Liurana kempii ( Annandale, 1912 ), 2025

Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V. & Das, Abhijit, 2025, Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species, Vertebrate Zoology 75, pp. 517-625 : 517-625

Liurana kempii ( Annandale, 1912) nov. comb.

Chresonymy.

Megalophrys kempii Annandale, 1912: 20 .

Panophrys kempii — Rao and Yang (1997): 98 –99.

Megophrys ( Xenophrys) kempii — Dubois and Ohler (1998): 14.

Megophrys kempii — Fei (1999): 116.

Xenophrys kempii — Ohler (2003): 23.

Philautus kempii — Delorme et al. (2006): 17.

Aquixalus kempii — Fei et al. (2009): 17.

Liuixalus kempii — Fei et al. (2012): 512.

Comments on taxonomic status.

Philautus kempii (Fig. 10 ) was originally described as Megalophrys kempii from Rotung (= Rottung), Arunachal Pradesh based on a single specimen ( Annandale 1912). Since its description this species has never been reported from the type locality. However, it was transferred to megophryid ( Rao and Yang 1997; Dubois and Ohler 1998; Fei 1999; Ohler 2003) and rhacophorid genera ( Delorme et al. 2006; Fei et al. 2009, 2012) by implication. Delorme et al. (2006) placed this species in the genus Philautus based on characters such as granular abdominal skin and indistinct digital discs, and this combination has been followed subsequently ( Zug 2022; Frost 2025).

Our observation of the holotype ( ZSI 17013 ) (Fig. 10 ) showed that it has a distinct and enlarged tympanum with a diameter of 70 % of the eye length, located close to the eye, which is also mentioned in the original description ( Annandale, 1912). Based on characters such as 1) small body size ( SVL 14.8 mm), 2) large tympanum, 3) absence of vomerine teeth, 4) dilated finger and toe tips (Fig. 10 E ), 5) obscurely granular abdomen, 6) rudimentary webbing on foot, 7) fourth toe much longer (Fig. 10 E ), 8) granules on lateral side of thigh towards vent, 9) subarticular tubercles not much pronounced, 10) crossbands on hindlimbs, we argue that the nomen is not a rhacophorid but resembles the ceratobatrachid genus Liurana Fei, Ye & Huang, 1997 . Although Annandale (1912) mentioned metacarpal tubercles and metatarsal tubercles absent (vs. present in Liurana ), supratympanic fold absent (distinct or indistinct in Liurana ), we could not study much of the characters of the holotype as it is dehydrated and the limbs are damaged (Fig. 10 ). The dorsal colouration of the specimen could not be determined, but the colouration in Liurana is variable (personal observation). Morphometric measurements of the holotype are provided in Table S 11.

The absence of vomerine teeth and a granular abdomen are characteristics of Raorchestes ( Biju et al. 2010) . So far, we have not recorded any species of Raorchestes with an enlarged tympanum like ZSI 17013 . On the other hand, granular abdomen and thighs are not characters of Megophrys or Xenophrys . Furthermore, we have not recorded any Xenophrys species with an enlarged tympanum close to the eye. Mahony et al. (2013, 2018, 2020) did not report this condition in any species in their revisions. Additionally, the holotype of P. kempii does not have characters that match with characters of other known genera of Megophryidae from the Eastern Himalayas such as Scutiger Theobald, 1868 and Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838 by: 1) absence of axillary and pectoral glands (present in Scutiger ); 2) absence of keratinised warts on dorsum (vs. present in Scutiger ); 3) absence of shovel shaped inner metatarsal tubercle (present in L. bompu Sondhi & Ohler, 2011 known from Arunachal Pradesh); 4) presence of enlarged tympanum (vs. tympanum indistinct if present in L. bompu ). Also, even though small bodied species of Leptobrachella are known from the hills south of Brahmaputra Valley [i. e., L. khasiorum (Das, Tron, Rangad & Hooroo, 2010) and L. nokrekensis ( Mathew & Sen, 2010) from Meghalaya, L. lateralis ( Anderson, 1871) from Nagaland, and L. tamdil ( Sengupta et al., 2010) from Mizoram and Manipur], the genus Leptobrachella has not been reported from Eastern Himalayas. However, recent studies have reported Liurana species ( L. himalayana Saikia & Sinha, 2019 , L. indica Saikia & Sinha, 2019 , L. medogensis Fei, Ye & Huang, 1997 , L. minica Saikia & Sinha, 2019 ) from the state of Arunachal Pradesh ( Saikia and Sinha 2019). During this study, we also observed Liurana spp. from Adi Hills near the type locality, which matches the original description of Philautus kempii as mentioned above. Therefore, based on the original description and the figure and our examination of the type specimen, we formally transfer Philautus kempii to Liurana kempii nov. comb. However, further studies are needed to confirm that L. kempii is not a species of Megophryidae , given that no individuals of megophryids with characters such as small body size with elongated fourth toe and large tympanum have been recorded from this region. Furthermore, it is necessary to confirm whether the specimens of Liurana spp. from the Adi Hills represent L. kempii or a different species of Liurana .

Figures

Figure 10. Holotype of Liurana kempii nov. comb. (ZSI 17013). A Dorsal view, B ventral view, C, D lateral view of head, E sketch of the same specimen “ Megalophrys kempii ” from Annandale’s (1912) original description. Scale bar = 10 mm.