Quasipaa binhi, Pham & Hoang & Phan & Pham & Ong & Nguyen & Ziegler & Nguyen, 2025
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1240.147337 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:562CF389-0F40-4FA2-8171-CC51E7AFA2A7 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15603626 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0C443FD8-DB6F-5ADB-8080-B11DBD3A9B6C |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Quasipaa binhi |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov.
Figs 16 View Figure 16 , 17 View Figure 17 , 18 View Figure 18 , 19 View Figure 19 , Table 7 View Table 7
Quasipaa delacouri View in CoL : Yan et al. 2021: 1–7.
Quasipaa cf. verrucospinosa View in CoL 2: Suwannapoom et al. 2021: 1–12.
Material examined.
Holotype. • IEBR A.5174 , adult male, collected by T. Q. Nguyen and C. T. Pham, on 11 March 2015, in Dong Chau-Khe Nuoc Trong Nature Reserve (16°56.461'N, 106°38.299'E, at an elevation of 447 m a. s. l.), Le Thuy District, Quang Binh Province, Vietnam GoogleMaps . Paratypes. (n = 8) • IEBR A.5181 , adult female, the same collection data as for holotype GoogleMaps ; IEBR A. 5178 , 5179, two adult males and IEBR A.5175 , 5180, two adult females, collected by T. Q. Nguyen and C. T. Pham, on 18 March 2015, in Dong Chau - Khe Nuoc Trong Nature Reserve (16°59.273'N, 106°36.568'E, at an elevation of 382 m a. s. l.), Le Thuy District, Quang Binh Province, Vietnam GoogleMaps ; • IEBR A.5182 , adult male, collected by C. T. Pham and C. V. Hoang, on 27 July 2015, in Dong Chau-Khe Nuoc Trong Nature Reserve (16°57.036'N, 106°37.504'E, at an elevation of 300 m a. s. l.), Le Thuy District, Quang Binh Province, Vietnam GoogleMaps ; • IEBR A.5183 , adult male and IEBR A.5184 , adult female, collected by C. T. Pham and T. V. Nguyen, on 5 June 2017, in Sao La Nature Reserve (16°04.306'N, 107°29.062'E, at an elevation of 750 m a. s. l.), A Luoi District, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis.
Both morphological characteristics (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) ( Fei et al. 2009) and molecular data revealed the new species to be nested within Quasipaa . Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. is distinguishable from its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characteristics: (1) SVL 76.9–101.1 mm in males and 88.5–123.4 mm in females; (2) head broader than long (HL / HW 0.96 in males, 0.96 in females); (3) vomerine teeth present; (4) external vocal sacs absent; (5) tympanum visible, round; (6) dorsum with thin and elongate ridges intermixed with small round tubercles; (7) flanks covered by oval and round tubercles; (8) supratympanic fold present; (9) dorsolateral fold absent; (10) dorsum and dorsal surface of fore- and hindlimbs with small black spines, scattered; (11) nuptial pad absent on finger I in males (12) ventral surface of body and all fingers without spines in males; (13) eggs yellowish cream with melanic poles in females; (14) toes fully webbed to distal end of terminal phalanx; and (15) in life, dorsum dark brown and belly immaculate white, and iris dark green.
Description of holotype.
A large frog (SVL 101.1 mm); habitus robust with enlarged head (HL / SVL 0.40, HW / SVL 0.42); head broader than long (HL 40.6 mm, HW 42.0 mm); snout round anteriorly in dorsal view, projecting beyond lower jaw; nostril lateral, closer to eye than to the tip of snout (NS 8.3 mm, EN 7.4 mm); canthus rostralis indistinct; loreal region oblique and slightly concave; rostral length greater than eye diameter (RL 15.8 mm, ED 12.2 mm); interorbital distance smaller than internarial distance and upper eyelid width (IOD 6.7 mm, IND 9.3 mm, UEW 9.9 mm); tympanum slightly visible (TD 4.4 mm) smaller than the distance from tympanum to eye (TYE 6.1 mm), ~ 36 % eye diameter; vomerine teeth in two oblique ridges; tongue cordiform, notched posteriorly; external vocal sac absent.
Forelimbs: arms short; upper arm length (UAL) 17.2 mm, forearm length (FAL) 45.1 mm; relative finger lengths: II <I <IV <III; fingers free of webbing; narrow dermal ridge on sides of fingers present on fingers II, III; tips of fingers swollen, not expanded; subarticular tubercles prominent, round, formula 1, 1, 2, 2; inner metatarsal tubercle oval; outer metatarsal tubercle elongate; nuptial pad absent.
Hindlimbs: tibia length longer than thigh length (FeL 56.0 mm, TbL 61.0 mm), ~ 3.7 × longer than wide (TbW 16.2 mm); tips of toes swollen, 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 thin and elongate 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 forelimb and hindlimb with thin and elongate ridges intermixed with small tubercles; belly and ventral surface of thigh smooth.
Nuptial spines: dorsum, upper flanks, upper lip, and dorsal surface of fore- and hindlimbs with small spines, scattered; ventral surface of body and fingers without spines.
Coloration in life: iris dark green; dorsum and upper part of flanks dark brown; lower part of flanks yellow brown with white tubercles and black spines on top; dorsal surface of limbs yellowish brown with dark crossbars; throat and chest white with brown markings; ventral surface of limbs 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 7 View Table 7 . The male specimens have spines on dorsum, upper flanks, upper lip, and dorsal surface of fore- and hindlimbs small, scattered. The females contained yellowish cream eggs with melanic poles.
Ecological notes.
Specimens were found between 19: 00 and 23: 00 in the headwaters of rocky streams (Fig. 20 A View Figure 20 ). They were found in the water or on the ground of stream banks at elevations between 300 and 750 m a. s. l. The surrounding habitat was secondary forest of large, medium-sized, and small hardwoods mixed with shrubs and vines (Fig. 20 B View Figure 20 ). Air temperatures at the sites ranged from 20.1–25.7 ° C and relative humidity was 83–95 %. Male advertisement calls and tadpoles of the species had not been recorded during our field surveys. Other amphibian species found at the sites included Leptobrachium chapaense ( Bourret, 1937) , Xenophrys truongsonensis Luong, Hoang, Pham, Nguyen, Orlov, Ziegler & Nguyen, 2022 , Limnonectes kiziriani Pham, Le, Ngo, Ziegler & Nguyen, 2018 , L. poilani ( Bourret, 1942) , Amolops compotrix (Bain, Stuart & Orlov, 2006) , Papurana attigua ( Inger, Orlov & Darevsky, 1999) ; Odorrana gigatympana (Orlov, Ananjeva & Ho, 2006) , O. khalam (Stuart, Orlov & Chan-ard, 2005), Hylarana maosonensis Bourret, 1937 , and Rhacophorus orlovi Ziegler & Köhler, 2001 .
Distribution.
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. is currently known from Quang Binh (Dong Chau-Khe Nuoc Trong Nature Reserve) and Thua Thien Hue (Sao La Nature Reserve) provinces, Vietnam. Data obtained from GenBank shows that this species was also recorded from Xekong Province, Laos ( Suwannapoom et al. 2021; see Discussion below).
Comparisons.
We compared the new species with its congeners. Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. ohlerae sp. nov. by having the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs with thick ridges); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers and ventral surface of forelimbs in males (vs present); the absence spines on lower flanks, ventral surface of forelimbs, lower lip, throat, chest, 2 / 3 anterior part of belly in males (vs present); and females with melanic pole eggs (vs wholly unpigmented); and a smaller ratio of TYE / TD in males (1.22, n = 5 vs 1.68, n = 7).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. verrucospinosa by the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present of nuptial spines on fingers I, II, III); dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs dorsum with thick ridges); a smaller ratio of TD / ED (0.37, n = 5 in males and 0.38, n = 4 in females vs 0.53, n = 7 in males and 0.50, n = 7 in females); a greater ratio of TYE / TD (1.22, n = 5 in males and 1.64, n = 64 in females vs 1.16, n = 7 in males and 1.14, n = 7 in females); inner metatarsal tubercle oval (vs inner metatarsal tubercle round); different dorsal color pattern (dark brown vs yellowish grey); different ventral color pattern (immaculate white vs pale yellow); and iris dark green (vs pale copper).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. acanthophora by having the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs small tubercles); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present on fingers I, II, III); the absence of spines on throat and chest in males (vs present); and iris dark green (vs copper on upper and greyish on lower).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. boulengeri by the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present on fingers I, II, III); the absence of spines on chest and belly in males (vs present); different ventral color pattern (immaculate white vs pale yellow); and iris dark green (vs copper on upper and greyish on lower).
Quasipaa bìnhi sp. nov. differs from Q. courtoisi by having a smaller size in males (SVL 76.9–101.1 mm, n = 5 vs 126 mm, n = 1); the absence of spines on chest in males (vs present); and the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present of nuptial spines on fingers I, II, III).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. delacouri by having the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs smooth); dorsal surface of forelimbs and hindlimbs with thin and elongate ridges intermixed with small tubercles (vs smooth); different dorsal color pattern (dark brown vs brick red with black spots); and dorsum, upper flanks, upper lip, and dorsal surface of fore- and hindlimbs with small spines, scattered in males (vs absent); a greater ratio of TD / ED (0.37, n = 4 in males and 0.38, n = 4 in females vs 0.26, n = 3 in males and 0.24, n = 3 in females); a smaller ratio of TYE / TD (1.22, n = 5 in males and 1.64, n = 4 in females vs 2.15, n = 3 in males and 1.93, n = 3 in females) (Figs 13 View Figure 13 – 15 View Figure 15 , Table 5 View Table 5 ).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. exilispinosa by having a larger size in males (SVL 76.9–101.1 mm, n = 5 in males and 88.5–123.4 mm, n = 4 in females vs SVL 44.2–66.5 mm, n = 20 in males and 40.0– 63.3 mm, n = 20 in females); the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs small tubercles); the absence of spines on chest of males (vs present); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present on fingers I, II, III); different ventral color pattern (immaculate white vs pale yellow); and iris dark green (vs copper on upper and greyish on lower).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. fasciculispina by having a smaller ratio of TYE / TD in males (1.22, n = 5 vs 2.0, n = 1); the absence of spines on chest in males (vs each chest tubercle with 5–10 black spines); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present of nuptial spines on fingers I, II, III); iris dark green (vs bright copper-colored); and external vocal sac absent (vs vocal sac openings in floor of mouth).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. jiulongensis by having the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs small tubercles); the absence of spines on chest of males (vs present); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present on fingers I and II); the absence of pale-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 binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. robertingeri by having different dorsal pattern (dark brown vs pale yellowish grey); the absence of spines on chest of males (vs present); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present of nuptial spines on fingers I, II, III); the absence of spines on chest and belly of males (vs present); and iris dark green (vs copper on upper and greyish on lower).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. shini by having the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs dorsum with thick ridges); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present on fingers I, II, III); and the absence of spines on chest of males (vs each chest tubercle with 3–8 black spines).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. spinosa by having the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges and round tubercles (vs small tubercles); the absence of pale-colored longitudinal stripes on upper jaw edge (vs present); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers in males (vs present on fingers I and II); and the absence of spines on chest of males (vs present).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. taoi by its larger size in females (88.5–123.4 mm, n = 4, in females vs 64.6–69.9 mm, n = 3 in females); the dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs dorsum with thick ridges); the absence nuptial spines on all fingers and ventral surface of forelimbs in males (vs present); and iris dark green (vs dark copper).
Quasipaa binhi sp. nov. differs from Q. yei by its larger size in males (SVL 76.8–101.1 mm, n = 5 in males and 88.5–123.4 mm, n = 4 in females vs 49.7–64.0 mm, n = 25 in males and 69.0–83.0 mm, n = 25 in females); dorsum with thin and elongate ridges (vs small tubercles); different dorsal pattern (dark brown vs pale yellowish brown); and the absence of nuptial spines around and inside vent (vs present).
Etymology.
The new species is named in honor of our colleague and friend, late Assoc. Prof. Dr. Binh Van Nguyen from the Hue University, Hue City, Vietnam, in recognition of his contributions on ecological research of amphibians in Vietnam. We recommend “ Binh’s Spiny Frog ” as the common English name of the new species and the common name in Vietnamese as “ Ếch gai s ần bình ”.
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.