Nyctixalus pictus (Peters, 1871)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Rhacophoridae > Subfamily: Rhacophorinae > Genus: Nyctixalus > Species: Nyctixalus pictus

Ixalus pictus Peters, 1871, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1871: 580. Holotype: MSNG 10062, according to Capocaccia, 1957, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 3, 69: 217. Type locality: "Sarawak", Malaysia (Borneo).

Rhacophorus anodon Van Kampen, 1907, Zool. Ergebn. Reis. Niederland. Ost-Indien, 4: 400. Holotype: ZMA 5707, according to Van Tuijl, 1995, Bull. Zool. Mus. Univ. Amsterdam, 14: 129. Type locality: "Schlucht bei Ajer Mantjur (Kaju tanam)" = cleft near Ajer Mantjur, Kaju tanam, Sumatra, Indonesia. Synonymy (with Ixalus pictus) by Smith, 1931, Bull. Raffles Mus., 5: 19, and Inger, 1966, Fieldiana, Zool., 52: 349–350. This synonymy provisionally not accepted pending revisionary studies by Bossuyt and Dubois, 2001, Zeylanica, 6: 39.

Philautus pictusBarbour, 1912, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., 44: 69, 171; Van Kampen, 1923, Amph. Indo-Austral. Arch.: 269.

Philautus anodonVan Kampen, 1923, Amph. Indo-Austral. Arch.: 269.

Rhacophorus (Philautus) anodonAhl, 1931, Das Tierreich, 55: 68.

Rhacophorus (Philautus) pictusAhl, 1931, Das Tierreich, 55: 54, 84.

Hazelia pictaTaylor, 1962, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 43: 506.

Philautus pictus pictusInger, 1966, Fieldiana, Zool., 52: 350; Dubois, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 257.

Hazelia anodonLiem, 1970, Fieldiana, Zool., 57: 96.

Nyctixalus anodonDubois, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 257; Delorme, Dubois, Grosjean, and Ohler, 2005, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 74: 166. Recognized without discussion. This arrangement rejected by Inger and Tan, 1996, Raffles Bull. Zool., 44: 564.

Edwardtayloria pictaDring, 1982, in Anderson et al. (eds.), Gunung Mulu National Park: 293. Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 85.

Nyctixalus pictusMatsui, 1996, Herpetol. J., 6: 62.

Theloderma (Nyctixalus) pictum — Poyarkov, Orlov, Moiseeva, Pawangkhanant, Ruangsuwan, Vassilieva, Galoyan, Nguyen, and Gogoleva, 2015, Russ. J. Herpetol., 22: 276. 

Nyctixalus pictus — Sivongxay, Davankham, Phimmachak, Phoumixay, and Stuart, 2016, Zootaxa, 4147: 244.  

English Names

Painted Indonesian Treefrog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 111).

Spotted Tree Froglet (Kiew, 1987, Malayan Nat. J., 41: 418).

Sumatra Indonesian Treefrog (Nyctixalus anodon [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 111).

Spotted Tree Frog (Leong and Crane, 2002, Herpetol. Rev., 33: 62).

White-spotted Brown Frog (Nutphund, 2001, Amph. Thailand: 150).

White-spotted Treefrog (Grismer, 2012, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Seribuat Arch.: 59).

Cinnamon Treefrog (Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 146).

Cinnamon Frog (Das, Jankowski, Makmor, and Haas, 2007, Mitt. Hamburg. Zool. Mus. Inst., 104: 160).

Distribution

Peninsular Myanmar (Taninthary Division) and peninsular Thailand (Yala), West Malaysia, and Philippines (Palawan) south to northern Borneo (Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia, Brunei, and northern Kalimantan, Indonesia) and northern Sumatra, 50-100 m elevation; possibly Vietnam (see comment).

Comment

See Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 4559 (as Philautus pictus); Taylor, 1962, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 43: 506–509 (as Hazelia picta) and Berry, 1975, Amph. Fauna Peninsular Malaysia: 94–95. See account of Bornean population (as Philautus pictus) by Inger, 1966, Fieldiana, Zool., 52: 349–352. Brown and Alcala, 1994, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 48: 187–188, provided an account. Biju, 2001, Occas. Publ. Indian Soc. Conserv. Biol., 1: 19, doubted records from Karnataka, India. Lim and Lim, 1992, Guide Amph. Rept. Singapore: 37, provided a brief account. See brief account and photo by Manthey and Grossmann, 1997, Amph. Rept. Südostasiens: 124–126. Orlov, Murphy, Ananjeva, Ryabov, and Ho, 2002, Russ. J. Herpetol., 9: 91, provided the Vietnam record but that the record is so far removed from the main range renders this record dubious. Malkmus, Manthey, Vogel, Hoffmann, and Kosuch, 2002, Amph. Rept. Mount Kinabalu: 176–177, provided an account.Pauwels, Sumontha, and Matsui, 2004, Herpetol. Rev., 35: 283, briefly discussed the range in Thailand and noted its proximity to Myanmar. Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 146–147, provided a very brief account, map for Thailand, and photograph. Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 34, provided specific localities for Vietnam. Dutta, 1997, Amph. India Sri Lanka: 174, rejected a record for Karnataka, India. Das, Jankowski, Makmor, and Haas, 2007, Mitt. Hamburg. Zool. Mus. Inst., 104: 161, provided a brief description. See statement of geographic range, habitat, and conservation status in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 634. Das, 2007, Amph. Rept. Brunei: 69, provided a photograph and brief account. See brief account by Grismer, 2012, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Seribuat Arch.: 59–60, for the Seribuat Archipelago, West Malaysia. Haas, Kueh, Joseph, bin Asri, Das, Hagmann, Schwander, and Hertwig, 2018, Evol. Syst., 2: 89–114, provided a brief account of morphology and natural history for the Sabah population. Mulcahy, Lee, Miller, Chand, Thura, and Zug, 2018, ZooKeys, 757: 95, provided a record from Taninthary Division, southern Myanmar. Poyarkov, Nguyen, Popov, Geissler, Pawangkhanant, Neang, Suwannapoom, and Orlov, 2021, Russ. J. Herpetol., 28 (3A): 58, excluded Singapore from the range without comment and suggested that the Vietnam record required confirmation. 

External links:

Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.