Resurrection of the Genus Leptomantis, with Description of a New Genus to the Family Rhacophoridae (Amphibia: Anura)

Abstract

Genus Rhacophorus Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1 822 is one of the most diverse genera of the family Rhacophoridae, and its taxonomy of genus Rhacophorus faces major challenges because of rapidly described new species and complex interspecies relations. In this study, we investigate the generic taxonomy within the genus Rhacophorus based on 1 972 bp of mitochondrial genes (12S rRNA, tRNA-val and 16S rRNA), containing 102 sequences from 58 species. The results reveal three well-supported and highly diverged matrilines that correspond with morphological characteristics and geographic distribution. Accordingly, we consider these three lineages as distinct genera: Rhacophorus sensu stricto, resurrected genus Leptomantis Peters, 1867, and the genus Zhangixalus gen. nov.

Headnote

Abstract Genus Rhacophorus Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1 822 is one of the most diverse genera of the family Rhacophoridae, and its taxonomy of genus Rhacophorus faces major challenges because of rapidly described new species and complex interspecies relations. In this study, we investigate the generic taxonomy within the genus Rhacophorus based on 1 972 bp of mitochondrial genes (12S rRNA, tRNA-val and 16S rRNA), containing 102 sequences from 58 species. The results reveal three well-supported and highly diverged matrilines that correspond with morphological characteristics and geographic distribution. Accordingly, we consider these three lineages as distinct genera: Rhacophorus sensu stricto, resurrected genus Leptomantis Peters, 1867, and the genus Zhangixalus gen. nov.

Keywords Rhacophorus, taxonomic revision, tree frog, Zhangixalus gen. nov.

Received: 7 August 2018 Accepted: 10 March 2019

1. Introduction

Old World Treefrogs, family Rhacophoridae, comprise 416 species in 18 recognized genera (Frost, 2018), of which 78 species in 12 genera are found in southern and southwestern China (AmphibiaChina, 2018). Of these, genus Rhacophorus Kuhl and Van Hassalt, 1 822 contains 92 species, distributed widely across China, Japan, India, and from the Philippines to Sulawesi (Frost, 2018; O'Connell et al., 2018). Genus Leptomantis Peters, 1867 was established for the species L. bimaculata Peters, 1867, and Ahl (1931) subsequently synonymized it as a junior synonym of Rhacophorus. Later, Dubois (1987) made Leptomantis a subgenus of Rhacophorus, and divided subgenus Rhacophorus into ten species groups. Iskandar and Colijn (2000) subsequently raised Leptomantis to full genus rank, but Harvey et al. (2002) again synonymized Leptomantis with Rhacophorus, which Frost (2018) accepted. Fei (2012) established Huangixalus based on the type species Rhacophorus translineatus Wu, 1977, but treated as synonym of Rhacophorus by Frost (2018).

Recently, many new species of the genus Rhacophorus were revealed by virtue of molecular phylogenetic results (Matsui et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2017; Streicher et al., 2014). In addition, several phylogenetic works have shed new light on the generic phylogeny of Rhacophorus, which constantly recovered as three well-supported lineages on the basis of molecular phylogenetic trees, although their phylogenetic relationships remain unresolved (Chan et al., 2018; Li et al., 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013; O'Connell et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2017).

The three major clades show deep divergence with each other. The morphological characteristics of tree frog species within their respective clades differ substantially (Li et al., 2012; Yang, 2018). A clade that contains species from the Malay Peninsula to the Philippines agrees with the diagnosis of Leptomantis. On the basis of molecular phylogenetic results, morphological comparisons and distribution patterns, we recognize the validity of the genus Leptomantis. Additionally, resolved relationships require the further splitting of Rhacophorus and the erection of a new genus.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Morphological characters and distribution collection Morphological characters used and their measurement methods followed Fei et al. (2009), morphological characters used as below: body size, snout-vent length (SVL); dermal folds along limbs, dermal folds or ridges along outer edge of forearm and tarsus; supracloacal fold, skin folds above cloaca; tarsal projection, a dermal projection on tibiotarsal articulation; upper eyelid projection, conical projection on upper eyelid. Morphological data of genera were obtained from previous studies (Abraham et al., 2013; Biju et al., 2010; Boulenger, 1882; Dubois, 1987; Fei et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2016; Peters, 1867). The morphological descriptions, phylogentic assignments, and distributions of species of Rhacophorus were based on original descriptions and the following subsequent literature: Anderson (1871), Biju et al. (2013), Boulenger (1896), Das and Haas (2005), Dehling (2008; 2015), Dehling and Grafe (2008), Hamidy and Kurniati (2015), Harvey et al. (2002), Hertwig et al. (2012), Inger (1954; 1966; 1999), Li et al. (2012), Malkmus and Brühl (2002), Matsui and Panha (2006), Matsui et al. (2013), Mo et al. (2008), Nguyen et al. (2017), Ohler and Delorme (2006), Onn and Ahmad (2009), Orlov et al. (2001, 2008, 2010, 2012), Ostroshabov et al. (2013), Rowley et al. (2012), and Streicher et al. (2014).

2.2. Phylogenetic analyses We downloaded 102 sequences for 55 species of Rhacophorus and three outgroups from GenBank. Chiromantis xerampelina Peters, 1854, Polypedates megacephalus Hallowell, 1861 and Polypedates leucomystax (Gravenhorst, 1829) were selected as outgroups for phylogenetic analyses (Li et al., 2008, 2009). The respective gene partitions were 12S rRNA, tRNA-val and 16S rRNA (1 972 bp alignment totally). Details on specimen voucher, GenBank accession codes and sampling sites were listed in Table S1.

The mitochondrial gene fragments were aligned by using the FasParser software package (Sun, 2017). After initial comparison, we partitioned the data sets and assigned substitution models as suggested by the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) as calculated in PartitionFinder v2.1.1 (Lanfear et al., 2012). This resulted in one partition for the data set with a GTR+I+G substitution model. The Bayesian phylogenetic relationships were conducted using MrBayes v3.2.6 (Ronquist et al., 2012). Two independent runs of Markov Chains for 10 000 000 generations were summarized, and sampled every 100 generations. The first 25 000 sampled trees were discarded as a conservative burn-in and convergence was investigated in Tracer v1.6 (Rambaut et al., 2013). The frequency of nodal resolution, termed a Bayesian posterior probability (BPP), was determined to assess confdence of the topology. Nodes were considered strongly supported when BPP ≥ 0.95. A maximum likelihood (ML) tree was conducted with RAxML v8.0.17 (Stamatakis, 2006) using a GTR+I+G model for our final likelihood search during fast bootstrapping with 1000 pseudoreplicates, bootstrap proportions (BSP) were assessed to test the node support, where nodes with BSP ≥ 70 were supported significantly. The alignment was partitioned for each locus.

3. Results

The two phylogenetic methods (BI, ML) resolved each major clade with strong support (Figure 1; Figure S1). The genus Rhacophorus was recovered to be a monophyletic group with strong support (BPP = 1.00; BSP = 100); Rhacophorus contained three strongly supported clades (Clades A, B, C), that were highly diverged with long basal branch lengths. Detailed content of these clades as follows: Clade A contained the following species: R. orlovi Ziegler and Köhler, 2001; R. calcaneus Smith, 1924; R. verrucopus Huang, 1983; R. robertingeri Orlov, Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Ananjeva, Nguyen, Sang, and Geissler, 2012; R. translineatus Wu, 1977; R. annamensis Smith, 1924; R. exechopygus Inger, Orlov, and Darevsky, 1999; R. baluensis Inger, 1954; R. rhodopus Liu and Hu, 1960; R. reinwardtii (Schlegel, 1840); R. norhayatii Chan and Grismer, 2010; R. borneensis Matsui, Shimada, and Sudin, 2013; R. bipunctatus Ahl, 1927; R. kio Ohler and Delorme, 2006; R. helenae Rowley, Tran, Hoang, and Le, 2012; R. pardalis Günther, 1858; R. malabaricus Jerdon, 1870; R. pseudomalabaricus Vasudevan and Dutta, 2000; R. lateralis Boulenger, 1883; R. nigropalmatus Boulenger, 1895; R. bengkuluensis Streicher, Hamidy, Harvey, Anders, Shaney, Kurniawan, and Smith, 2014; R. margaritifer (Schlegel, 1837); R. modestus Boulenger, 1920; R. poecilonotus Boulenger, 1920; R. indonesiensis Hamidy and Kurniati, 2015; R. catamitus Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002 (BPP = 1.00). Among them, R. rhodopus from four areas (Longchuan, Lvchun, Mengyang and Medog) formed a well-supported lineage (BPP = 1.00; BSP = 86). Rhacophorus kio from Yunnan, China and Vietnam formed a lineage, which was sister to R. helenae from southern Vietnam (BPP = 1.00; BSP = 98).

Clade B contained the following species: R. gauni (Inger, 1966); R. penanorum Dehling, 2008; R. angulirostris Ahl, 1927; and R. monticola Boulenger, 1896 (BPP = 1.00; BSP = 98). This clade had species widely distributed in maritime Southeast Asia, from Peninsular Malaysia to the Philippines.

Clade C contained the following species: R. feae Boulenger, 1893; R. moltrechti Boulenger, 1908; R. duboisi Ohler, Marquis, Swan, and Grosjean, 2000; R. omeimontis (Stejneger, 1924); R. burmanus (Andersson, 1939); R. dorsoviridis Bourret, 1937; R. zhoukaiyae Pan, Zhang, and Zhang, 2017; R. lishuiensis Liu, Wang, and Jiang, 2017; R. hui Liu, 1945; R. dugritei (David, 1872); R. hungfuensis Liu and Hu, 1961; R. wui Li, Liu, Chen, Wu, Murphy, Zhao, Wang, and Zhang, 2012; R. minimus Rao, Wilkinson, and Liu, 2006; R. hongchibaensis Li, Liu, Chen, Wu, Murphy, Zhao, Wang, and Zhang, 2012; R. puerensis (He, 1999); R. schlegelii (Günther, 1858); R. arboreus (Okada and Kawano, 1924); R. chenfui Liu, 1945; R. nigropunctatus Liu, Hu, and Yang, 1962; R. dennysi Blanford, 1881; R. smaragdinus (Blyth, 1852); R. dulitensis Boulenger, 1892; R. prominanus Smith, 1924; and R. achantharrhena Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002 (BPP= 1.00). Rhacophorus zhoukaiyae from Anhui, China and R. lishuiensis from Zhejiang, China, formed a well-supported lineage (BPP = 1.00). Previous studies resolved R. dorsoviridis as the sister-species of R. zhoukaiyae (Pan et al., 2017), and also was the sister-species of R. lishuiensis (Liu et al., 2017). Because our data set included both R. lishuiensis and R. zhoukaiyae, the result indicated that R. lishuiensis had closer relationship with R. zhoukaiyae than R. dorsoviridis (BPP = 1.00; BSP = 97).

Distinct morphological differences diagnosed the three clades, including body sizes, dermal folds along limbs, tarsal projections, and dorsal coloration (Table 1). Further, differences in distribution among three clades were also obtained. Although Clade A covered all of Southeast Asia, clades B and C were rather isolated (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

Previous studies shed light on the phylogenetic resolution and systematics of Asian tree frogs. The molecular phylogeny of family Rhacophoridae resolved a monophyletic Rhacophorus and generally with three major clades (Chan et al., 2018; Li et al., 2008, 2009, 2013). Several studies obtained species delimitations in Rhacophorus and all results showed a topology of three clades (Li et al., 2012; O'Connell et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2017). However, the BPP values of root lineages remained low, which suggested uncertain phylogenetic relationships among these three clades. The genus Leptomantis was established by Peters (1867) but its taxonomic status has long not been evaluated until now. Our interpretations of Rhacophorus focus mainly on support values of root lineages. The molecular phylogeny depicts three well-supported matrilines, and these are consistent with the results of Li et al. (2012), although phylogenetic relationships of three clade differ. On the basis of highly supported molecular trees, distinct differences of morphological characteristics, and mostly non-overlapping geographic distribution, it is evident that these three lineages show deep evolutionary divergences. Therefore, in order to better reflect the phylogenetic relationships and biogeographic history of these frogs, we propose to recognize each of the three lineages as a distinct genus: Clade A represents genus Rhacophorus sensu stricto; Clade B is valid genus Leptomantis, which consistent with the results of Iskandar and Colijn (2000); and Clade C requires erection of a new genus that we name here. Combined with this study and previous literature as shown before, we currently recognized 39 species in Rhacophorus sensu stricto, 14 species in Leptomantis, and 36 species in the new genus, respectively.

Taxonomic account

Rhacophorus Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1822

Type species: Rhacophorus reinwardtii (Schlegel, 1840)

Diagnosis: (1) Body size relatively moderate or large (SVL 30-100 mm, above 40 mm in most species); (2) presence of intercalary cartilage between terminal and penultimate phalanges of digits; (3) terminal phalanges of fnger and toes Y-shaped; (4) tip of the digits expanded into large disks bearing circummarginal grooves; (5) webbed fingers; (6) skin not co-ossified to skull; (7) upper eyelid projections absent, tarsal projections present in most species; (8) dermal folds along forearm or tarsus present; (9) pupil horizontal; (10) iris without "X" shaped pattern; (11) white foam nests or jelly-encapsulated eggs produced by breeding pairs; and (12) distributed mainly in Indochina.

Phylogenetic definition: Genus Rhacophorus includes species that share a more recent common ancestor with Rhacophorus reinwardtii than with Leptomantis bimaculata and Zhangixalus dugritei.

Etymology: The generic name presumably derived from the Greek noon rhakos, meaning rag or tatter and the suffx-phorus, meaning bearer. The English common name of the genus is "Flying Frogs" or "Parachuting Frogs", and we suggest the Chinese name "Shu Wa Shu (?????)". The gender of this genus is masculine.

Content: We currently recognized 39 species in the genus Rhacophorus as follows: R. annamensis Smith, 1924; R. baluensis Inger, 1954; R. barisani Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002; R. bengkuluensis Streicher, Hamidy, Harvey, Anders, Shaney, Kurniawan, and Smith, 2014; R. bifasciatus Van Kampen, 1923; R. bipunctatus Ahl, 1927; R. borneensis Matsui, Shimada, and Sudin, 2013; R. calcadensis Ahl, 1927; R. calcaneus Smith, 1924; R. catamitus Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002; R. exechopygus Inger, Orlov, and Darevsky, 1999; R. helenae Rowley, Tran, Hoang, and Le, 2012; R. hoabinhensis Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen, Ninh, and Ziegler, 2017; R. hoanglienensis Orlov, Lathrop, Murphy, and Ho, 2001;

R. indonesiensis Hamidy and Kurniati, 2015; R. kio Ohler and Delorme, 2006; R. laoshan Mo, Jiang, Xie, and Ohler, 2008; R. larissae Ostroshabov, Orlov, and Nguyen, 2013; R. lateralis Boulenger, 1883; R. malabaricus Jerdon, 1870; R. margaritifer (Schlegel, 1837); R. marmoridorsum Orlov, 2008; R. modestus Boulenger, 1920; R. nigropalmatus Boulenger, 1895; R. norhayatii Chan and Grismer, 2010; R. orlovi Ziegler and Köhler, 2001; R. pardalis Günther, 1858; R. poecilonotus Boulenger, 1920; R. pseudomalabaricus Vasudevan and Dutta, 2000; R. reinwardtii; R rhodopus Liu and Hu, 1960; R. robertingeri Orlov, Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Ananjeva, Nguyen, Sang, and Geissler, 2012; R. spelaeus Orlov, Gnophanxay, Phimminith and Phomphoumy, 2010; R. subansiriensis Mathew and Sen, 2009; R. translineatus Wu, 1977; R. tuberculatus (Anderson, 1871); R. vampyrus Rowley, Le, Thi, Stuart, and Hoang, 2010; R. verrucopus Huang, 1983; and R. viridimaculatus Ostroshabov, Orlov, and Nguyen, 2013.

Distribution: Distributed widely across Southeast Asia, including India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei, as well as extreme southern and southwestern China (mainly in Hainan, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Yunnan, and Tibetan Autonomous Region).

Leptomantis Peters, 1867

Type species: Leptomantis bimaculata Peters, 1867

Diagnosis: (1) Body size relatively small (SVL 30-80 mm, about 30-50 mm in most species); (2) snout pointed or obtusely pointed; (3) terminal phalanges of finger and toes Y-shaped; (4) snout projections absent, upper eyelid projections present or not, tarsal projections absent in most species; (5) dermal folds along forearm or tarsus absent; (6) skin of dorsal surfaces smooth or finely shagreened; (7) webbed fngers; (8) dorsal coloration usually light tan or reddish brown; (9) iris without "X" shaped pattern; (10) white foam nests produced by breeding pairs; and (11) distributed in maritime Southeast Asia.

Phylogenetic defnition: Leptomantis includes species that share a more recent common ancestor with Leptomantis bimaculata than with Zhangixalus dugritei and Rhacophorus reinwardtii.

Etymology: The generic name derived from the Greek adjective leptos, meaning thin or small and Greek noun mantis, meaning treefrogs. We suggest the English common name of the genus to be "Slim Treefrogs", and "Shou Shu Wa Shu (????? )" in Chinese. The gender of this genus is masculine.

Content: We currently recognized 14 species in the genus Leptomantis as follows: L. angulirostris (Ahl, 1927); L. belalongensis (Dehling and Grafe, 2008); L. bimaculatus

Peters, 1867; L. cyanopunctatus (Manthey and Steiof, 1998); L. fasciatus (Boulenger, 1895); L. gadingensis (Das and Haas, 2005); L. gauni (Inger, 1966); L. harrissoni (Inger and Haile, 1959); L. malkmusi (Dehling, 2015); L. monticola (Boulenger, 1896); L. penanorum (Dehling, 2008); L. pseudacutirostris (Dehling, 2011); and L. robinsonii (Boulenger, 1903); L. rufpes (Inger, 1966).

Distribution: Mainly maritime Southeast Asia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, The Philippines, and southern Thailand.

Zhangixalus gen. nov. Li, Jiang, Ren, Jiang

Type species: Polypedates dugritei David, 1872

Diagnosis: (1) Body size relatively large (SVL 30-120 mm, above 50 mm in most species); (2) snout rounded; (3) snout, upper eyelid and tarsal projections absent; (4) dermal folds along forearm or tarsus absent; (5) terminal phalanges of fnger and toes Y-shaped; (6) skin of dorsal surfaces smooth, or scattered with small tubercles; (7) webbed fingers; (8) dorsal coloration green in most species; (9) iris without "X" shaped pattern; (10) white foam nests produced by breeding pairs; and (11) distributed in eastern Asia and northern Indochina.

Phylogenetic definition: Genus Zhangixalus gen. nov. includes species share a more recent common ancestor with Zhangixalus dugritei than with Leptomantis bimaculata and Rhacophorus reinwardtii.

Etymology: The generic nomen of Zhangixalus gen. nov. is named after Dr. Ya-Ping Zhang, Vice President of Chinese Academy of Sciences, for using his family name "Zhang", and ixalus, a common generic root for treefrogs. Dr. Zhang has contributed greatly to the promotion and development of biodiversity and evolutionary studies in China, and we acknowledge his support and encouragement to us, especially for Li's rhacophorid study. We suggest the English common name of the new genus as "Zhang's Treefrogs", and "Zhang Shu Wa Shu (?????)" in Chinese. To avoid possible confusion with regard to administration and conservation in China, we also suggest the Chinese common name of each species remains unchanged, which consistent with previous usages, e.g. Zhangixalus dugritei (?????). The gender of this genus is masculine and is named by Jia-Tang Li, Ke Jiang, Jin-Long Ren and Dechun Jiang.

Content: We currently recognized 36 species in the genus Zhangixalus gen. nov. as follows: Z. achantharrhena (Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002) comb. nov.; Z. arboreus (Okada and Kawano, 1924) comb. nov.; Z. arvalis (Lue, Lai, and Chen, 1995) comb. nov.; Z aurantiventris (Lue, Lai, and Chen, 1994) comb. nov.; Z burmanus (Andersson, 1939) comb. nov.; Z chenfui (Liu, 1945) comb. nov.; Z. dennysi (Blanford, 1881) comb. nov.; Z. dorsoviridis (Bourret, 1937) comb. nov.; Z. duboisi (Ohler, Marquis, Swan, and Grosjean, 2000) comb. nov.; Z. dugritei (David, 1872) comb. nov.; Z. dulitensis (Boulenger, 1892) comb. nov.; Z. feae (Boulenger, 1893) comb. nov.; Z. hongchibaensis (Li, Liu, Chen, Wu, Murphy, Zhao, Wang, and Zhang, 2012) comb. nov.; Z. hui (Liu, 1945) comb. nov.; Z. hungfuensis (Liu and Hu, 1961) comb. nov.; Z. jarujini (Matsui and Panha, 2006) comb. nov.; Z. leucofasciatus (Liu and Hu, 1962) comb. nov.; Z. lishuiensis (Liu, Wang, and Jiang, 2017) comb. nov.; Z. minimus (Rao, Wilkinson, and Liu, 2006) comb. nov.; Z. moltrechti (Boulenger, 1908) comb. nov.; Z. nigropunctatus (Liu, Hu, and Yang, 1962) comb. nov.; Z. omeimontis (Stejneger, 1924) comb. nov.; Z. owstoni (Stejneger, 1907) comb. nov.; Z. pinglongensis (Mo, Chen, Liao, and Zhou, 2016) comb. nov.; Z. prasinatus (Mou, Risch, and Lue, 1983) comb. nov.; Z. prominanus (Smith, 1924) comb. nov.; Z. puerensis (He, 1999) comb. nov.; Z. schlegelii (Günther, 1858) comb. nov.; Z. smaragdinus (Blyth, 1852) comb. nov.; Z. suffry (Bordoloi, Bortamuli, and Ohler, 2007) comb. nov.; Z. taipeianus (Liang and Wang, 1978) comb. nov.; Z. viridis (Hallowell, 1861) comb. nov.; Z. wui (Li, Liu, Chen, Wu, Murphy, Zhao, Wang, and Zhang, 2012) comb. nov.; Z. yaoshanensis (Liu and Hu, 1962) comb. nov.; Z. yinggelingensis (Chou, Lau, and Chan, 2007) comb. nov.; Z. zhoukaiyae (Pan, Zhang, and Zhang, 2017) comb. nov.

Distribution: Occurs in southern and southwestern China mainly, as well as the southern Japan, southern slope of Himalayas, and northern part of Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam.

Comparison: Zhangixalus gen. nov. differs from Rhacophorus by the absence of dermal folds along limbs and tarsal projections (vs. present), the absence of supracloacal fold (vs. present or not); differs from Leptomantis by the relatively larger body size (SVL 30-120 mm, above 50 mm in most species vs. SVL 30-80 mm, within 30-50 mm in most species), rather rounded snout (vs. snout pointed), the absence of tarsal and upper eyelid projections (vs. tarsal projections, upper eyelid projections present or not), and different dorsal coloration (mostly green vs. light tan or reddish brown); differs from Buergeria by having "Y" shaped phalange (vs. absent); differs from Theloderma by relatively smooth dorsal skin (vs. dorsal surfaces with developed tubercles); differs from Kurixalus by the absence of prominent tubercles on outer edge of tarsus (vs. present); differs from Nasutixalus by the absence of a pale "X" shaped pattern on iris and raised canthus rostralis (vs. a pale "X" shaped pattern on iris and the raised canthus rostralis present); differs from Polypedates by webbing between fingers (vs. no web); differs from Taruga by the absence of snout and tarsal projections (vs. snout projection or tarsal projections present); differs from Chiromantis, Feihyla, and Liuixalus by the larger body size (SVL 30-120 mm, above 50 mm in most species vs. SVL below 40 mm in most species); and differs from Beddomixalus, Mercurana, Nyctixalus, Philautus, Pseudophilautus and Raochestes by the different reproductive modes (foam nests produced by breeding pairs vs. without foam nests).

Although the taxonomic statuses of the three well-supported and highly diverged lineages of Rhacophorus sensu lato were preliminarily solved herein, numerous lineages within this species-rich group still remained understudied (Chan et al., 2018). For example, the generic placement of a further deeply divergent clade that includes Z. achantharrhena, Z. dulitensis, and Z. prominanus within genus Zhangixalus requires further study. The clade that includes Z. achantharrhena, Z. dulitensis, and Z. prominanus was recovered as the sister-group of all the remaining species of Zhangixalus, which can be diagnosed readily from latter clade in the presence of dermal folds along limbs and tarsal projections (vs. absent). The three species in this clade also differ from Rhacophorus and Leptomantis by a suit of morphological characters, including body relatively small, SVL 36-50 mm, the presence of dermal folds along limbs, well-developed supracloacal folds, the presence of tarsal projections and green dorsal coloration. However, we cannot evaluate the taxonomic status of Z. achantharrhena, Z. dulitensis, and Z. prominanus due to unavailable material, and tentatively assign them as members of genus Zhangixalus, pending further study.

Key to the genera of Rhacophorus sensu lato

In the absence of a key to all genera of Rhacophoridae, morphological diagnosis of some genera should be defned in the further study. Following the new taxonomic arrangement in this work, the diagnostic key to all genera of Rhacophorus sensu lato was provided, which including three genera, i.e. Rhacophorus sensu stricto, Leptomantis, and Zhangixalus gen. nov.

1 Dermal folds along limbs present ................ Rhacophorus - Dermal folds along limbs absent ...................................... 2

2 Tarsal projections absent; body size relatively moderate or large, SVL 30-120 mm (mostly above 50 mm); dorsal coloration mostly green; eastern Asia and northern Indochina distributed ...................... Zhangixalus gen. nov.

- Tarsal projections present or not; body size relatively small, SVL 30-80 mm (mostly within 30-50 mm); dorsal coloration mostly light tan or reddish brown; Maritime Southeast Asia distributed .............................. Leptomantis

Lastly, for the lack of both molecular and morphological data, the taxonomic status of "Rhacophorus" edentulus Müller, 1894, "Rhacophorus" georgii Roux, 1904, and "Rhacophorus" turpes Smith, 1940 remains uncertain. The unavailability of further materials for certain species hampers further taxonomic work. Possible misidentifications, undescribed new taxa, and non-monophyly of some species also reflect the need of continuous taxonomic analyses on this group (Chan et al., 2018).

Acknowledgements We thank Mr. Hanren LIU and Ms. Tong YANG for their kind helps in the molecular data collection; Dr. Robert W. MURPHY for polishing English of the manuscript; and Mr. Cheng LI for photos. This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFC1200705); the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB31000000); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31722049, 31772434); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS (QYZDB-SSW-SMC058); the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS; Southeast Asia Biodiversity Research Institute (Y4ZK111B01); and the CAS "Light of West China" Program (2018XBZG_JCTD_001).

References

References

Abraham R. K., Pyron R. A., Ansil B. R., Zachariah A., Zachariah A. 2013. Two novel genera and one new species of treefrog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) highlight cryptic diversity in the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa, 36(20): 177-199

Ahl E. 1927. Zur Systematik der asiatischen Arten der Froschgattung Rhacophorus. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1927: 35-47

Ahl E. 1931. Amphibia: Anura III (Polypedatidae). Das Tierreich, 477

AmphibiaChina. 2018. The database of Chinese amphibians. Retrieved from http://www.amphibiachina.org/. Accessed 30 March 2018

Anderson J. 1871. A list of the reptilian accession to the Indian Museum, Calcutta from 1865 to 1870, with a description of some new species. J Asiatic Soc Bengal, 40(2): 12-39

Andersson L. G. 1939 "1938". Batrachians from Burma collected by Dr. R. Malaise, and from Bolivia and Ecuador collected by Dr. C. Hammarlund. Arkiv för Zool, 30(23): 1-24

Biju S. D., Shouche Y. S., Dubois A., Dutta S. K., Bossuyt F. 2010. A ground-dwelling rhacophorid frog from the highest mountain peak of the Western Ghats of India. Curr Sci, 98: 1119-1125

Biju S., Kamei R. G., Mahony S., Thomas A., Garg S., Sircar G., Suyesh R. 2013. Taxonomic review of the tree frog genus Rhacophorus from the Western Ghats, India (Anura: Rhacophoridae), with description of ontogenetic colour changes and reproductive behaviour. Zootaxa, 3636(2): 257- 289

Blanford W. T. 1881. On a collection of reptiles and frogs chiefy from Singapore. P Zool Soc Lond, 49(1): 215-226

Blyth E. 1852. Report of Curator, Zoological Department. J Asiatic Soc Bengal, 21: 341-358

Bordoloi S., Bortamuli T., Ohler A. 2007. Systematics of the genus Rhacophorus (Amphibia, Anura): identity of red-webbed forms and description of a new species from Assam. Zootaxa, 1653(1): 1-20

Boulenger, G. A. 1882. Description of a new genus and species of frogs of the family Ranidae. Ann Mag Nat Hist, 5(10): 35

Boulenger G. A. 1883. Description of new species of reptiles and batrachians in the British Museum. Ann Mag Nat Hist, 12(69): 161-167

Boulenger G. A. 1892. An account of the reptiles and batrachians collected by Mr. C. Hose on Mt. Dulit, Borneo. P Zool Soc Lond, 1982: 505-508

Boulenger G. A. 1893. Concluding report on the reptiles and batrachians obtained in Burma by Signor L. Fea dealing with the collection made in Pegu and the Karin Hills in 1887-1888 Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 13: 304-347

Boulenger G. A. 1895. Descriptions of four new batrachians discovered by Mr. Charles Hose in Borneo. Ann Mag Nat Hist, 16(92): 169-173

Boulenger G. A. 1896. Descriptions of new reptiles and batrachians collected in Celebes by Drs. P. and F. Sarasin. J Nat Hist, 17(101): 393-395

Boulenger G. A. 1903. Report on the batrachians and reptiles. Annandale, N., and H. C. Robinsoneds., Fasciculi Malayenses. Anthropological and Zoological Results of an Expedition to Perak and the Siamese Malay States 1901-1903 undertaken by Nelson Annandale and Herbert C. Robinson under the auspecies of the University of Edinburgh and the University of Liverpool. Zoology, 2: 131-176

Boulenger G. A. 1908. Descriptions of a new frog and a new snake from Formosa. Ann Mag Nat Hist, 2(8): 221-222

Boulenger G. A. 1920. Reptiles and batrachians collected in Korinchi, West Sumatra, by Messrs. H.C. Robinson and C. Boden Kloss. J Federated Malay States Mus, 8: 285-306

Bourret R. 1937. Notes herpétologiques sur l'Indochine française. XIV. Les batraciens de la collection du Laboratoire des Sciences Naturelles de l'Université. Descriptions de quinze especes ou variétés nouvelles. Annexe au Bulletin Général de l'Instruction Publique, 1937: 5-56

Chan K. O., Grismer L. L. 2010. Re-assessment of the Reinwardt's Gliding Frog, Rhacophorus reinwardtii (Schlegel 1840) (Anura: Rhacophoridae) in southern Thailand and peninsular Malaysia and its re-description as a new species. Zootaxa, 2505: 40-50

Chan K. O., Grismer L. L., Brown R. M. 2018. Comprehensive multi-locus phylogeny of Old World tree frogs (Anura:

Rhacophoridae) reveals taxonomic uncertainties and potential cases of over- and underestimation of species diversity. Mol Phylogenet Evol (Online)

Chou W. H., Lau M. W. N., Chan B. P. L. 2007. A new treefrog of the genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Hainan Island, China. Raffes Bull Zool, 55(1): 157-165

Das I., Haas A. 2005. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Gunung Gading, Sarawak. Raffes Bull Zool, 53(2): 257-263

David A. 1872 "1871". Rapport adressé a MM. les Professeurs-Administráteurs du Museum d'histoire naturelle. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 7: 75-100

Dehling J. M. 2008. A new treefrog (Anura: Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from Gunung Mulu, Borneo. Salamandra, 44(4): 193-205

Dehling J. M. 2011. Taxonomic status of the population of Rhacophorus angulirostris Ahl, 1927 (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Sumatera Barat (West Sumatra) and its description as a new species. Salamandra, 47(3): 133-143

Dehling J. M. 2015. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Gunung Kinabalu, Borneo. Salamandra, 51(1): 1-11

Dehling J. M., Grafe T. U. 2008. A new treefrog of the genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Brunei Darussalam (Borneo). Salamandra, 44(2): 101-112

Dubois A. 1987. Miscellanea taxinomica batrachologica (I). Alytes, 6(1): 1-9

Fei L., Hu S. Q., Ye C. Y., Huang Y. 2009. Fauna Sinica. Amphibia. Vol.2. Anura., Beijing: Science Press, 957 pp (In Chinese)

Fei L., Hu S. Q., Ye C. Y., Wu G. F. 1977. A survey of amphibians in Xizang (Tibet). Acta Zool Sinica, 23(1): 54-63

Fei L., Ye C. Y., Jiang J. P. 2012. Colored Atlas of Chinese Amphibians and Their Distributions. Sichuan, China: Sichuan Publishing House of Science & Technology, 619 pp (In Chinese)

Frost D. R. 2018. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0. Retrieved from http://research.amnh. org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. Accessed 30 March 2018

Günther A. C. L. G. 1858. Neue Batrachier in der Sammlung des britischen Museums. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 24: 319-328

Hallowell E. 1861 "1860". Report upon the Reptilia of the North Pacific Exploring Expedition, under command of Capt. John Rogers, U. S. N. P Acad Nat Sci Phila, 12: 480-510

Hamidy A., Kurniati H. 2015. A new species of tree frog genus Rhacophorus from Sumatra, Indonesia (Amphibia, Anura). Zootaxa, 3947(1): 49-66

Harvey M. B., Pemberton A. J., Smith E. N. 2002. New and poorly known parachuting frogs (Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from Sumatra and Java. Herpetol Monogr, 16(1): 46-92

He X. R. 1999. A new species of the family Rhacophoridae from Yunnan-Polypedates puerensis. Sichuan J Zool, 18(3): 99- 100

Hertwig S. T., Das I., Schweizer M., Brown R., Haas A. 2012. Phylogenetic relationships of the Rhacophorus everetti?group and implications for the evolution of reproductive modes in Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae). Zool Scr, 41(1): 29-46

Huang Y. Z. 1983. A new species of fying frog from Xizang- Rhacophorus verrucopus. Acta Herpetol Sinica, 2(4): 63-65

Inger R. F. 1954. On a collection of amphibians from Mount Kina Balu, North Borneo. J Wash Acad Sci, 44(8): 250-251

Inger R. F. 1954. Systematics and zoogeography of Philippine Amphibia. Fieldiana Zool, 33: 181-531

Inger R. F. 1966. The systematics and zoogeography of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana Zool, 52(2): 1-402

Inger R. F. 1999. Frogs of Vietnam: a report on new collections. Fieldiana Zool New Ser, 92: 1-46

Inger R. F., Haile N. S. 1959. Two new frogs from Sarawak. Sarawak Mus J, 9: 270-276

Inger R. F., Orlov N. L., Darevsky I. S. 1999. Frogs of Vietnam: A report on new collections. Fieldiana Zool, 92: 1-46

Iskandar D. T., Colijn E. 2000. Preliminary Checklist of Southeast Asian and New Guinean Herpetofauna: Amphibians. Treubia, 31: 1-133

Jerdon T. C. 1870. Notes on Indian herpetology. P Asiatic Soc Bengal, 1870: 66-85

Jiang K., Yan F., Wang K., Zou D. H., Li C., Che J. 2016. A new genus and species of treefrog from Medog, southeastern Tibet, China (Anura, Rhacophoridae). Zool Res, 37(1): 15-20

Kuhl H., Van Hasselt J. C. 1822. Uittreksels uit breieven van de Heeren Kuhl en van Hasselt, aan de Heeren C. J. Temminck, Th. van Swinderen en W. de Haan. Algemeene Konst-en Letter-Bode, 7: 99-104

Lanfear R., Calcott B., Ho S. Y., Guindon S. 2012. PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol, 29(6): 1695-1701

Li J. T., Che J., Bain R. H., Zhao E. M., Zhang Y. P. 2008. Molecular phylogeny of rhacophoridae (anura): a framework of taxonomic reassignment of species within the genera aquixalus, chiromantis, rhacophorus, and philautus. Mol Phylogenet Evol, 48(1): 302-312

Li J. T., Che J., Murphy R. W., Zhao H., Zhao E. M., Rao D. Q., Zhang Y. P. 2009. New insights to the molecular phylogenetics and generic assessment in the Rhacophoridae (Amphibia: Anura) based on five nuclear and three mitochondrial genes, with comments on the evolution of reproduction. Mol Phylogenet Evol, 53(2): 509-522

Li J. T., Li Y., Klaus S., Rao D. Q., Hillis, D M., Zhang Y. P. 2013. Diversifcation of Rhacophorid frogs provides evidence for accelerated faunal exchange between India and Eurasia during the Oligocene. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 110(9): 3441

Li J. T., Li Y., Murphy R. W., Rao D. Q., Zhang Y. P. 2012. Phylogenetic resolution and systematics of the Asian tree frogs, Rhacophorus (Rhacophoridae, Amphibia). Zool Scr, 41(6): 557-570

Li J. T., Liu J., Chen Y. Y., Wu J. W., Murphy R. W., Zhao E. M., Wang Y. Z., Zhang Y. P. 2012. Molecular phylogeny of treefrogs in the Rhacophorus dugritei species complex (Anura: Rhacophoridae), with descriptions of two new species. Zool J Linn Soc, 165(1): 143-162

Liang Y. S., Wang C. S. 1978. A new tree frog Rhacophorus taipeianus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Taiwan (Formosa).

Quart J Taiwan Mus, 31: 185-202 Liu B. Q., Wang Y. F., Jiang K., Chen H. M., Xu J. N., Wu C. H. 2017. A new species of the genus Rhacophorus found in Zhejiang, China (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Chin J Zool, 52(3): 361-372

Liu C. C. 1945. New frogs from West China. J West China Border Res Soc, 15: 28-44

Liu C. C., Hu S. Q. 1960 "1959". Preliminary report of Amphibia from southern Yunnan. Acta Zool Sinica, 11(4): 508-538

Liu C. C., Hu S. Q. 1961. Tailless Amphibians of China, Beijing: Science Press

Liu C. C., Hu S. Q. 1962. A herpetological report of Kwangsi. Acta Zool Sinica, 14: 73-104

Liu C. C., Hu S. Q., Yang F. H. 1962. Preliminary report of Amphibia from western Kweichow. Acta Zool Sinica, 14(3): 381-392

Lue K. Y., Lai J. S., Chen S. L. 1994. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Taiwan. Herpetologica, 50: 303-308

Lue K. Y., Lai J. S., Chen S. L. 1995. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Taiwan. J Herpetol, 29: 338-345

Malkmus R., Brühl C. 2002. Amphibians & Reptiles of Mount Kinabalu (North Borneo). ARG Gantner Ruggell, 1-424

Manthey U., Steiof C. 1998. Rhacophorus cyanopunctatus sp. n. (Anura: Rhacophoridae), ein neuer Flugfrosch von der Malaiischen Habinsel, Sumatra und Borneo. Sauria, 20: 37-42

Mathew R., Sen N. 2009. Studies on little known amphibians of Northeast India. Rec Zool Surv India, 293: 1-64

Matsui M., Panha S. 2006. A new species of Rhacophorus from eastern Thailand (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Zool Sci, 23(5): 477-481

Matsui M., Shimada T., Sudin A. 2013. A new gliding frog of the genus Rhacophorus from Borneo. Curr Herpetol, 32(2): 112-124

Meegaskumbura M., Meegaskumbura S., Bowatte G., Manamendra-Arachchi K., Pethiyagoda R., Hanken J., Schneider C. J. 2010. Taruga (Anura: Rhacophoridae), a new genus of foam-nesting tree frogs endemic to Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science. Bio Sci, 39: 75-94

Mo Y. M., Chen W. C., Liao X., Zhou S. C. 2016. A new species of the genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from southern China. Asian Herpetol Res, 7(3): 139-150

Mo Y. M., Jiang J. P., Xie F., Ohler A. 2008. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Ranidae) from China. Asiatic Herpetol Res, 11: 85-92

Mou Y. P., Risch J. P., Lue K. Y. 1983. Rhacophorus prasinatus, a new tree frog from Taiwan, China (Amphibia, Anura, Rhacophoridae). Alytes, 2: 154-162

Müller F. 1894. Reptilien und Amphibien aus Celebes. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 10: 825-843

Nguyen T. T., Pham C. T., Nguyen T. Q., Ninh H. T., Ziegler T. 2017. A new species of Rhacophorus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Vietnam. Asian Herpetol Res, 8(4): 221- 234

O'Connell K. A., Smart U., Smith E. N., Hamidy A., Kurniawan N., Fujita M. K. 2018. Within-island diversification underlies parachuting frog (Rhacophorus) species accumulation on the Sunda shelf. J Biogeogr (Online)

Ohler A., Delorme M. 2006. Well known does not mean well studied: morphological and molecular support for existence of sibling species in the Javanese gliding frog Rhacophorus reinwardtii (Amphibia, Anura). C R Biologies, 329(2): 86-97

Ohler A., Deuti K. 2018. Polypedates smaragdinus Blyth, 1852-a senior subjective synonym of Rhacophorus maximus Günther, 1858. Zootaxa, 4375(2): 273-280

Ohler A., Marquis O., Swan S. R., Grosjean S. 2000. Amphibian biodiversity of Hoang Lien Nature Reserve (Lao Cai Province, northern Vietnam) with description of two new species. Herpetozoa, 13: 71-87

Okada Y., Kawano U. 1924. On the ecological distribution of two new varieties of Rhacophorus in Japan. Zool Mag, 36: 144-153

Onn C. K., Ahmad N. 2009. Distribution and natural history notes on some poorly known frogs and snakes from Peninsular Malaysia. Herpetol Rev, 40(3): 294-301

Orlov N. L. 2008. Description of a new species of Rhacophorus genus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Kon Cha Rang area (Gia Lai Province, Vietnam). Russ J Herpetol, 15: 133- 140

Orlov N. L., Gnophanxay S., Phimminith T., Phomphoumy K. 2010 "2009". A new species of Rhacophorus Genus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorinae) from Khammouan Province, Lao PDR. Russ J Herpetol, 16(4): 295-303

Orlov N. L., Lathrop A., Murphy R. W., Ho T. C. 2001. Frogs of the family Rhacophoridae (Anura: Amphibia) in the northern Hoang Lien Mountains (Mount Fan Si Pan, Sa Pa District, Lao Cai Province), Vietnam. Russ J Herpetol, 8(1): 17-44

Orlov N. L., Nguyen N. S., Ho T. C. 2008. Description of a new species and new records of Rhacophorus genus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) with the review of amphibians and reptiles diversity of Ghu Yang Sin National Park (Dac Lac Province, Vietnam). Russ J Herpetol, 15(1): 67-84

Orlov N. L., Poyarkov N. A., Vassilieva A. B., Ananjeva N. B., Nguyen T. T., Sang N. V. , Geissler P. 2012. Taxonomic notes on rhacophorid frogs (Rhacophorinae: Rhacophoridae: Anura) of southern part of Annamite Mountains (Truong Son, Vietnam), with description of three new species. Russ J Herpetol, 19(1): 23-64

Ostroshabov A. A., Orlov N. L., Nguyen T. T. 2013. Taxonomy of frogs of genus Rhacophorus of "hoanglienensis-orlovi" complex. Russ J Herpetol, 20(4): 301-324

Pan T., Zhang Y. N., Wang H., Wu J., Kang X., Qian L. F., Li K., Zhang Y., Chen J. Y., Rao D. Q., Jiang J. P., Zhang B. W. 2017. A New Species of the Genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Dabie Mountains in East China. Asian Herpetol Res, 8(1): 1-13

Pan T., Zhang Y., Wang H., Wu J., Kang X., Qian L., Chen J., Rao D., Jiang J., Zhang B. 2017. The reanalysis of biogeography of the Asian tree frog, Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae): geographic shifts and climatic change influenced the dispersal process and diversification. Peer J, 5(11): e3995

Peters W. C. H. 1867. Herpetologische notizen. Monatsberichte der königlich Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1867: 13-37

Rambaut A., Suchard M., Xie D., Drummond A. 2013. Tracer, version 1.6, MCMC trace analysis package. Retrieved from http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/tracer/ Accessed 7 March 2018

Rao D. Q., Wilkinson J. A., Liu H. N. 2006. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Guangxi Province, China. Zootaxa, 1258: 17-31

Ronquist F., Teslenko M., Mark P. V. D., Ayres D. L., Darling A., Hohna S., Larget B., Liu L., Suchard M. A., Huelsenbeck J. P. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol, 61(3): 539-542

Roux J. 1904. Reptilien und Amphibien aus Celebes. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 15(3): 425-433

Rowley J. J. L., Le D. T. T., Thi D. A., Stuart B. L., Hoang H. D. 2010. A new frog of the genus Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from southern Vietnam. Zootaxa, 1(2727): 45-55

Rowley J. J. L., Tran D. T. A., Hoang H. D., Le D. T. T. 2012. A new large species of large Flying Frog (Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from lowland forests of southern Vietnam. J Herpetol, 46(4): 480-487

Schlegel H. 1837. Abbildungen neuer oder unvollständig bekannter Amphibien, nach der Natur oder dem Leben entworfen, herausgegeben und mit einem erläuternden Texte begleitet. Düsseldorf: Arnz & Co

Schlegel H. 1840. Abbildungen neuer oder unvollständig bekannter Amphibien, nach der Natur oder dem Leben entworfen, herausgegeben und mit einem erläuternden. Atlas. Düsseldorf: Arnz & Co

Smith M. A. 1924. New tree-frogs from Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. P Zool Soc Lond, 94(1): 225-234

Smith M. A. 1924. Two lizards and a new tree frog from the Malay Peninsula. J Federated Malay States Mus, 11: 183-186

Smith M. A. 1940. The amphibians and reptiles obtained by Mr. Ronald Kaulback in Upper Burma. Rec Indian Mus, 42: 465- 486

Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models, v. 7.03. Bioinformatics, 22: 2688-2690.

Stejneger L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bull U S Nat Mus, 58: xx + 577

Stejneger L. 1924. Herpetological novelties from China. Occasional Papers Boston Soc Nat Hist, 5: 119-121

Streicher J. W., Hamidy A., Harvey M. B., Anders B., Shaney K. J., Kurniawan N., Smith E. N. 2014. Mitochondrial DNA reveals a new species of parachuting frog (Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from Sumatra. Zootaxa, 3878(4): 351-365

Sun Y. B. 2017. FasParser: a package for manipulating sequence data. Zool Res, 38(2): 110-112

Van Kampen P. N. 1923. The Amphibia of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Leiden: E. J. Brill Ltd, 1-31

Vasudevan K., Dutta S. K. 2000. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats, India. Hamadryad, 25: 21-38

Yang T. 2018. Molecular Phylogenetics, Biogeography and Evolution of Rhacophorus (Rhacophoridae: Amphibia). Chengdu: Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Ziegler T., Köhler J. 2001. Rhacophorus orlovi sp. n., ein neuer Ruderfrosch aus Vietnam (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae). Sauria. Berlin, 23: 37-46