identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CDF20CFF89FFA57C86FBF15CE4FBD7.text	03CDF20CFF89FFA57C86FBF15CE4FBD7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megophrys ancrae	<div><p>Megophrys ancrae sp. nov.</p><p>(Figures 1–3; Table 1)</p><p>Holotype. Adult male (ZSI A 11606), from 6th mile (27°29.833’N 96°23.467’E, 420 m asl.) approx. 3 km from Deban Guest House, Deban, Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve, Changlang district, Arunachal Pradesh state, northeast India, collected by the Systematics Lab members, 2 June 2011.</p><p>Paratypes. Adult male (ZSI A 11607), collected along with the holotype. Four adult males (BNHS 5598, BNHS 5600–5602), one subadult and one adult female (ZSI A 11608, BNHS 5599, respectively), from Bornulla forest stream (27°32.367’N 96°28.650’E, 790 m asl.), Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve, Changlang district, Arunachal Pradesh state, northeast India, collected by the Systematics Lab members, 3 May 2011.</p><p>Referred specimens. Two adult males (SDB.DU 2009.727, 2009.730), from approx. 1 km before reaching Deban Guest House (27°29.846’N 96°23.470’E, 330 m asl.), Deban, Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve, Changlang district, Arunachal Pradesh state, northeast India, collected by the Systematics Lab members, 20 June 2009.</p><p>Diagnosis. Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. is diagnosable from geographically relevant congeners by the following combination of characters: medium-sized slender species, adult-male SVL 39.1–45.0 mm (N=8), adultfemale SVL 48.9 mm (N=1); HL&gt;HW, HW/SVL 30.0–35.8% (N=10); SHL/SVL 46.0–55.3% (N=10); tympanum clearly defined, TYD /ED 50.0–63.2% (N=10); vomerine ridges small to medium-sized, weakly raised and circular; distinct dorsolateral folds present; subarticular, palmar and metatarsal tubercles absent; lateral fringes on toes absent; webbing between toes rudimentary; digit tips distinctly expanded terminally; protruding projection posterior to cloaca of males absent; dark spots on the throat present on most specimens; small, sharp, horn-like tubercle present on the eyelids of most individuals.</p><p>Comparisons. Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. differs from the following large-sized species by considerably smaller adult male size, SVL 39.1–45.0 mm, N=8 (vs. adult male SVL&gt; 53 mm: M. gigantica Liu, Hu &amp; Yang, N =6; M. glandulosa Fei, Ye &amp; Huang, N =10; M. jingdongensis Fei &amp; Ye, N=2; M. lekaguli Stuart, Chuaynkern, Chan-ard &amp; Inger, N=8; M. major (Boulenger), N=8; M. medogensis Fei &amp; Ye, N=16; M. omeimontis Liu, N =10; M. robusta (Boulenger), N=4; M. spinata Liu &amp; Hu, N=2); from the following medium-sized species by smaller adult size, male SVL 39.1–45.0 mm, N=8, female SVL 48.9 mm, N=1 (vs. M. megacephala Mahony, Sengupta, Kamei &amp; Biju male SVL 45.9–53.4 mm, N=7, female SVL 64.4 mm, N=1; M. takensis Mahony male SVL 47.3– 53.0 mm, N=3, female SVL 72.9 mm, N=1), further from M. megacephala by considerably narrower head, HW/ SVL 30.0–35.8%, N=10 (vs. HW/SVL 40.2–45.1%, N=9), and further from M. takensis by vomerine ridges small to medium-sized, weakly raised and circular (vs. elongated stalk-like projections); from the following small-sized species by larger adult size, male SVL 39.1–45.0 mm, N=8, female SVL 48.9 mm, N=1 (vs. M. daweimontis Rao &amp; Yang male SVL 34–37 mm, N=17, female SVL 40–46 mm, N=3; M. pachyproctus Huang male SVL 35.3–36.2 mm, N=2, female unknown; M. parva male SVL 33.9–36.0 mm, N=2, female SVL 41.1–41.4 mm, N=2; M. wuliangshanensis Ye &amp; Fei male SVL 27.3–31.6 mm, N=10, female SVL 41.0– 41.5 mm, N=2; M. zunhebotoensis Mathew &amp; Sen male SVL 30.0 mm, N=1, female SVL 39.0 mm, N=1), further from M. daweimontis by HL&gt;HW (vs. HW≥HL), palmar and metatarsal tubercles absent in life and in preservation (vs. inner and outer palmar tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercles distinct and red in life), further from M. pachyproctus by protruding projection posterior to cloaca of male absent (vs. present), and further from M. parva by TYD /ED 49.2–63.2%, N=10 (vs. TYD /ED 40–48.9%, N=4), shanks considerably longer on males, SHL/SVL 46–55.3%, N=8 (vs. male SHL/SVL 42.8–43.7%, N=2); from M. nankiangensis Liu &amp; Hu and M. shapingensis Liu by tympanum clearly defined (vs. tympanum concealed by supratympanic fold); from M. binchuanensis Ye &amp; Fei and M. wushanensis Ye &amp; Fei by subarticular tubercles absent (vs. present), and lateral fringes on toes absent (vs. present); from M. palpebralespinosa Bourret by webbing between toes rudimentary (vs. approx. half digit length); from M. binlingensis Jiang, Fei &amp; Ye and M. minor by lateral fringes on toes absent (vs. present), further from M. binlingensis by vomerine ridges weakly raised and circular (vs. slender and not dilated at its posterior region), and further from M. minor by dark spots on the throat present on most specimens (vs. absent); from M. wawuensis Fei, Jiang &amp; Zheng and M. zhangi Ye &amp; Fei by dorsolateral folds distinct (vs. indistinct), further from M. wawuensis by larger tympanum, TYD /ED 49.2–63.2%, N=10 (vs. TYD /ED ca. 33%), and further from M. zhangi by lateral fringes on toes absent (vs. present); from M. serchhipii Mathew &amp; Sen by dorsolateral folds always present, usually 2/3 to complete body length (vs. absent).</p><p>Holotype description (measurements in mm). Mature male (SVL 45.3) (Figures 1, 2A). Head small (HW 14.6, HL 15.6, IFE 7.5, IBE 12.6), longer than wide; snout rounded in dorsal view, obtusely protruding in lateral view, without rostral appendage (Figure 1C); loreal region vertical and concave; canthus rostralis angular; dorsal region of snout slightly concave; eye (EL 5.4) twice as long as maximum tympanum diameter (TYD 2.7) and subequal to snout (SL 5.5); eye-tympanum distance (TYE 2.7) equal to maximum tympanum diameter; tympanum slightly oval, orientated vertically, its upper approx. 5 percent concealed by supratympanic ridge (Figure 1C); pupil in life oval, horizontally orientated when dilated; nostril orientated laterally, closer to eye than snout (EN 2.5, SN 3.4); internarial distance (IN 4.7) subequal to eyelid width (UEW 4.6), and greater than narrowest point between upper eyelids (IUE 4.2); pineal ocellus not visible externally; vomerine ridges present, circular and weakly raised with small vomerine teeth, positioned between choanae, separated from each other by distance equal to distance from choanae; tongue moderately large, weakly notched posteriorly, with no medial lingual process.</p><p>Forelimbs moderately long and thin, forearm (FAL 10.3) slightly enlarged relative to upper forelimb, and shorter than hand (HAL 13.1); fingers long and narrow without lateral fringes (Figure 1D), finger length formula I&lt;II&lt;IV&lt;III (FIL 5.2, FIIL 5.7, FIIIL 9.7, FIVL 6.8); interdigital webbing, and subarticular, supernumerary and palmar tubercles absent; thenar tubercle weak; finger tips slightly expanded and flattened to oval pads; terminal grooves absent. Hindlimbs relatively long and thin, shanks overlap when thighs are held at right angle to body; thigh (TL 21.8) shorter than shank (SHL 22.5), and longer than foot (FOL 19.7); toes long and rounded without lateral fringes (Figure 1E), relative toe lengths I&lt;II&lt;V&lt;III&lt;IV; toe tips slightly dilated, with distinct pads; terminal groves absent; base of toes with rudimentary webbing; outer metatarsal tubercle, subarticular and supernumerary tubercles absent; inner metatarsal tubercle very weak; ridge of callous tissue absent on ventral surface of all digits.</p><p>Skin of dorsal surfaces of body, limbs, and dorsal and lateral surfaces of head weakly granular; tympanum smooth with its borders slightly raised; small pointed tubercle present on outer edge of upper eyelid; supratympanic fold narrow anteriorly, widening posteriorly, extending from orbit and curving down around upper border of tympanum, terminating above axilla (Figure 1C); flanks with small scattered tubercles; thin dorsolateral fold extending from behind supratympanic fold to approximately two-thirds distance to groin, longer on left side than right; a weak, “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridge present, its two sides extending posteriorly from above tympanum and meeting medially beyond level of axilla; a second inverted “V”-shaped ridge present on mid-dorsum which joins laterally with dorsolateral fold on left side only (Figure 1A); small tubercles arranged into distinct transverse rows on dorsal surface of thighs, shanks and forearms. Gular region, chest and ventral surfaces of limbs smooth; abdomen weakly granular; pectoral glands small, slightly raised, positioned on level with axilla (Figure 1B); femoral glands small, slightly raised, positioned subequally distant from knee and cloaca on posterior surface of thigh; white skin asperities forming narrow band circummarginally on lower jaw; black asperities on tubercles of posterior, and few on anterior half of back and flanks, on dorsal ridges, and tympanic regions, posterior parts of upper eyelids, and less densely on dorsal surfaces of upper forelimbs, thighs and shanks.</p><p>Colour in preservative (Figure 1): Entire dorsal and lateral surfaces of head, body, forelimbs and hindlimbs brown; slightly darker brown triangular marking with light central blotch between eyes; dorsolateral and supratympanic folds and flank tubercles brownish-cream; front of snout and lateral canthus rostralis dark brown; wide vertical dark brown bar below eyes and dark brown blotch covering tympanum; two dark brown blotches on anterior lateral surface of forearms; dorsal surface of hands and feet with dark brown spots and speckles. Gular region, chest and anterior part of abdomen primarily dark brown, with white speckling along outer margin of ventral mandibles; dark colouration of chest lightening posteriorly on abdomen which is mottled light and dark brown; ventral surfaces of thighs and shanks with pale brown mottling; ventral surfaces of tarsus and feet dark grey brown; area surrounding vent and posterior surfaces of thighs dark brown; forelimbs ventrally mottled light and dark brown; grey-brown colouration of ventral side of hands extending as a blotch onto ventral surface of forearms; pectoral and femoral glands white. Colour in life (Figure 2A): Dorsally light greyish-brown; dorsal and ventral surfaces with orange speckling, most dense on groin region, on flank tubercles and granules of dorsum, and most noticeable on ventral surfaces where it contrasts with dark grey colouration; ventral surface of throat with feint, dark longitudinal stripes. Iris metallic mid-brown.</p><p>Variation. See Table 1 for morphometric characters of eight adult males and two females. Vomerine ridges small to medium-sized. Of the ten examined specimens only the holotype and the two referred specimens (SDB.DU 2009.727 and SDB.DU 2009.730) possess visible, small vomerine teeth. Dorsolateral folds extend approximately 65–100 percent of the body length except on the holotype which possesses one side that extends only ca. 50 percent body length. All specimens have a prominent pointed tubercle on the eyelid except BNHS 5601 on which tubercles are absent, and BNHS 5600 which possesses a tubercle on one side only. Most specimens possess a “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridge and a second inverted “V”-shaped ridge on the mid-dorsum which joins laterally with the dorsolateral folds, except BNHS 5600 and BNHS 5599 which do not possess the mid-dorsal ridge. The presence of dermal asperities on SDB.DU 2009.730, BNHS 5598, and BNHS 5601–5602 is similar to the state observed on the holotype. Dermal asperities on ZSI A 11607, like on the aforementioned specimens but considerably denser. On SDB.DU 2009.727 dorsal asperities are restricted to the posterior half to the back, upper flanks, and tympanic region; on BNHS 5600 asperities on the lower jaw are absent and only sparsely cover the posterior back and hindlimbs. The dark ventral regions on the holotype are lighter grey-brown on some individuals (e.g., ZSI A 11607, SDB.DU 2009.727, SDB.DU 2009.730). BNHS 5598–5602 and ZSI A 11608 have distinct dark longitudinal stripes on the throat, and feint crossbars dorsally on hindlimbs. BNHS 5598–5602, and SDB.DU 2009.730 have barely distinguishable dark brown blotches surrounding the “V” shaped dorsal folds; remaining specimens without distinct dorsal markings. Dorsal colouration in life varies from light to dark brown, with varying density of orange speckling which never predominates the overall colouration (Figure 2B–C).</p><p>Secondary sexual characters. Males with slightly raised nuptial pads covered with black micro-granules, covering most of the dorsal surface of the base of finger I, narrowing distally and extending onto the base of the distal phalange on the inner dorsal side; nuptial pad small sized and oval shaped on finger II, only on the inner dorsal side of the base of the digit; external vocal sac distinct on some individuals, and indistinct on others; internal vocal slits present near the rear of the lower mandible; forearms slightly enlarged relative to upper forelimbs; extensive dermal asperities present; protruding fleshy projection posterior to cloaca absent. Female (BNHS 5599) with large unpigmented ova (diameter 1.4–1.7 mm, N=4); both examined females do not possess nuptial pads, enlarged forearms, vocal sac or slits, or any dermal asperities.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet “ ancrae ” is Latin for “of the valley” as all collection localities for the type series were along the foothills of the Noa-Dihing river valley in Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve. Distribution. This species is thus far known only from the type locality and surrounding foothill areas (330– 790 m asl.) in Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve in Changlang district of eastern Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India (Figure 3).</p><p>Habitat and natural history. The primary habitat type in Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve is broadly regarded as tropical lowland evergreen forest (see Proctor et al. 1998, and references therein for further description of forest composition). Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. was found to be relatively abundant at the type locality, however they were quite difficult to locate. ZSI A 11606–11607 were collected from leaf litter on the forest floor. BNHS 5598 was collected from a bush overhanging the Bornulla stream at ca. 3 m above stream level (Figure 4D). All specimens were active and collected between 18:30–19:30 h. The adult female BNHS 5599 was gravid and all males were calling when collected, indicating that the breeding season for this species extends at least between 20th May to 20th July. Bornulla stream is a steep rocky torrent that flows through dense forest habitat with dense undergrowth vegetation.</p><p>Remarks. In the past couple of decades the results of only a few herpetological surveys in Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve have been published (e.g., Pawar &amp; Birand 2001; Sarkar &amp; Ray 2006; Sarkar &amp; Sanyal 1985). From the Megophryinae subfamily, Pawar and Birand (2001) reported the species Megophrys robusta; a large bodied species which can not be confused with Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. Though these authors mentioned that some specimens from their northeast Indian survey were collected for later identification, they do not provide specimen details, thus their locality reports must be considered anecdotal. Sarkar &amp; Ray (2006) report a single specimen which they identify as Megophrys major, with a brief description stating characters that clearly distinguish it from the species described here, i.e., SVL 67 mm and toes “more or less one fourth webbed”.</p><p>A single adult female Megophrys specimen (BMNH 1934.10.2.10) was collected by Captain Kingdon Ward from the Lohit Valley, Sadiya Frontier Tract, and discussed by Smith (1935) under the identification of M. minor . The Lohit River flows through the Lohit and Anjaw districts of Arunachal Pradesh and forms the adjacent major drainage system to the north of that created by the Noa-Dihing river valley. The condition of the specimen is quite dehydrated making determination of soft characters unreliable, however it is not considered to be conspecific with Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. due to small adult female size (SVL 34.5 mm), absence of vomerine ridges, and circular tympanum (Mahony, pers. obs.). Further fresh collections of the Lohit population are necessary to revise Smith’s identification, and thus the verification of M. minor in India.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDF20CFF89FFA57C86FBF15CE4FBD7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen;Teeling, Emma C.;Biju, S. D.	Mahony, Stephen, Teeling, Emma C., Biju, S. D. (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, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3722.2.2
03CDF20CFF83FFA37C86FB9A5CE9F828.text	03CDF20CFF83FFA37C86FB9A5CE9F828.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megophrys oropedion	<div><p>Megophrys oropedion sp. nov.</p><p>(Figures 3, 5–7; Table 1)</p><p>“ Megophrys monticola ”: Pillai and Chanda (1979: 386); Dutta (1997: 37—part; “Shillong Peak”) “ Megophrys parva ”: Chanda (1994: 19, 21—part; “Shillong, Khasi Hills”); Chanda (1995: 459—part; “Shillong”); Dutta (1997: 38—part; “Shillong”); Chanda (2002: 11—part; “Meghalaya”)</p><p>“ Xenophrys cf. parva ”: Mahony (2008: 9); Das et al. (2010: 54)</p><p>Holotype. Adult male (ZSI A 11601), from Um Risa stream (25°33.644’N 91°52.960’E, 1,520 m asl.), Malki Forest (on Shillong Peak), Shillong, East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya state, northeast India, collected by Systematics Lab members, 18 May 2009.</p><p>Paratypes. Three adult males (ZSI A 11602, BNHS 5595, BNHS 5596), collected with holotype; adult female (ZSI A 11603), from Um Risa stream (25°33.327’N 91°53.099’E, 1,600 m asl.), Malki Forest, Shillong, East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya state, northeast India, collected by Systematics Lab members, 22 May 2009.</p><p>Referred specimens. Three adult males (SDB.DU 2009.300–301, SDB.DU 2009.1164) and one adult female (SDB.DU 2009.299), from Mawphlang Sacred Forest (25°26.617’N 91°44.767’E, 1,810 m asl.), Mawphlang, East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya state, northeast India, collected by Systematics Lab members, 30 May 2009.</p><p>Diagnosis. Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. is diagnosable from geographically relevant congeners by the following combination of characters: small-sized, robust species, adult-male SVL 32.8–39.2 mm (N=7), adultfemale SVL 44.1–48.7 mm (N=2); HW≥HL, HW/SVL 33.9–38.5% (N=9); tympanum clearly defined, TYD /ED 53.7–69.0% (N=9); SHL/SVL 41.7–48.4% (N=9), mean male SHL/SVL 45% (N=7), mean female SHL/SVL 42.1% (N=2); vomerine ridges ovoid, with vomerine teeth present; subarticular, inner and outer palmar tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercles absent in life and in preservation; digit tips not expanded relative to digit width; webbing and lateral fringes on toes absent; dorsolateral folds always present, approximately 75 percent of trunk length; distinct “X”-shape marking on dorsum absent; protruding projection posterior to cloaca of males absent; single dominant frequency range of male advertisement call at 3,100–4,250 kHz, with maximum note energy of between 3,364–3,527 kHz (3,388±70 kHz) at 18°C (Figure 7).</p><p>Comparisons. Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. differs from the following large-sized species by considerably smaller adult-male size, SVL 32.8–39.2 mm, N=7 (vs. adult-male SVL&gt; 53 mm: M. gigantica, N=6; M. glandulosa, N=10; M. jingdongensis, N=2; M. lekaguli, N=8; M. major, N=8; M. medogensis, N=16; M. omeimontis, N=10; M. robusta, N=4; M. spinata, N=2); from the following medium-sized species by smaller adultmale size, SVL 32.8–39.2 mm, N=7 (vs. Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. male SVL 39.1–45.0 mm, N=8; M. binlingensis SVL 45.1–51.0 mm, N=3; M. megacephala SVL 45.9–53.4 mm, N=7; M. takensis SVL 47.3–53.0 mm, N=3), further from Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. by HW≥HL (vs. HL&gt;HW), digit tips not expanded terminally (vs. digit tips distinctly expanded terminally), small sharp horn-like tubercle absent on the eyelids (vs. present on most individuals), further from M. binlingensis by lateral fringes on toes absent (vs. present), further from M. megacephala by considerably narrower head HW/SVL 33.9–38.5%, N=9 (vs. HW/SVL 40.2–45.1%, N=9), and further from M. takensis by vomerine ridges ovoid (vs. elongated stalk-like projections); from the following smallsized species by larger adult size, male SVL 32.8–39.2 mm, N=7, female SVL 44.1–48.7 mm, N=2 (vs. M. wuliangshanensis male SVL 27.3–31.6 mm, N=10, female SVL 41.0– 41.5 mm, N=2; M. zunhebotoensis male SVL 30.0 mm, N=1, female SVL 39.0 mm, N=1), further from M. wuliangshanensis by larger tympanum on males, mean TYD /ED 60.4%, N=7 (vs. mean male TYD /ED 48.8%, N=10), considerably shorter mean shank length, mean male SHL/SVL 45%, N=7, mean female SHL/SVL 42.1%, N=2 (vs. mean male SHL/SVL 50.5%, N=10, mean female SHL/SVL 50.4%, N=2), and further from M. zunhebotoensis by male SHL/SVL 43.4–48.4%, N=7, female SHL/SVL 41.7–42.6%, N=2 (vs. male SHL/SVL 50%, N=1, female SHL/SVL 46.1%, N=1); from M. nankiangensis and M. shapingensis by presence of clearly defined tympanum (vs. tympanum concealed by supratympanic fold); from M. binchuanensis and M. wushanensis by subarticular tubercles absent (vs. present), and lateral fringes on toes absent (vs. present); from M. minor by HW≥HL (vs. HL&gt;HW), vomerine teeth present (vs. absent), differences in male advertisement call characters, note duration 30–55 ms (44.6±7.33 ms, N=32) and a single primary frequency range at 18°C (vs. note duration 74.6–110.1 ms [90.8±12.6 ms, N=14], and a second subdominant frequency pulse at 6,800–7,600 kHz at 14°C); from M. palpebralespinosa by webbing between toes absent (vs. approx. half digit length); from M. daweimontis by inner and outer palmar tubercles and inner metatarsal tubercles absent in life and in preservation (vs. distinct and red in colour), SHL/SVL 41.7–48.4%, N=9 (vs. SHL/SVL 53.7% on holotype); from M. wawuensis and M. zhangi by distinct “X”-shape marking on dorsum absent (vs. present) and dorsolateral folds distinct (vs. indistinct), further from M. wawuensis by larger tympanum, TYD /ED 53.7–69.0%, N=9 (vs. TYD /ED ca. 33%), and further from M. zhangi by lateral fringes on toes absent (vs. present); from M. pachyproctus by protruding projection posterior to cloaca of male absent (vs. present); from M. parva by larger adult female size, SVL 44.1–48.7 mm, N=2 (vs. female SVL 41.1–41.4 mm, N=2), larger tympanum TYD /ED 53.7–69.0%, N=9 (vs. TYD /ED 40.0–48.9%, N=4), and digit tips not expanded relative to digit width (vs. digit tips noticeably expanded relative to digit width); from M. serchhipii by dorsolateral folds always present, approximately 75 percent of trunk length (vs. absent).</p><p>Holotype description (measurements in mm). Mature male (SVL 32.8) (Figure 5, 6C). Head small (HW 12.0, HL 12.0, IFE 6.0, IBE 10.1), as wide as long; snout rounded in dorsal view, obtusely protruding in lateral view, without rostral appendage (Figure 5C); loreal region vertical and concave; canthus rostralis angular; dorsal region of snout slightly concave; eye (EL 4.4) longer than maximum tympanum diameter (TYD 2.7), and subequal to snout (SL 4.5); eye-tympanum distance (TYE 1.8) shorter than maximum tympanum diameter; tympanum slightly oval, vertically orientated, not concealed by supratympanic ridge (Figure 5C); pupil in life oval, horizontally orientated when dilated and vertically when constricted; nostril orientated laterally, situated mid-way between eye and snout (EN 2.2, SN 2.3); internarial distance (IN 3.8) equal to eyelid width (UEW 3.8), and wider than the narrowest point between upper eyelids (IUE 3.4); pineal ocellus not visible externally; vomerine ridges moderately raised, ovoid, positioned at level posterior to choanae, separated from each other by distance equal to distance from choanae; vomerine teeth small; tongue moderately large, weakly notched posteriorly, with no medial lingual process.</p><p>Forelimbs moderately short and thin, forearm (FAL 7.6) slightly enlarged relative to upper forelimb, shorter than hand (HAL 10.1); fingers short and rounded without lateral fringes (Figure 5D), finger length formula I=II=IV&lt;III (FIL 3.9, FIIL 4.0, FIIIL 6.3, FIVL 4.0); interdigital webbing, thenar, palmar, subarticular and supernumerary tubercles absent; finger tips not expanded, rounded with small oval pads; terminal grooves absent. Hindlimbs relatively short and thin; shanks overlap when thighs are held at right angle to body, thigh (TL 13.9) shorter than shank (SHL 14.4), and foot (FOL 14.5); toes long and rounded without lateral fringes (Figure 5E); relative toe lengths I&lt;II&lt;V&lt;III&lt;IV; toe tips not dilated, but with small terminal pads; terminal groves absent; outer metatarsal tubercle, subarticular and supernumerary tubercles and webbing absent; inner metatarsal tubercle indistinct; ridge of callous tissue absent on the ventral surface of digits.</p><p>Skin of dorsal surfaces of body, limbs, and dorsal and lateral surfaces of head weakly granular; tympanum smooth, its borders slightly raised; short ridge present on outer edge of upper eyelid (Figure 5C); supratympanic fold extends from orbit and curves around upper border of tympanum, terminating above insertion of forelimb (Figure 5C), its posterior half more than 50 percent wider than anterior half; flanks with large scattered tubercles; thin dorsolateral folds extend from posterior to supratympanic fold to approximately three quarters distance to groin; weak, “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridge present, its two sides extending posteriorly from above tympanum and meeting medially beyond level of axilla; second inverted partial “V”-shaped ridge present on mid-dorsum, joining laterally with dorsolateral fold on right side only (Figure 5A); small tubercles arranged into distinct transverse rows on dorsal surface of thighs, shanks and forearms. Gular region, chest and ventral surfaces of limbs smooth; abdomen weakly granular; pectoral glands moderately large and raised slightly, positioned on level with axilla (Figure 5B); femoral glands moderately large, slightly raised, positioned sub-equally distant from knee and cloaca. Conspicuous brown skin asperities form a narrow band circummarginally on lower jaw, densely scattered at posterior end of jaw and on tympanic region (except tympanum), along upper jaw, loreal region and snout, and on supratympanic and dorsal folds; sparse on head, dorsal surface of snout and anterior half of dorsum, dorsal surfaces of forelimbs and hindlimbs, posterior half of upper eyelids, and upper flanks; dense on the posterior half of dorsum, and surrounding cloaca, extending ventrally onto posterior part of abdomen; few asperities extending from axilla to adjacent pectoral region including the pectoral glands; absent from remaining surfaces.</p><p>Colour in preservative (Figure 5): Entire dorsal and lateral surfaces of head, body, forelimbs and hindlimbs light brown; solid darker brown triangular marking between eyes, and thin dark brown stripe extending from tip of snout posterodorsally to centre of snout; supratympanic folds whitish-cream; front of snout with dark brown blotches; wide vertical dark brown bar below eyes and dark brown blotches covers tympanum; two dark brown blotches on anterior lateral surface of forearm, and dorsal surface of hands and feet with dark brown spots and speckles; feint dark brown transverse bands present on dorsal surfaces of hindlimbs. Gular region, chest, abdomen and ventral surface of limbs pale greyish-brown; feint, dark mottling on limbs; some small white spots along margin of lower mandible and distinct dark brown patch on either side of posterior ends of mandibles extending to insertion of forelimbs; ventral surfaces of tarsus and feet dark grey brown; area surrounding vent and posterior surfaces of thighs dark brown; ventral surface of hands grey-brown; pectoral and femoral glands white. Colour in life (Figure 6C): As described above, except that dorsal colour was a richer mid-brown with tips of dorsal tubercles and large granules orange; inner surface of thighs and groin with some orange colouration. Iris colour metallic brown.</p><p>Variation. See Table 1 for morphometric characters of seven adult males and two adult females. Finger length formula varies considerably in this species with the following combinations found in the series examined: I≤II≤IV&lt;III (N=6), II&lt;IV&lt;I&lt;III (N=1), and I&lt;IV&lt;II&lt;III (N=2). ZSI A 11603 has considerably smaller, ovoid vomerine ridges, and SDB.DU 2009.1164 possesses only one small, ovoid vomerine ridge on the right side, with the left vomerine ridge absent. Vomerine ridges in the remaining specimens like in the holotype. Dorsolateral folds are present on all examined specimens and vary in length from approximately 75–100 percent of the trunk length. Tympanum is completely exposed on five specimens but on four the supratympanic fold covers the dorsal-most border, and the tympanum shape varies from circular to distinctly vertically oval. Asperities density and distribution for all specimens are similar to the conditions described for the holotype with the following exceptions: BNHS 5595 differs from the holotype by having only a single asperity on each pectoral and femoral gland; ZSI A 11603 has sparse, white asperities on supratympanic and dorsal folds, at the rear of the jaw, on posterior portions of eyelids, and dorsal surfaces of forelimbs and hindlimbs, dense asperities on the posterior half of the dorsum and the surroundings of the cloaca, and two sparse patches on the chest adjacent the axilla, but absent from other surfaces; SDB.DU 2009.300 differs from the holotype by having black and white asperities on the lower jaw, and axillary asperities absent; SDB.DU 2009.301 differs from the holotype by having a broad band of asperities along the margin of the lower jaw. Most specimens match the holotype by possessing a short raised dermal ridge on the upper eyelid except BNHS 5595 and SDB.DU 2009.301 which have a small blunt tubercle on each eyelid replacing the ridge, and SDB.DU 2009.299 which has a ridge on one side and a tubercle on the other. The parietoscapular ridge on five of the nine specimens does not join medially to form a “V” shape, but appears as “\ /”.</p><p>Colouration and markings of the type series and referred specimens generally agree with the holotype with the following exceptions: all other specimens have a distinct longitudinally elongated brown patch on the central gular region extending onto the anterior part of the chest; some individuals have additional large dark brown blotches along the margin of the lower jaw and dense, darker brown blotches on the dorsum (e.g., SDB.DU 2009.301, ZSI A 11602, BNHS 5595, BNHS 5596); dark bands on the dorsal surfaces of the hindlimbs and stripe on the dorsal portion of the snout indistinct on SDB.DU 2009.1064; the entire gular, chest and ventral abdominal region of SDB.DU 2009.300–301 and BNHS 5595 are covered with feint to dark brown blotches and mottling; flank tubercles in general are lighter than surrounding areas. Many individuals of this species that were photographed but not collected from the localities listed in the distribution section varied in general dorsal colouration from dark brown to bright orange; the inner surfaces of the thighs and groin of males and females were orange to reddishorange; the aforementioned feint brown blotches on the ventral surface in preservative are often orange in life.</p><p>Secondary sexual characters. Males have slightly raised nuptial pads covered with black micro-granules, covering most of the dorsal surface of the base of finger I, narrowing distally and extending to the base of the distal phalange on the inner dorsal side; nuptial pad medium sized and oval shaped on finger II, on the inner dorsal side of the base of the digit extending to the mid-proximal phalange; external vocal sac distinct as loose skin on most specimens, and forms a large single subgular sac that extends onto the anterior chest when fully inflated; internal vocal slit present on the floor of the mouth, near the rear of the lower mandible on both sides; forearm slightly to moderately enlarged relative to upper forelimb; protruding fleshy projection posterior to cloaca absent. Females lack nuptial pads, external vocal sac, internal vocal slits and enlarged forearms—ova are unpigmented.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet “ oropedion ” is Greek meaning “plateau” or “tableland”, as all known collection localities for the species are situated on the upper reaches of the Shillong Plateau. We treat the specific epithet as a noun in apposition to the generic name.</p><p>Distribution. This species is confirmed here from Malki Forest (1,520–1,600 m asl.), Shillong, and Mawphlang Sacred Forest (1,810 m asl.), Mawphlang village, both in the East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya state, northeast India (Figure 3). It has also been observed, but not collected from North East Hill University (NEHU) (25°36.767’N 91°45.050’E, 1,410 m asl.), on the outskirts of Shillong city (SM pers. obs.). This species is likely to be found in other forest fragments in the East and West Khasi Hills districts that cover the upper reaches of the Shillong Plateau above 1,400 m asl.</p><p>Habitat and natural history. The forest type around Shillong and Mawphlang is categorized as subtropical wet hill forest (Champion &amp; Seth 1968). The forest at the type locality is dominated by pine ( Pinus kesiya Royle &amp; Gordon) plantation, with a considerable amount of broadleaf trees lining the stream banks (SM, pers. obs.) (Figure 4B), while the forest at Mawphlang is dominated by broadleaf trees (Figure 4C). The collection streams at these localities were approximately 1–3 m wide and 10–40 cm deep, of moderate flow on a slight incline, primarily rocky with intermittent gravel bed, and with quiet pools that accumulate detritus, branches and leaf litter (for further details on habitat at Mawphlang see Mahony [2008]). The species was only found along portions of the streams that experience low levels of human disturbance. One female was collected on a trail ca. 200 m from the nearest stream, and another collected from a trail nearby a stream. Males were collected from the lower branches of bushy vegetation at ca. 20 cm above ground level, within 2 m from the edge of streams, or from rocks on the stream banks. One uncollected male was located inactive during day time in a fallen hollow branch lying over a stream (1 m above stream level). Metamorphosing juveniles were found during May and June at Shillong and Mawphlang. Males began calling vigorously from dusk until late into the evening (18:00 until at least 23:30 h), regardless of precipitation level, but more intensely during light rain and/or when cloud cover envelops the forest, when regular calling began as early as 16:00 h, but was reduced during heavy precipitation. Calling was observed during visits between 20th May to 15th September. Sporadic daytime calling was heard on both overcast and clear days at Shillong and Mawphlang, and it consisted of one to two call repetitions followed by extended silence, usually from unobserved calling sites within dense bushes. Calling males distanced themselves from others by a minimum of 1 m of stream bank and distinctive territorial calls were emitted when males were played back their call at close quarters, as noted in other species (Mahony &amp; Reza 2008).</p><p>The advertisement call of Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. was recorded from two individual males (not collected) from the banks of the Um Risa stream within meters of the collection locality of the holotype. These individuals were photographed in-situ and released, and match the type series in all general external morphological characters. The call consists of a single pulsed note of 30–55 ms duration (44.6±7.33 ms, N=32), containing 6–10 pulses per note (7.7±0.97, N=32). Pulse intervals gradually decrease from the beginning to the end of the note. Amplitude modulation within notes is apparent, beginning with moderately high energy pulses, increasing slightly to a maximum by approximately mid note, and subsequently decreasing rapidly towards the end of each note. Calls are repeated in series at a rate of 3–4 per second, with an irregular call interval of 108–415 ms duration (276±67 ms, N=32). Duration of call series was not recorded, but calls were continuously emitted throughout the longest recording made of 24 s. Calls had a single dominant frequency range of 3,100–4,250 kHz with the maximum note energy varying from 3,400–3,500 kHz (3,388±70 kHz, N=27).</p><p>Out of a total of 18 metamorph to adult frogs photographed, two examples with eye deformities were observed (not collected), one from Mawphlang and the other from the lower Malki forest. In both cases, one eye was smaller than the other, with the pupil off-center and partially obscured by the upper eyelid. It was not tested at the time of observation whether the deformed eyes were functional. At both of these localities, the breeding streams are intensively used as clothes-washing areas and in such sections of the streams the rocks are covered with a grey slime from excessive detergent use and calling males are absent (see Mahony 2008 for further discussion). Whether detergent use in these streams is responsible for causing the malformations, or whether it is a result of natural parasite/viral infection or trauma should be further investigated.</p><p>Remarks. Pillai and Chanda (1979) report a single specimen in the ZSI/ERS which they refer to as “ Megophrys monticola Kuhl. &amp; V. Hass., 1822 [b]” (= Megophrys montana Kuhl &amp; Van Hasselt, 1822 [a]), collected from Shillong Peak—the type locality of Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. Immediately obvious is their confusion with the name Xenophrys monticola Günther, 1864 (currently a synonym of Megophrys parva), the name which they presumably intended to refer to based on later corrections of the identification of this specimen to M. parva (Chanda 1994, 1995, 2002). Pillai and Chanda (1979) provide a basic description of this specimen which corresponds with Megophrys oropedion sp. nov., with the exception that they identify the specimen as a male with SVL of 48 mm (vs. male SVL 32.8–39.2 mm, N=7, reported herein). This measurement however corresponds perfectly with females of this species, thus the sex of this specimen should be re-examined. Dutta (1997) lists both Megophrys monticola Kuhl. &amp; V. Hass., 1822 (= Megophrys montana Kuhl &amp; Van Hasselt, 1822 [a]) and Megophrys parva from Shillong presumably based on the aforementioned papers (Pillai &amp; Chanda 1979; Chanda 1994), as both references are included in the bibliography section. Considering Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. was consistently the only species found on Shillong Peak during numerous visits by the Systematics Lab members between 2006–2011, we regard the specimen of Pillai and Chanda (1979) as this species. Megophrys montana Kuhl &amp; Van Hasselt, 1822 [a] is otherwise known from the Indonesian island of Java (Inger 1954), and is therefore not a member of the Indian amphibian fauna despite being listed as such several times in the past (e.g., Pillai &amp; Chanda 1979; Dutta 1997; Das &amp; Dutta 1998). Mahony (2008) reported Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. (as Xenophrys cf. parva) from Mawphlang, which was later cited by Das et al. (2010).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDF20CFF83FFA37C86FB9A5CE9F828	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen;Teeling, Emma C.;Biju, S. D.	Mahony, Stephen, Teeling, Emma C., Biju, S. D. (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, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3722.2.2
03CDF20CFF84FFB97C86FF545833F962.text	03CDF20CFF84FFB97C86FF545833F962.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megophrys vegrandis	<div><p>Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov.</p><p>(Figures 3, 8 &amp; 9; Table 1)</p><p>“ Xenophrys boettgeri ?”: Athreya (2006: 100)</p><p>“ Xenophrys cf. boettgeri ”: Athreya (2006: 139, 143) “ Xenophrys boettgeri ”: Mathew and Sen (2010: 54, fig. 89)</p><p>Holotype. Adult male (ZSI A 11605), from a tributary of the Sessa Nadi (river), Sessa village (27°06.067’N 92°31.642’E, 1,110 m asl), Bhalukpong Forest Division, West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh state, northeast India, collected by Systematics Lab members, 8 August 2009.</p><p>Paratypes by original designation. Two adult males (ZSI A 11604, BNHS 5597), collected with holotype.</p><p>Referred specimen. One adult male (SDB.DU 2009.1274), and one metamorphosed juvenile (SDB.DU 2009.1275), collected with holotype.</p><p>Diagnosis. Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov. is diagnosable from geographically relevant congeners by the following combination of characters: small-sized, slender species, adult male size amongst the smallest of all known Megophrys species, SVL 27.5–30.6 mm (N=4); tympanum circular, not concealed by supratympanic ridge; vomerine ridges and vomerine teeth absent; dorsolateral folds extending for approximately 20–40 percent of trunk length; length of finger I 50 –65 percent of length of finger II; webbing between toes rudimentary; lateral fringes on toes present; nuptial pads, subarticular tubercles and protruding projection posterior to cloaca of males absent; groin and ventral thigh colouration not contrasting with surrounding regions on males; ventral surface of thighs mottled and blotched with dark brown.</p><p>Comparisons. Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov. differs from the following large species (in parenthesis) by considerably smaller adult-male size, SVL 27.5–30.6 mm, N=4 (vs. adult-male SVL&gt; 53 mm: M. gigantica, N=6; M. glandulosa, N=10; M. jingdongensis, N=2; M. lekaguli, N=8; M. major, N=8; M. medogensis, N=16; M. omeimontis, N=10; M. robusta, N=4; M. spinata, N=2); from the following small to medium-sized species (in parenthesis) by smaller adult-male size, SVL 27.5–30.6 mm, N=4 (vs. Megophrys ancrae sp. nov. SVL 39.1–45.0 mm, N=8; M. binchuanensis SVL 32.0–36.0 mm, N=4; M. binlingensis SVL 45.1–51.0 mm, N=3; M. daweimontis SVL 34–37 mm, N=18; M. megacephala SVL 45.9–53.4 mm, N=7; M. minor SVL 32.2–40.5 mm, N=15; M. pachyproctus SVL 35.3–36.2 mm, N=2; M. palpebralespinosa SVL 36.2–38.0 mm, N=2; M. parva SVL 33.9–41.4 mm, N=4; Megophrys oropedion sp. nov. male SVL 32.8–39.2 mm, N=7; M. takensis SVL 47.3–53.0 mm, N=3; M. wawuensis SVL 34.4–42.8 mm, N=4; M. zhangi SVL 32.5–37.2 mm, N=3), further from Megophrys ancrae sp. nov., M. megacephala, M. minor, Megophrys oropedion sp. nov., M. parva, and M. takensis by lateral fringes on toes present (vs. absent), further from M. binchuanensis by subarticular tubercles absent (vs. present), groin colouration not contrasting to surrounding regions on males (vs. red on males), further from M. binlingensis by vomerine ridges absent (vs. present, slender), further from M. daweimontis and M. wawuensis by FIL 50–65% FIIL (vs. FIIL&lt;FIL), further from M. pachyproctus by protruding projection posterior to cloaca of male absent (vs. present), FIL 50–65% FIIL (vs. FIL subequal to FIIL), tympanum circular (vs. oval), and lateral fringes on toes present (vs. absent), further from M. palpebralespinosa by webbing between toes rudimentary (vs. approx. half digit length), further from M. zhangi by ventral thighs mottled and blotched with dark brown (vs. immaculate); from M. nankiangensis and M. shapingensis by presence of clearly defined tympanum (vs. tympanum concealed by supratympanic fold); from M. wushanensis by subarticular tubercles absent (vs. present), groin colouration not contrasting with surrounding regions on males (vs. red on males); from M. serchhipii and M. zunhebotoensis by lateral fringes on toes present (vs. absent), and vomerine teeth absent (vs. present); from M. wuliangshanensis by lateral fringes on toes present (vs. absent), dorsolateral folds extend approximately 20–40 percent body length (vs. most of body length), ventral thigh colouration not contrasting with surrounding regions on males (vs. red on males).</p><p>Holotype description (measurements in mm). Mature male (SVL 29.2) (Figure 8, 9). Head small (HW 10.2, HL 10.2, IFE 5.2, IBE 9.0), as wide as long; snout rounded in dorsal view, obtusely protruding in lateral view, without rostral appendage (Figure 8C); loreal region vertical and concave; canthus rostralis blunt; dorsal region of snout slightly concave (Figure 9C); eye (EL 3.6) twice as long as maximum tympanum diameter (TYD 1.8), and shorter than snout (SL 4.0); eye-tympanum distance (TYE 1.5) shorter than maximum tympanum diameter; tympanum circular, with upper margin concealed by supratympanic ridge (Figure 8C); pupil in life oval, horizontally orientated when dilated; nostril oriented laterally, situated mid-way between eye and snout (EN 2.0, SN 2.0); internarial distance (IN 3.3) subequal to eyelid width (UEW 3.3), and narrower than narrowest point between upper eyelids (IUE 3.7); pineal ocellus not visible externally; vomerine ridges and vomerine teeth absent; tongue moderately large, weakly notched posteriorly, with no medial lingual process.</p><p>Forelimbs moderately long and thin, forearm (FAL 7.6) slightly enlarged relative to upper forelimb, shorter than hand (HAL 9.4); fingers short and broadly flattened but without lateral fringes (Figure 8D), finger length formula I&lt;II=IV&lt;III (FIL 2.6, FIIL 4.6, FIIIL 6.3, FIVL 4.6); interdigital webbing, subarticular and supernumerary tubercles absent; thenar and palmar tubercles barely distinguishable; finger tips slightly expanded and rounded with oval pads; terminal grooves absent. Hindlimbs relatively long and thin (Figure 8A), shanks overlap when thighs are held at right angle to body, thigh (TL 15.0) shorter than shank (SHL 15.8), and longer than foot (FOL 13.6); toes short and flattened with broad lateral fringes that extend to tips of all digits (Figure 8E); relative toe lengths I&lt;II&lt;V=III&lt;IV; tips not dilated, but with distinct pads; terminal groves absent; base of toes with rudimentary webbing (Figure 8E); outer metatarsal tubercle, subarticular and supernumerary tubercles absent; inner metatarsal tubercle present but barely distinguishable; ridge of callous tissue present on ventral surface of all digits.</p><p>Skin of dorsal and ventral surfaces of head, body and limbs primarily smooth; flanks with small scattered tubercles (Figure 9A); tympanum smooth, borders slightly raised, surrounding area posterior to eye granular (Figure 8C); small tubercle present on outer edge of upper eyelid; supratympanic fold narrow without widening posteriorly, extends from orbit and curves down broadly through upper border of tympanum terminating above shoulder (Figure 8C); short thin dorsolateral fold extending from behind supratympanic fold to approximately one third distance to groin; weak “V”-shaped parietoscapular ridge present, its two sides extending posteriorly from above tympanum and meeting medially beyond level of axilla; second inverted “V”-shaped ridge present on mid-dorsum (Figure 8A); pectoral glands small and raised slightly, positioned on level with axilla (Figure 8B); femoral glands small slightly raised, positioned sub-equally distant from knee and cloaca. Skin asperities absent on all surfaces.</p><p>Colour in preservative (Figure 8): Dorsal and lateral surfaces of head and body primarily light grey-brown; brown triangular marking with light central blotch between eyes, and large brown, roughly “X”-shaped blotch present on dorsal surface of body; lower borders of dorsolateral and supratympanic folds, and flank tubercles dark brown; front of snout mottled with dark brown; wide oblique dark brown bar below eye and dark brown blotch covers tympanum; lateral surfaces of forearm and dorsal surface of hands and feet with dark brown spots and speckles; forelimbs brown above with feint dark brown transverse stripes on forearm; dorsal surface of upper forelimb pale relative to remaining dorsal trunk colour; dorsal surface of hindlimbs light grey-brown with oblique dark brown crossbars. Gular region, chest and anterior part of abdomen primarily greyish-yellow with barely discernible mottling and lighter patches along margin of lower mandibles; light colouration of chest darkens slightly posteriorly on abdomen which is mottled with light brown; broad dark brown row of blotches present on ventrolateral surfaces of abdomen; ventral surfaces of thighs and shanks with light and dark brown mottling; ventral surfaces of tarsus and feet dark grey-brown; area surrounding cloaca and posterior surfaces of thighs dark brown; ventral surface of hands grey-brown; pectoral and femoral glands lighter than surrounding area. Colour in life (Figure 9): Dorsum of head, body, hindlimbs and forearm light olive brown; above mentioned dorsal markings of head, body and limbs mid-brown; lateral surfaces of body and hindlimbs light mauve-grey; dorsal surfaces of upper forelimbs plain yellow; all dorsal and lateral tubercles, ridges and folds on head, body and limbs, orange; ventral surfaces of tips of fingers I and II and tips of all toes, orange. Iris metallic yellowish-orange.</p><p>Variation. See Table 1 for morphometric characters of four adult males. Dorsal markings of paratypes agree with holotype, however overall colouration is darker. The length of the dorsolateral folds on paratypes and the adult referred specimen varies from approximately 20–40 percent trunk length. The supratympanic fold does not obscure the upper border of the tympanum on ZSI A 11604 and SDB.DU 2009.1274. Pineal body externally visible on ZSI A 11604 and BNHS 5597. BNHS 5597 has very sparse, small clear asperities on the dorsal folds of the body and hindlimbs and a few on the outer margin of the lower jaw, whereas SDB.DU 2009.1274 has sparse asperities on the posterior part of the dorsum only. ZSI A 11604, BNHS 5597, and SDB.DU 2009.1274 possess a short ridge on the upper eyelid as opposed to the tubercle present on the holotype. Dark blotches on the ventral surfaces of the body and limbs vary between specimens with respect to density and shade. The dorsal surface of the upper forelimbs vary between yellow and light brown in life. On the metamorph (SDB.DU 2009.1275), the dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head and body are mottled brown with faintly darker brown triangle between the eyes. Limbs greyish-yellow with feint brown crossbars. Lateral head markings like on the adults. Throat and abdomen pale grey with dark brown longitudinal stripe on each side of the lower flanks, on posterior thighs across the cloacal region and on the ventral tarsus. Pectoral and femoral glands visible as white spots.</p><p>Secondary sexual characters. Males without nuptial pads on fingers; external vocal sac indistinct; internal vocal slits present near the rear of the lower mandible; protruding fleshy projection posterior to cloaca absent. Females currently unknown.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet “ vegrandis ” is a Latin word meaning “diminutive” or “tiny” with reference to the small adult male size of this species.</p><p>Distribution. The species is known from the type locality near Sessa village, in West Kameng district, in western Arunachal Pradesh state. We provisionally assign another population to this species from Sessni (27°02.844’N 92°25.086’E, 1,250 m asl), Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary, approximately 12.4 km west of the type locality (Athreya 2006: see remarks below). It is likely that the species is more widespread in suitable habitat at similar altitudes in western Arunachal Pradesh.</p><p>Habitat and natural history. The primary habitat at the type locality is referred to as subtropical forest (Athreya 2006). The type specimens were collected from the banks of a shallow stream (max. depth 10 cm) that flowed through an area of dense bushy vegetation surrounded by disturbed, selectively logged forest (Figure 4A). The vegetation formed a low complete canopy (1–2 m height) over the stream. The stream bed consisted of gravel and rocks, with leaf litter gathered in snags and side pools. No individuals of this species were found (or heard) from the banks of the larger Sessa Nadi river. All males were found calling from atop large boulders bordering the stream where individuals were spaced a minimum of three meters apart along the stream bank. Calling began at dusk on a dry cloudless night. The newly metamorphosed specimen was collected on the gravel bank of the stream. The vigor of male vocalisations indicates that the breeding season includes early August.</p><p>Remarks. Athreya (2006) provided a selection of photographs, some basic measurements and observations of living individuals from Sessni, Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary which they identified as “ Xenophrys cf. boettgeri ” (pg. 143; and pg. 100, plate 2 as “ Xenophrys boettgeri ?”) and which appear to be conspecific with Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov. Mathew and Sen (2010: 54, fig. 89) also show a figure of a Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov. individual from Sessni, and provided a brief description as “ Xenophrys boettgeri ”, which they claim to be found in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. Several of the characters they provide in the description (“tympanum...as large as eye”; “TTA [tibiotarsal articulation] reaches tip of snout”), however, neither match M. boettgeri s.s., or the photographed Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov, thus it is unclear what species they are basing their description. Morphologically, M. boettgeri and Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov. differ considerably (e.g., SVL of adult males 34.5–37.8 mm in M. boettgeri [vs. 27.5–30.6 mm in Megophrys vegrandis], lateral fringes on toes absent [vs. present], subarticular tubercles present on fingers [vs. absent], dorsolateral folds absent [vs. present anteriorly]) and thus these species can hardly be confused. Many other reports of M. boettgeri exist in the Indian literature primarily based on a misunderstanding that originated with Annandale (1917). Annandale regarded tadpoles of M. boettgeri (= M. brachykolos Inger &amp; Romer—fide Inger &amp; Romer 1961) from Hong Kong, to be superficially similar to tadpoles from Arunachal Pradesh which he had earlier assigned to Megalophrys kempii Annandale (Annandale 1912) . He conjectured that Megalophrys kempii may therefore be synonymous with M. boettgeri, strangely disregarding the clear morphological differences between the adults of both species. Many subsequent authors listed M. boettgeri as present in Arunachal Pradesh based directly or indirectly on this weakly supported synonymy and not based on subsequent specimen collections (i.e., Bordoloi et al. 2000; Chanda 1990, 1992, 1994, 2002; Pillai &amp; Chanda 1976; Sarkar &amp; Ray 2006). Delorme et al. (2006) referred Megalophrys kempii to the rhacophorid genus Philautus Gistel based on a morphological examination of the holotype. The tadpoles that Annandale (1912, 1917) provisionally assigned to “ P.” kempii are therefore referable to an unknown species of Megophrys, thus rendering inaccurate all of the aforementioned publications that list M. boettgeri from Arunachal Pradesh.</p><p>Dutta (1997) recognised “ P.” kempii (as Megophrys kempii) as valid, but unusually gives Sikkim as the range of M. boettgeri in India, and states that “After, Boulenger (1894) the species has not been recorded from India ”. The reference for this citation is not in the bibliography section, and here is regarded questionable as it predates the description of M. boettgeri (Boulenger 1899), and furthermore Sikkim is not included in the distribution of this species in Boulenger’s subsequent review of the group (Boulenger 1908). Pawar &amp; Birand (2001) reported sighting M. cf. boettgeri from Mouling National Park in Arunachal Pradesh, from an unspecified source from Bhalpakram National Park in Meghalaya, as well as other localities in Meghalaya and Nagaland. Pawar &amp; Birand (2001) recognised that further research was required to confirm the identity of the Indian populations of M. boettgeri . In the absence of referred voucher specimens, images, or any verifiable evidence of this species from their listed localities, we regard their report as anecdotal, and most likely misidentifications of another/other species.</p><p>In summary, all literature reports of M. boettgeri from India were either based on Megophrys vegrandis sp. nov. (see above chresonymy), “ Philautus ” kempii (Bordoloi et al. 2000; Chanda 1990, 1992, 1994, 2002; Pillai &amp; Chanda 1976; Sarkar &amp; Ray 2006), or anecdotal records (Dutta 1997; Pawar &amp; Birand 2001; Mathew &amp; Sen 2010). No Indian voucher specimens referable to M. boettgeri have been specifically identified in literature, nor are any currently present in major museums, e.g., BMNH, ZSI, SDB.DU (Mahony pers. obs.). Outside India, the closest reported locality for M. boettgeri is from eastern Guangxi Province, China, ca. 1,400 km east of the eastern-most border of northeast India (Fei et al. 2009), thus in the absence of any solid evidence to support the presence of this species in India, it should no longer be included in the Indian amphibian checklists. The geographical distribution of M. boettgeri is here restricted to eastern China (Fei et al. 2009), where based on current understanding it should be considered endemic.</p><p>(ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind) 2.2 (ind) 2.2 (ind) 2.2 (ind) 2.5 (ind) (ind) (ind) (ind)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CDF20CFF84FFB97C86FF545833F962	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen;Teeling, Emma C.;Biju, S. D.	Mahony, Stephen, Teeling, Emma C., Biju, S. D. (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, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3722.2.2
