide (TbW 14.5 mm); tips of toes swollen, slightly round; relative length of toes: I<II<V<III<IV; toes fully webbed to distal end of terminal phalanx; dermal ridge present on outer sides of toes I and V; subarticular tubercles prominent, elongate, formula 1, 1, 2, 3, 2; inner metatarsal tubercle elongate; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; tibio-tarsal articulation reaching to tip of snout.

Skin texture in life: dorsal surface of head with oval and round tubercles, dorsum with six lines of thick ridges intermixed with small round tubercles; flanks covered by oval and round tubercles; supratympanic fold distinct, extending from eye to angle of jaw; dorsolateral fold absent; dorsal surface of forelimbs and hindlimbs with small tubercles; belly and ventral surface of thighs smooth.

Nuptial spines: body of males with spines except for chest, belly, and ventral surface of hindlimbs; dense spines on dorsum, flanks, ventral surface of forelimbs, ventrolateral sides, and fingers I, II; spines present on throat, dorsal surface of fore- and hindlimbs, and fingers III, IV, small and scattered.

Coloration in life: iris dark copper; dorsum and upper part of flanks dark brown; lower part of flanks whitish brown with white tubercles and black spines on top; supratympanic fold dark brown; dorsal surface of limbs yellowish brown with dark crossbars; ventral surface of limbs light yellow with brown markings; throat white with brown markings; chest and belly immaculate white; toe webbing dark brown.

Coloration in preservative: coloration in preservative is the same in life but somewhat faded.

Sexual dimorphism

Measurements and morphological characters of the type series are provided in Table 3. Males are larger than females (SVL 82.7 ± 2.69 mm, n = 3 males vs 67.6 ± 2.7 mm, n = 3 females). The male specimens have a nuptial pad on finger I and dark spines on flanks, ventral surface of forelimbs, ventrolateral sides, and all fingers. The females contained yellowish-cream eggs of varying sizes.

Table 3.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Measurements (in mm) and proportions of the type series of Quasipaa boulengeri and Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. (H = holotype, P = paratype, SD = standard deviation; for other abbreviations see Material and methods).

Quasipaa taoi sp. nov.
Specimen ID IEBR A.4997 IEBR A.4999 IEBR A.4998 Min–Max (n = 3) Mean±SD (n = 3) IEBR A.5000 IEBR A.5038 IEBR A.5037 Min–Max (n = 3) Mean±SD (n = 3)
Sex ♂ ♂ ♂ ♀ ♀ ♀
Type status H P P P P P
SVL 84.3 79.6 84.2 79.6–84.3 82.7±2.69 68.2 69.9 64.6 64.6–69.9 67.6±2.7
HL 33.5 31.3 32.2 31.3–33.5 32.33±1.11 27.1 28.4 24.9 24.9–28.4 26.8±1.7
HW 36.3 34.9 36.7 34.9–36.7 35.97±0.95 28.3 31.2 27.8 27.8–31.2 29.1±1.8
MN 27.5 26.1 25.9 25.9–27.5 26.5±0.87 22.5 25.0 21.3 21.3–25 22.9±1.9
MFE 22.9 21.9 22.2 21.9–22.9 22.33±0.51 18.8 20.1 17.6 17.6–20.1 18.8±1.3
MBE 13.8 13.7 12.3 12.3–13.8 13.27±0.84 12.1 12.0 9.9 9.9–12.1 11.3±1.2
RL 13.1 12.8 13.4 12.8–13.4 13.1±0.30 11.1 11.5 9.7 9.7–11.5 10.8±0.9
ED 9.7 9.6 10.9 9.6–10.9 10.07±0.72 8.5 7.9 7.7 7.7–8.5 8±0.4
UEW 7.7 7.1 7.6 7.1–7.7 7.47±0.32 6.2 7.4 6.0 6–7.4 6.5±0.8
IND 8.6 7.8 8.5 7.8–8.6 8.3±0.44 7.1 6.2 5.1 5.1–7.1 6.1±1
IOD 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.8–6.2 6.03±0.21 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8–4.9 4.8±0.1
DAE 12.2 13.2 13.6 12.2–13.6 13.0±0.72 11.3 11.1 9.0 9–11.3 10.5±1.3
DPE 23.7 22.1 23.5 22.1–23.7 23.1±0.87 18.5 20.4 17.8 17.8–20.4 18.9±1.3
NS 7.6 7.5 7.9 7.5–7.9 7.67±0.21 6.5 7.2 6.5 6.5–7.2 6.7±0.4
EN 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.3–5.5 5.4±0.10 4.6 4.9 4.1 4.1–4.9 4.5±0.4
TD 4.1 4.4 4.8 4.1–4.8 4.43±0.35 3.4 4.6 3.8 3.4–4.6 3.9±0.6
TYE 4.9 5 4.9 4.9–5.0 4.93±0.06 4.7 5.0 4.3 4.3–5 4.7±0.4
UAL 17.1 17.6 19.2 17.1–19.2 17.97±1.10 13.6 11.7 11.1 11.1–13.6 12.1±1.3
FAL 41.5 39.9 41.2 39.9–41.5 40.87±0.85 33.2 33.5 29.6 29.6–33.5 32.1±2.1
FeL 44.2 45.3 44.6 44.2–45.3 44.7±0.56 33.8 36.5 33.6 33.6–36.5 34.6±1.6
TbL 49.7 48.9 48.3 48.3–49.7 48.97±0.7 40.1 41.0 37.7 37.7–41 39.6±1.7
TbW 14.5 15.8 15.5 14.5–15.8 15.27±0.68 10.1 12.4 11.4 10.1–12.4 11.3±1.1
FoL 65.6 63.3 64.9 63.3–65.6 64.6±1.18 55.7 54.6 50.1 50.1–55.7 53.5±3
IMT 6.3 5.9 6.1 5.9–6.3 6.1±0.20 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.6–4.8 4.7±0.1
HL/SVL 0.4 0.39 0.38 0.38–0.40 0.39±0.01 0.39 0.39 0.41 0.39–0.41 0.4±0.01
HW/SVL 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.43–0.44 0.43±0.00 0.43 0.41 0.45 0.41–0.45 0.43±0.02
RL/SVL 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16–0.16 0.16±0.0 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15–0.16 0.16±0.01
HL/HW 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.88–0.92 0.9±0.02 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.9–0.96 0.92±0.03
ED/RL 0.74 0.75 0.81 0.74–0.81 0.77±0.04 0.79 0.69 0.79 0.69–0.79 0.75±0.06
TYE/TD 1.2 1.14 1.02 1.02–1.20 1.11±0.16 1.13 1.09 1.38 1.09–1.38 1.2±0.16
ED/TD 0.42 0.46 0.44 0.42–0.46 0.44±0.02 0.49 0.4 0.58 0.4–0.58 0.49±0.01
TbL/SVL 0.59 0.61 0.57 0.57–0.61 0.59±0.02 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.58–0.59 0.59±0
TbL/TbW 3.43 3.09 3.12 3.09–3.43 3.21±0.19 3.30 3.30 3.97 3.3–3.97 3.53±0.38
Q. boulengeri
Specimen ID IEBR A.5007 IEBR A.5008 IEBR A.5009 IEBR A.50109 IEBR A.5011 IEBR A.5012 Min–Max (n = 6) Mean±SD (n = 6)
Sex ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂
Type status
SVL 100.7 96.8 99.2 101.7 87.8 92.6 87.8–101.7 96.5±5.3
HL 37.3 37.5 39.8 39.2 35.8 36.3 35.8–39.8 37.6±1.6
HW 42.0 43.1 45.3 44.8 40.1 40.9 40.1–45.3 42.7±2.1
MN 31.6 31.7 34.5 34.4 30.2 31.0 30.2–34.5 32.2±1.8
MFE 26.1 25.9 27.9 28.8 24.7 25.8 24.7–28.8 26.5±1.5
MBE 17.4 16.4 17.7 19.5 15.5 15.6 15.5–19.5 17±1.5
RL 14.9 14.3 15.7 14.6 13.9 14.7 13.9–15.7 14.7±0.6
ED 10.2 10.0 12.4 10.7 10.2 10.4 10–12.4 10.6±0.9
UEW 8.3 7.4 8.0 7.9 7.3 6.5 6.5–8.3 7.6±0.7
IND 8.3 7.9 9.3 8.2 8.3 8.0 7.9–9.3 8.3±0.5
IOD 6.6 5.9 8.4 8.2 5.5 7.5 5.5–8.4 7±1.2
DAE 14.7 14.3 15.8 15.6 13.0 13.5 13–15.8 14.5±1.1
DPE 26.1 25.4 29.6 28.4 24.3 26.0 24.3–29.6 26.6±2
NS 9.1 7.0 7.7 7.4 7.7 7.8 7–9.1 7.8±0.7
Q. boulengeri
Specimen ID IEBR A.5007 IEBR A.5008 IEBR A.5009 IEBR A.50109 IEBR A.5011 IEBR A.5012 Min–Max (n = 6) Mean±SD (n = 6)
EN 6.3 6.7 8.2 7.3 5.8 6.5 5.8–8.2 6.8±0.8
TD 6.5 6.0 6.7 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.7–6.7 6.2±0.4
TYE 5.6 5.6 7.1 6.2 5.0 6.2 5–7.1 5.9±0.7
UAL 20.0 19.3 21.0 20.0 15.4 15.7 15.4–21 18.6±2.4
FAL 46.0 49.6 51.9 52.8 46.5 45.7 45.7–52.8 48.7±3.1
FeL 54.1 50.3 57.0 52.3 48.2 48.7 48.2–57 51.8±3.4
TbL 53.9 52.6 56.3 57.4 49.7 52.2 49.7–57.4 53.7±2.8
TbW 16.8 17.7 17.7 19.0 16.5 17.3 16.5–19 17.5±0.9
FoL 72.5 72.3 77.3 78.6 67.8 68.7 67.8–78.6 72.9±4.4
IMT 8.1 8.1 7.4 8.8 7.7 8.0 7.4–8.8 8±0.5
HL/SVL 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.39 0.37–0.41 0.4±0
HW/SVL 0.42 0.45 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.42–0.46 0.4±0
RL/SVL 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.14–0.16 0.2±0
HL/HW 0.89 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.87–0.89 0.9±0
ED/RL 0.69 0.70 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.69–0.79 0.7±0
TYE/TD 0.86 0.93 1.05 0.98 0.82 1.09 0.82–1.09 1±0.1
ED/TD 0.64 0.60 0.55 0.59 0.60 0.55 0.55–0.64 0.59±0
TbL/SVL 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.54–0.57 0.6±0
TbL/TbW 3.21 2.97 3.18 3.02 3.02 3.01 2.97–3.21 3.1±0.1
Q. boulengeri
Specimen ID IEBR A.5013 IEBR A.5014 IEBR A.5039 IEBR A.5040 IEBR A.5041 Min–Max (n = 5) Mean±SD (n = 5)
Sex ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀
Type status
SVL 105.5 95.5 90.8 82.5 91.4 82.5–105.5 93.1±8.4
HL 39.9 36.4 34.1 30.3 34.9 30.3–39.9 35.1±3.5
HW 44.2 39.5 39.4 39.4 41.0 39.4–44.2 40.7±2.1
MN 32.9 30.0 28.1 25.5 30.8 25.5–32.9 29.5±2.8
MFE 26.7 24.4 22.1 19.8 25.0 19.8–26.7 23.6±2.7
MBE 17.6 13.7 13.7 11.9 16.1 11.9–17.6 14.6±2.2
RL 15.7 13.7 13.0 11.4 12.6 11.4–15.7 13.3±1.6
ED 10.8 11.4 9.4 9.1 10.6 9.1–11.4 10.3±1
UEW 7.7 7.3 7.6 6.7 7.9 6.7–7.9 7.4±0.5
IND 9.4 7.8 8.0 7.5 9.0 7.5–9.4 8.3±0.8
IOD 8.5 6.0 5.9 6.1 5.4 5.4–8.5 6.4±1.2
DAE 15.8 13.5 12.8 13.0 12.2 12.2–15.8 13.4±1.4
DPE 28.6 24.8 13.8 21.9 9.0 9–28.6 19.6±8
NS 9.3 7.3 7.6 6.9 8.2 6.9–9.3 7.9±0.9
EN 6.1 6.6 5.6 5.3 5.8 5.3–6.6 5.9±0.5
TD 6.7 5.4 5.1 5.2 6.1 5.1–6.7 5.7±0.7
TYE 6.6 4.9 5.0 3.8 5.7 3.8–6.6 5.2±1
UAL 16.4 16.6 15.3 11.8 15.1 11.8–16.6 15±1.9
FAL 47.7 43.0 40.6 36.7 43.7 36.7–47.7 42.3±4.1
FeL 52.0 47.7 46.6 41.2 46.6 41.2–52 46.8±3.8
TbL 54.0 50.5 47.8 44.2 49.8 44.2–54 49.3±3.6
TbW 18.7 18.1 17.8 14.9 16.5 14.9–18.7 17.2±1.5
FoL 74.4 67.6 65.4 60.0 69.2 60–74.4 67.3±5.3
IMT 8.1 6.8 16.1 5.5 7.8 5.5–16.1 8.9±4.2
HL/SVL 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.4–0.4 0.4±0
HW/SVL 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.45 0.4–0.5 0.4±0
RL/SVL 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.1–0.1 0.1±0
HL/HW 0.90 0.92 0.87 0.77 0.85 0.8–0.9 0.9±0.1
ED/RL 0.69 0.83 0.72 0.80 0.84 0.7–0.8 0.8±0.1
TYE/TD 0.99 0.92 0.98 0.74 0.94 0.7–1 0.9±0.1
ED/TD 0.62 0.47 0.54 0.57 0.58 0.47–0.62 0.56±0
TbL/SVL 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.5–0.5 0.5±0
TbL/TbW 2.88 2.79 2.69 2.96 3.02 2.7–3 2.9±0.1

Etymology

The new species is named in honor of our colleague and friend, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tao Thien Nguyen from the Institute of Genome Research, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, in recognition of his numerous scientific contributions towards a better understanding of the amphibians of Vietnam. We recommend “Tao’s Spiny Frog” as the common English name of the new species and the common name in Vietnamese as “Ếch gai sần tạo”.

Ecological notes

Specimens were found between 19:00 and 23:00 in the headwaters of rocky streams (Fig. 5B). They were found in the water or on the ground of stream banks at an elevation of above 1,500 m a.s.l. The surrounding habitat was secondary forest of large, medium-sized, and small hardwoods mixed with shrubs and vines (Fig. 5A). Air temperatures at the sites ranged from 18.5–22.5 °C and relative humidity was 68–85%. Male advertisement calls and tadpoles of the species have not been recorded during our field surveys. Other amphibian species found at the sites included Leptobrachella sp., Limnonectes kiziriani Pham, Le, Ngo, Ziegler & Nguyen, 2018, L. poilani (Bourret, 1942), Amolops spinapectoralis Inger, Orlov & Darevsky, 1999, Odorrana khalam (Stuart, Orlov & Chan-ard, 2005), O. morafkai (Bain, Lathrop, Murphy, Orlov & Ho, 2003), Kurixalus cf. banaensis (Bourret, 1939), and Rhacophorus annamensis (Smith, 1924).

Figure 5. 

Habitat of Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. in Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Kon Tum Province, Viet Nam A evergreen forest B microhabitat.

Distribution

Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. is currently known from Ngoc Linh Mountain of the Central Highlands in Vietnam (Fig. 6). Data obtained from GenBank show that this species was also recorded from Xekong Province, Lao PDR (Yan et al. 2021; see Discussion below).

Figure 6. 

Map showing the type locality (circle) of Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. in Kon Tum Province, Vietnam.

Comparisons

We compared the new species with its congeners. Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. boulengeri by having a smaller size, SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3 in males, 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3 in females (vs 87.8–101.7 mm, n = 6 in males, 82.5–105.5 mm, n = 5 in females), dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs elongate ridges), males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on finger IV); males with nuptial spines on throat and ventral surface of arms (vs absent), and the absence of nuptial spines on chest and belly in males (vs present). In the PCA analysis, the first two principal component axes could separate Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. from Q. boulengeri by 24 characters (Fig. 7), mainly based on limb and head measurements, namely: SVL, HW, HL, MN, MFE, MBE, RL, ED, UEW, IND, IOD, DAE, DPE, NS, EN, TD, TYE, UAL, FAL, FeL, TbL, TbW, FoL, and IMT (Tables 3, 4). In males, the PCA extracted three principal component axes with eigenvalues greater than 0.002 and, of these, the first two component axes accounted for 85.50% of the variation (Table 4). Species with a larger and positive score on PC1 reflected shorter SVL including all traits. The PC2 with positive scores were associated with species having greater measurements of RL, ED, UEW, IND, IOD, DAE, DPE, NS, EN, TYE, UAL, FeL, TbL, and FoL, while negative scores with species having smaller measurements of SVL, HW, HL, MN, MFE, MBE, TD, FAL, TbW, and IMT (Table 4). In females, the PCA extracted three principal component axes with eigenvalues greater than 0.01 and of these, the first two component axes accounted for 85.98% of the variation (Table 4). Species with a higher and positive score on PC1 reflected having shorter measurements of SVL, HW, HL, MN, MFE, MBE, RL, ED, UEW, IND, IOD, DAE, NS, EN, TD, TYE, UAL, FAL, FeL, TbL, TbW, FoL, and IMT, while a negative score with species having smaller DPE. The PC2 with positive scores were associated with species having greater measurements of SVL, HW, HL, MN, MFE, MBE, RL, ED, IOD, DAE, DPE, NS, EN, TD, TYE, UAL, FAL, FeL, TbL, TbW, and FoL, while a negative score with species having smaller measurements of UEW, IND, and IMT (Table 4). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. acanthophora by having the dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs small tubercles), males with nuptial spines on ventrolateral sides and ventral surface of arms (vs absent), males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on finger IV), and the absence of spines on chest of males (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. courtoisi by having a smaller size in males, SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3 (vs 126 mm, n = 1); males with nuptial spines on throat and ventral surface of arms (vs absent); and the absence of nuptial spines on chest in males (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. delacouri by having a smaller size, SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3, in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3, in females (vs 92.9–115.5 mm, n = 4, in males and 94.5–117.5 mm, n = 3, in females); a greater ratio of TD/ED, 0.44 ± 0.02, n = 3, in males and 0.49 ± 0.01, n = 3, in females (vs 0.26 in males and 0.24 in females); dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs smooth); males with nuptial pad on finger I (vs absent in males); and males with nuptial spines (vs absent). The new species differs from Q. exilispinosa by having a larger size in males (SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3, in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3, in females (vs 61.2 mm, n = 20, in males and 57.1 mm, n = 20, in females); dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs small tubercles); males with nuptial spines on ventrolateral sides and ventral surface of arms (vs absent); males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on finger IV); and absence of spines on chest in males (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. fasciculispina by having a smaller size, SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3 in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3 in females (vs 106 mm, n = 1 in males and 104 mm, n = 1 in females); a smaller ratio of TYE/TD (1.11 ± 0.16, n = 3, in males and 1.2 ± 0.16, n = 3, in females (vs 2.0 in male and 1.75 in female); the absence of nuptial spines on chest in males (vs circular whitish tubercles each bearing 5–10 strong black spines). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. jiulongensis by having dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs small tubercles), males with nuptial spines on ventrolateral sides and ventral surface of arms of males (vs absent), males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on fingers III and IV); the absence of light-colored longitudinal stripes on upper jaw edge (vs present); and the absence of 4 or 5 yellow dorsal dots arranged in longitudinal rows (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. robertingeri by having dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs elongate ridges), males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on finger IV); males with nuptial spines on throat and ventral surface of arms (vs absent), and the absence of nuptial spines on chest and belly of males (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. shini by its smaller size, SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3, in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3, in females (vs 98.6 mm, n = 9, in males and 94.9 mm, n = 10, in females); dorsum with thick ridges and round tubercles (vs elongate ridges), males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on finger IV); males with nuptial spines on throat and ventral surface of arms (vs absent), and the absence of nuptial spines on chest and belly of males (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. spinosa by its smaller size, SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3, in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3, in females (vs 106.0–142.0 mm, n = 20, in males and 115.0–152.5 mm, n = 10, in females); dorsum with short, thick ridges and round tubercles (vs small tubercles); the absence of light colored longitudinal stripes on upper jaw edge (vs present); and the absence of nuptial spines on chest of males (vs small and dense spines on chest of males). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. verrucospinosa by its smaller size (SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3, in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3, in females (vs 90.0–117.0, n = 8, in males, 83.2–113.9 mm, n = 9, in females); males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent on fingers III and IV); males with nuptial spines on ventral surface of arms (vs absent), and the absence of nuptial spines on chest and belly in males (vs present). Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. differs from Q. yei by its larger size in males (SVL 79.6–84.3 mm, n = 3, in males and 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3, in females (vs 49.7–64.0 mm, n = 25); males with nuptial spines on ventrolateral sides and ventral surface of arms (vs absent); and males with nuptial spines on all fingers (vs absent); absence of nuptial spines around and inside vent (vs present).

Table 4.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Variable loadings for principal components with eigenvalue greater than 0.01, from morphometric characters corrected by SVL. All measurements were given in millimeter (mm).

Male Female
Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3
Eigenvalue 0.039 0.004 0.003 0.118 0.032 0.012
% variance 76.63 8.86 5.75 67.42 18.57 7.00
SVL 0.189 −0.066 0.117 0.223 0.055 0.012
HW 0.205 −0.077 0.039 0.216 0.033 0.041
HL 0.181 −0.068 0.005 0.202 0.056 0.047
MN 0.234 −0.083 −0.055 0.189 0.033 0.123
MFE 0.212 −0.056 −0.058 0.178 0.038 0.157
MBE 0.300 −0.154 −0.016 0.212 0.017 0.224
RL 0.139 0.009 0.021 0.173 0.100 0.005
ED 0.106 0.258 0.065 0.164 0.052 0.117
UEW 0.056 0.148 0.460 0.111 −0.035 0.094
IND 0.039 0.216 0.112 0.229 −0.002 0.166
IOD 0.261 0.479 −0.442 0.195 0.207 −0.098
DAE 0.167 0.138 0.169 0.182 0.150 −0.012
DPE 0.198 0.109 −0.036 −0.008 0.825 −0.441
NS 0.008 0.013 0.227 0.134 0.027 0.108
EN 0.310 0.163 −0.108 0.180 0.069 0.059
TD 0.359 −0.322 0.254 0.258 0.063 0.198
TYE 0.258 0.241 -0.279 0.145 0.012 0.215
UAL 0.125 0.373 0.530 0.177 0.000 0.019
FAL 0.213 −0.084 -0.008 0.204 0.035 0.100
FeL 0.185 0.027 0.143 0.211 0.028 0.006
TbL 0.131 0.053 −0.008 0.158 0.034 0.055
TbW 0.161 −0.094 −0.082 0.280 0.023 −0.091
FoL 0.164 0.026 0.061 0.169 0.022 0.076
IMT 0.271 −0.457 −0.078 0.413 −0.466 −0.724
Figure 7. 

Plots of the first principal component (PC1) versus the second (PC2) for the males and the females of Quasipaa taoi sp. nov. (red +) and Q. boulengeri (blue □).

Discussion

Mount Ngoc Linh, on the northwestern border of the Kon Tum Massif, is the highest peak in central Vietnam at 2,598 m (Sterling et al. 2006). Ngoc Linh is the type locality of several new species of amphibians, namely Leptobrachium ngoclinhense (Orlov, 2005), Theloderma nebulosum Rowley, Le, Hoang, Dau & Cao, 2011, Leptobrachella firthi (Rowley, Hoang, Dau, Le & Cao, 2012); Gracixalus lumarius Rowley, Le, Dau, Hoang & Cao, 2014, G. trieng Rowley, Le, Hoang, Cao & Dau, 2020 (Orlov 2005, Rowley et al. 2011, 2012, 2014, 2020). Most recently, Krzikowski et al. (2022) highlighted the extraordinary endemism rate of amphibians in the Central Highlands of Vietnam and, thus, the special role in amphibian diversification and evolution. A number of amphibian species are currently known only from this region, namely Leptobrachella crocea (Rowley, Hoang, Le, Dau & Cao, 2010), Leptobrachium ngoclinhense; Microhyla darevskii Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova, & Geissler, 2014, Gracixalus lumarius, G. trieng, and Theloderma nebulosum (Frost 2022; Krzikowski et al. 2022). Quasipaa taoi represents the thirteenth known species of Quasipaa and the sixth known species of this genus from Vietnam (Frost 2022; this study). Further studies, as a result, will likely uncover more cryptic species in this poorly known group of frogs.

The new species has a restricted distribution in central Vietnam and Xekong Province, Lao PDR. A major threat to the new species in the area is habitat loss by agricultural extension for medicinal trees (e.g. Panax vietnamensis), illegal timber logging, and tourism development. In addition, the species Q. taoi is collected by local people for food. We suggest assessment of this species as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species because the continued survival of this species is largely dependent on the protection and rigorous management provided by local authorities of the protected areas in both countries.

In this study, we first uploaded to GenBank the 16S gene sequence of Quasipaa acanthophora from the type locality (Mau Son Mountain) in Lang Son Province, northern Vietnam. We confirm that Q. acanthophora is currently known only from Vietnam and does not correpond to a population of Q. spinosa according to Yan et al. (2021). Based on morphological comparisons, we also provided the 16S gene sequences of true Quasipaa delacouri from Tuyen Quang Province, near the type locality in Bac Kan Province, Vietnam. This will assist in clarifying the taxonomy of species in the genus Quasipaa in the future.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the directorates of the Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Forest Protection Department of Kon Tum Province for support of our field work. For the fruitful cooperation within joint research projects, we cordially thank S.V. Nguyen (IEBR, Hanoi), as well as T. Pagel and C. Landsberg (Cologne Zoo). We thank T.D. Tran (IEBR, Hanoi) for assistance in the field. We thank T.A. Tran (IEBR, Hanoi) for providing the map. We thank Annemarie Ohler and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. This research is funded by the National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 106.05-2020.02.

References

  • Angel F (1928) Sur une espèce nouvelle de grenouille du Tonkin, appartenant au genre Rana. Bul-letin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 34: 319–320.
  • Bourret R (1937) Notes herpétologiques sur l’Indochine française. XIV. Les batraciens de la col-lection du Laboratoire des Sciences Naturelles de l’Université. Descriptions de quinze es-pèces ou variétés nouvelles. Annexe du Bulletin de l’Instruction Publique Hanoi 1937: 5–56.
  • Bourret R (1942) Les batraciens de l’Indochine. Institut Océanographique de l’Indochine. Gou-vernement générale de l’Indochine, Hanoi, 547 pp.
  • Che J, Hu JS, Zhoua WW, Murphy RW, Papenfuss TJ, Chen MY, Rao DQ, Li PP, Zhang YP (2009) Phylogeny of the Asian spiny frog tribe Paini (family Dicroglossidae) sensu Dubois. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 50(1): 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.10.007
  • Che J, Zhou W, Hu J, Papenfuss TJ, Wake DB, Zhang Y (2010) Spiny frogs (Paini) illuminate the history of the Himalayan region and Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(31): 13765–13770. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008415107
  • Chen X, Qu W, Jiang J (2002) A new species of the subgenus Paa (Feirana) from China. Herpe-tologica Sinica 9: 230.
  • Dubois A, Ohler A (2009) A new species of the genus Quasipaa (Anura, Ranidae, Dicroglossi-nae) from northern Vietnam. Alytes 27: 49–61.
  • Fei L, Hu S, Ye C, Huang Y (2009) Fauna Sinica. Amphibia. Volume 3. Anura. Science Press, Beijing, 887 pp.
  • Fei L, Ye C, Jiang J (2012) Colored Atlas of Chinese Amphibians and their Distributions. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, Sichuan, 619 pp.
  • Glaw F, Vences M (2007) A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. 3rd Edn. FroschVerlag, Cologne, 496 pp.
  • Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis pro-gram for Windows 95/98/NT. In: Nucleic acids symposium series. Information Retrieval, 95–98.
  • Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electonica 4(1): 9 pp.
  • Hillis DM, Bull JJ (1993) An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 42(2): 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/42.2.182
  • Huang Z, Liu B (1985) A new species of the genus Rana from Zhejiang, China. Journal of Fudan University, Natural Science 24: 235–237.
  • Krzikowski M, Nguyen TQ, Pham CT, Rödder D, Rauhaus A, Le MD, Ziegler T (2022) Assess-ment of the threat status of the amphibians in Vietnam—Implementation of the One Plan ap-proach. Nature Conservation 49: 77–116. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.49.82145
  • Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K (2018) MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genet-ics Analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35(6): 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096
  • Leaché AD, Reeder TW (2002) Molecular systematics of the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A comparison of parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian approaches. Systematic Biology 51(1): 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351502753475871
  • Liu C, Hu S (1975) Report on three new species of Amphibia from Fujian Province. Acta Zoolog-ica Sinica 21: 265–271.
  • Nguyen TT, Pham TC, Nguyen TQ, Ninh HT, Ziegler T (2017) A new species of Rhacophorus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Vietnam. Asian Herpetological Research 8: 221–234. https://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.170046
  • Ohler A, Dubois A (2006) Phylogenetic relationships and generic taxonomy of the tribe Paini (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae, Dicroglossinae), with diagnoses of two new genera. Zoosystema 28(3): 769–784.
  • Orlov NL (2005) A new species of the genus Vibrissaphora Liu, 1945 (Anura: Megophryidae) from mount Ngoc Linh (Kon Tum province) and analysis of the extent of species overlap in the fauna of amphibians and reptiles of the north-west of Vietnam and central highlands. Russian Journal of Herpetology 12: 17–38.
  • Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA (2018) Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Systematic Biology 67(5): 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032
  • Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61(3): 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029
  • Rowley JJL, Le DTT, Hoang HD, Dau QV, Cao TT (2011) Two new species of Theloderma (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Vietnam. Zootaxa 3098: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa. 3098.1.1
  • Rowley JJL, Le DTT, Dau QV, Hoang HD, Cao TT (2014) A striking new species of phytotelm-breeding tree frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from central Vietnam. Zootaxa 3785(1): 25–37. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3785.1.2
  • Rowley JJL, Le DTT, Hoang HD, Cao TT, Dau QV (2020) A new species of phytotelm breeding frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Zootaxa 4779: 341–354. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4779.3.3
  • Simmons JE (2002) Herpetological collecting and collections management. Revised edition. Soci-ety for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular 31: 1–153.
  • Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P (1994) Evolution, weighting, and phy-logenetic 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
  • Sterling EJ, Hurley MM, Le MD (2006) Vietnam: a Natural History. Yale University Press, New Haven, 423 pp.
  • Tanabe AS (2011) Kakusan 4 and Aminosan: Two programs for comparing nonpartitioned, pro-portional and separate models for combined molecular phylogenetic analyses of multilocus sequence data. Molecular Ecology Resources 11(5): 914–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03021.x
  • Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: Flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality anal-ysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 25(24): 4876–4882. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.24.4876
  • Wu G, Zhao E (1995) A new ranid species of the spinosae group from Sichuan. In: Zhao E-M (Ed.) Amphibian Zoogeographic Division of China. A Symposium Issued to Celebrate the Second Asian Herpetological Meeting Held at Ashgabat. Sichuan Journal of Zoology, Special Issue, 52–54.
  • Yan F, Nneji LM, Jin J, Yuan Z, Chen JM, Mi X, Chen H, Murphy RW, Che J (2021) Multi-locus genetic analyses of Quasipaa from throughout its distribution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 163: 107218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107218
  • Zhang JY, Zhang LP, Yu DN, Storey KB, Zheng RQ (2018) Complete mitochondrial genomes of Nanorana taihangnica and N. yunnanensis (Anura: Dicroglossidae) with novel gene ar-rangements and phylogenetic relationship of Dicroglossidae. BMC Evolutionary Biology 18(1): e26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1140-2

Appendix 1

Specimens examined

Quasipaa acanthophora (n = 11): Vietnam: Lang Son Province: Cao Loc District: Mau Son Commune: IEBR A.5030–A.5035; Vietnam: Bac Giang Province: Son Dong District: Tay Yen Tu Nature Reserve: IEBR A.2013.62–A.2013.64, IEBR 3625–3626.

Quasipaa boulengeri (n = 13): Vietnam: Cao Bang Province: Nguyen Binh District: Phia Oac-Phia Den National Park: IEBR A.5007–A.5014, IEBR A.5039–A.5041; Vietnam: Ha Giang Province: Quan Ba District: IEBR A.5015–A.5016.

Quasipaa delacouri (n = 4): Vietnam: Tuyen Quang Province: Cham Chu Nature Reserve: IEBR A.5017; Vietnam: Ha Giang Province: Bac Me Nature Reserve: IEBR A.5018; Vietnam: Phu Tho Province: IEBR A.5019–A.5020.

Quasipaa verrucospinosa (n = 9): Vietnam: Vinh Phuc Province: Tam Dao National Park: IEBR A.5021; Vietnam: Ha Giang Province: Bac Me Nature Reserve: IEBR A.5022–A.5024; Vietnam: Tuyen Quang Province: Cham Chu Nature Reserve: IEBR A.5025–A.5027; Vietnam: Tuyen Quang Province: Na Hang District: IEBR A.5028–A.5029.

login to comment