Nanorana minica ( Dubois, 1975 )

Daniel JABLONSKI & Sylvia HOFMANN, 2024, Over-splitting and inconsistently applied criteria: a response to recent changes on the taxonomy of mountain spiny frogs (Dicroglossidae, Nanorana), Alytes 41 (1 - 4), pp. 40-48 : 44

The case of Nanorana minica ( Dubois, 1975)

as the new subgenus Minipaa Tang, Liu & Yu, 2023

The up ranking of N. minica as its own subgenus, Minipaa , is inconsistent with the phylogenetic evidence. Depending on analysis, this taxon is alternatively placed within an unsupported clade that includes some but not all representatives of Chaparana , Paa Dubois, 1975 , and Allopaa (16S tree), or as the sister lineage of the clade regrouping Paa and Nanorana (the concatenated four genes phylogeny). For lumping Allopaa into Chaparana and erect N. minica as a separate subgenus, Tang et al. (2023) used published genetic data (see their Fig. 4) and mention two morphological information for N. minica taken from the Ohler & Dubois (2006), namely “ transculent or creamy nuptial spines and entirely whitish or creamy eggs, without colored animal pole.”. However, only 15 of the 34 known species of the genus Nanorana (and only 9 of 13 species of the subgenus Paa ) have been evaluated at that time by Ohler & Dubois (2006). Moreover, neither of those two features are included in the original description of N. minica . Whether these two characteristics are unique to N. minica thus remain to be demonstrated by investigating other spiny frogs. In addition, the molecular background of the new subgenus still requires confirmation because it remains unclear if the sequences attributed to N. minica in Tang et al. (2023) belong to this species. Thus, for reasons of taxonomic stability, N. minica should continue to be treated as member of the subgenus Paa ( Ohler & Dubois 2006) .