Rohanixalus vittatus (Boulenger, 1887)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Rhacophoridae > Subfamily: Rhacophorinae > Genus: Rohanixalus > Species: Rohanixalus vittatus

Ixalus vittatus Boulenger, 1887, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 2, 5: 421. Syntypes: (2 specimens) BMNH, MSNG; MSNG 29397 designated lectotype by Capocaccia, 1957, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 3, 69: 217. Type locality: "Bhamò", Myanmar. Biju, Garg, Gokulakrishnan, Chandrakasan, Thammachoti, Ren, Gopika, Bisht, Hamidy, and Shouche, 2020, Zootaxa, 4878: 31, discussed this type locality. 

Philautus vittatusSmith, 1924, Rec. Indian Mus., 26: 140; Smith, 1924, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1924: 225; Pope, 1931, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 61: 583; Sichuan Institute of Biology Herpetology Department, 1977, Acta Zool. Sinica, 23: 56; Tian, Jiang, Wu, Hu, Zhao, and Huang, 1986, Handb. Chinese Amph. Rept.: 65.

Rhacophorus (Philautus) vittatusAhl, 1931, Das Tierreich, 55: 55, 90.

Chirixalus vittatusLiem, 1970, Fieldiana, Zool., 57: 95; Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1990, Key to Chinese Amph.: 181.

Chiromantis vittatusFrost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 367; Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583.

Feihyla vittataFei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Acta Zootaxon. Sinica, 35: 413–417; Li, Li, Klaus, Rao, Hillis, and Zhang, 2013, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110: 34413446 (supplemental data); Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 427.

Rohanixalus vittatus —  Biju, Garg, Gokulakrishnan, Chandrakasan, Thammachoti, Ren, Gopika, Bisht, Hamidy, and Shouche, 2020, Zootaxa, 4878: 29. 

English Names

Two-striped Pigmy Tree Frog (Ahmed, Das, and Dutta, 2009, Amph. Rept. NE India: 47).

Bhamo Tree Frog (Dinesh, Radhakrishnan, Gururaja, and Bhatta, 2009, Rec. Zool. Surv. India, Occas. Pap., 302: 90).

Boulenger's Tree Frog (Das and Dutta, 1998, Hamadryad, 23: 66; Mathew and Sen, 2010, Pict. Guide Amph. NE India: 93).

Striped Asian Treefrog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 111; Li, Zhao, and Dong, 2010, Amph. Rept. Tibet: 59).

Violet Pigmy Tree Frog (Nutphund, 2001, Amph. Thailand: 153).

Lateral-striped Opposite-fingered Treefrog (Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2012, Colored Atlas Chinese Amph. Distr.: 518). 

Burmese Bush Frog (Niyomwan, Srisom, and Pawangkhanant, 2019, Field Guide Amph. Thailand: 396).

Striped Bubble-nest Frog (Biju, Garg, Gokulakrishnan, Chandrakasan, Thammachoti, Ren, Gopika, Bisht, Hamidy, and Shouche, 2020, Zootaxa, 4878: 31). 

Distribution

Distributed in lowland areas from northern (Myitkyina district in Kachin state) to southwestern Myanmar (Dawei of Tanintharyi division), adjoining western Thailand (Chiang Mai south to Kanchana Buri province), and the geographically close Andaman Islands of India; other  records from outside this confirmed region are assumed to belong to other named and unnamed species: mountains of northeastern India (Mizoram [see comment], Assam, and Nagaland), adjacent Bangladesh (Sylhet Division), Laos (Champasak, Houaphan, and Vientiane provinces), southwestern and northern Cambodia, and Vietnam (Lang Son and Bac Giang provinces south to Dong Nai and Ba Ria-Vung Tau provinces); populations in southeastern Tibet, southern Yunnan, southern Guangxi, Hainan Island, Guangdong, and Zhejiang, China.

Comment

Prior to the revision and discussion by Biju, Garg, Gokulakrishnan, Chandrakasan, Thammachoti, Ren, Gopika, Bisht, Hamidy, and Shouche, 2020, Zootaxa, 4878: 1–55, Chirixalus vittatus was considered to range widely within South and Southeast Asia. However, their molecular analysis restricted the name to Feihyla vittata Group II of Aowphol, Rujirawan, Taksintum, Arsirapot, and McLeod, 2013, Zootaxa, 3702: 101–123, and recognized Rohanixalus sp. 1 and sp. 2 as unnamed species restricted to higher elevations; records from Northeast India were assumed to be assignable to either Rohanixalus senapatiensis or Rohanixalus shyamrupus and localities from Yunnan and Guangxi, China, were presumed by these authors to be likely assignable to other species, suggested by Poyarkov, Nguyen, Popov, Geissler, Pawangkhanant, Neang, Suwannapoom, and Orlov, 2021, Russ. J. Herpetol., 28 (3A) 62, to likely be assignable to Rohanixalus hansenae, but provided no evidence for this conjecture. As a result all of the orphaned literature addressing the nominal species prior to the revision of Biju et al. (2020) should be used with caution. 

See accounts by Pope, 1931, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 61: 584, for China (including the tadpole misidentified as Chirixalus doriae, according to Heyer, 1971, Fieldiana, Zool., 58: 90); Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 462–464, and (as Philautus vittatus) by Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 277–279, and Taylor, 1962, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 43: 529–530. Heyer, 1971, Fieldiana, Zool., 58: 61–82, reported on the call from Thailand. See accounts by Yang, 1991, Amph. Fauna of Yunnan: 198–200; Ye, Fei, and Hu, 1993, Rare and Economic Amph. China: 322; and Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 264–265. See comments by Inger, Orlov, and Darevsky, 1999, Fieldiana, Zool., N.S., 92: 24. Orlov, Lathrop, Murphy, and Ho, 2001, Russ. J. Herpetol., 8: 19, listed this species as part of the Vietnam fauna. Chanda, 2002, Handb. Indian Amph.: 202–203, provided a brief account. Zhang and Wen, 2000, Amph. Guangxi: 117, provided an account for Guangxi. Orlov, Murphy, Ananjeva, Ryabov, and Ho, 2002, Russ. J. Herpetol., 9: 91, commented on the range. Deuti and Dutta, 2002, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 99: 126–127, reported the species from northeastern India (which Biju, Garg, Gokulakrishnan, Chandrakasan, Thammachoti, Ren, Gopika, Bisht, Hamidy, and Shouche, 2020, Zootaxa, 4878: 45, included within Rohanixalus senapatiensis). Reported for southwestern Cambodia by Ohler, Swan, and Daltry, 2002, Raffles Bull. Zool., 50: 465–481. Nutphund, 2001, Amph. Thailand: 153, provided a brief characterization (as Philautus vittatus) and photograph, which Ohler, 2003, Alytes, 21: 101, attributed to Polypedates sp. 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: 33, provided specific localities for Vietnam. Stuart, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 478, provided specific localities for Laos. Dutta, 1997, Amph. India Sri Lanka: 72, provided relevant literature and range for India. Ao, Bordoloi, and Ohler, 2003, Zoos' Print J., 18: 1117–1125, provided a specific locality for Nagaland, northeastern India. Stuart and Emmett, 2006, Fieldiana, Zool., N.S., 109: 11, provided records for the Cadamom Mountains, southwestern Cambodia. Bain, Nguyen, and Doan, 2007, Herpetol. Rev., 38: 110–111, provided a record for Thua Thien-Hue Province, Vietnam, and briefly discussed the range in Indochina. Yu, Rao, Yang, and Zhang, 2008, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 153: 733–749, placed their Chirixalus vittatus near to Feihyla (as Philautus palpebralis) and Gracixalus (as Philautus gracilipes) while Frost et al., 2005, placed Feihyla in a more basal position; voucher examination is warranted to assure that all parties are examining the same organisms. Li, Che, Murphy, Zhao, Zhao, Rao, and Zhang, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 53: 509–522, suggested that Chiromantis vittatus is far from other Chiromantis and possibly included within Feihyla. Yang, 2008, in Yang and Rao (ed.), Amph. Rept. Yunnan: 106–107, provided a brief account for Yunnan, China. Kabir, Hasan, and Ahmed, 2010, Frog Leg, 14: 2–3, provided a record for Bangladesh (as Chiromantis vittatus). Grismer, Neang, Thou, Wood, Oaks, Holden, Grismer, Szutz, and Youmans, 2008, Raffles Bull. Zool., 56: 161–175, provided records for the Cardomom Mountains of southwestern Cambodia. Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 2: 734–739, provided an account (as Chirixalus vittatus) and a spot map for China. Ahmed, Das, and Dutta, 2009, Amph. Rept. NE India: 47, provided a brief account for northeastern India. Mathew and Sen, 2010, Pict. Guide Amph. NE India: 93, provided a brief characterization and a photograph. Das and Dutta, 2007, Hamadryad, 31: 154–181, noted several larval descriptions in the literature (as Chiromantis vittatus). Neang and Holden, 2008, Field Guide Amph. Cambodia: 105, provided a photograph, brief account of identification, ecology, and range in Cambodia, including a record from Prey Lance, northern Cambodia. Mahony, Hasan, Kabir, Ahmed, and Hossain, 2009, Hamadryad, 34: 80–94, provided a record for Sylhet Division, Bangladesh. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Colored Atlas of Chinese Amph.: 442–443, provided a brief account (as Chirixalus vittatus) for China including photographs of specimens. Shi, 2011, Amph. Rept. Fauna Hainan: 80–81, provided an account for Hainan (as Chirixalus vittatus). Li, Zhao, and Dong, 2010, Amph. Rept. Tibet: 59–60, provided an account (as Chirixalus vittatus) for Xizang, China. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, confirmed the placement of Chiromantis vittatus in Chiromantis, rather than Feihyla, possibly due to denser taxon sampling than in previous studies. Hecht, Pham, Nguyen, Nguyen, Bonkowski, and Ziegler, 2013, Biodiversity J., 4: 507–552, reported a record from Tay Yen Tu Nature Reserve, Bac Giang Province, northeastern Vietnam and discussed the range. Li, Li, Klaus, Rao, Hillis, and Zhang, 2013, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110: 34413446, confirmed the placement of this species in Feihyla, although the reasons for the difference of placement from that proposed by Pyron and Wiens are not clear. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2012, Colored Atlas Chinese Amph. Distr.: 518–519, provided an account (as Chirixalus vittatus), photographs, and a range map for China. Chan-ard, Cota, and Makchai, 2011, Amph. E. Region Thailand: 138, detailed the range in Thailand. Aowphol, Rujirawan, Taksintum, Arsirapot, and McLeod, 2013, Zootaxa, 3702: 101–123, suggested that this nominal species (as Chiromantis vittatus) is composed of two lineages, one seemingly coextensive with the stated range and another found in isolated populations in northern Myanmar, western Thailand and adjacent north-peninsular Myanmar although the details of the ranges do not seem to have been resolved. Teynié, Nguyen, Lorvelec, Piquet, Lottier, and David, 2014, Bull. Soc. Herpetol. France, 151: 29, provided a record from Champasak Province, Laos, and discussed the range. See account (as Chiromantis vittatus), photograph, and map for Vietnam in Vassilieva, Galoyan, Poyarkov, and Geissler, 2016, Photograph. Field Guide Amph. Rept. Lowland S. Vietnam: 113–114. Mulcahy, Lee, Miller, Chand, Thura, and Zug, 2018, ZooKeys, 757: 95, provided a record from Taninthary Division, southern Myanmar. Niyomwan, Srisom, and Pawangkhanant, 2019, Field Guide Amph. Thailand: 396–397, provided a brief account (description, photographs, habitat, and range) for Thailand (in Thai). See account by Biju, Garg, Gokulakrishnan, Chandrakasan, Thammachoti, Ren, Gopika, Bisht, Hamidy, and Shouche, 2020, Zootaxa, 4878: 31–36, who reported on larval morphology and vocalization as well as systematic issues. Che, Jiang, Yan, and Zhang, 2020, Amph. Rept. Tibet: 327–329, provided a detailed account (as Feihyla vittata) for Tibet, China. Makchai, Chuaynkern, Safoowong, Chuachat, and Cota, 2020, Amph. N. Thailand: 157, provided photographs, a brief account (as Feihyla vittata) for Thailand, and a range map.  

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.