PROCEEDINGS OFTHE CALIFORNIAACADEMY OFSCIENCES Volume 56, No. 4, pp. 42-52, 4 figs., 1 table [Appendix] April 20, 2005 A New Species ofRhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Myanmar (Burma) JefferyA. Wilkinson13 Thin Thin2 Kyi Soe Lwin2 andAwan Khwi Shein2 , , , ^DepartmentofHerpetology, CaliforniaAcademyofSciences, 875HowardStreet, San Francisco, California 94103, Email:[email protected]; -Nature and Wildlife ConservationDivision, ForestDepartment, Ministiy ofForestry, BayintnaungRoad, WestGyogone, Insein, Yangon, Myanmar; ^H. T. Harvey &Associates, 3150Almaden Expressway, Suite215, SanJose, CA 95118 A new species of the genus Rhacophorus is described from Myanmar. The new speciesis most similartoR. bipunctatus but differs inthe male havinga largerbody size, a bright green dorsal coloration, yellow in the outer portion ofthe iris, fainter crossbandson thelimbs,a moreextensivedermalfringealongthearm, moreexten- sive projection on the heel, more extensive webbing on the hand, and typically two largeequal-sized blackspots,onein theaxillary regionand oneon themiddleofthe flank. Ten species ofRhacophorus are thought to occur in Myanmar (R. appendiculatus (Giinther), R. bipunctatus Ahl, R. bisacculus Taylor, R. dennysi Blanford, R. feae Boulenger, R. maximus Giinther, R. reinwardtii (Schlegel), R. taronensis Smith, R. turpes Smith, and R. verrucosus Boulenger). Here, we reporton an additional species ofRhacophorus collected during expeditions in 2001 and 2002 toRakhine State in westernMyanmarnearthe BayofBengalandto Kachin State in northeastern Myanmar near the Chinese border (Fig. 4). Methods and Materials Specimens were collected by hand, euthanized, tissue samples removed, then fixed in 10% buffered formalin before preserving in 70% ethanol. Latitude and longitude were recorded with a Garmin 12 GPS. datum WGS84. Specimens are housed in the Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, National Museum ofNatural History, Smithsonian Institution (USNM). The preserved specimens were examined, measured, and compared with available specimens (see material examined; museum acronyms follow Leviton et al. [1985]) and published descrip- tionsofcurrently recognized (Frost 2004) species ofRhacophorusandPolypedatesfromMyanmar and neighboring countries (Boulenger 1920; Smith 1924; Smith 1940; Bourret 1942; Liu and Hu 1961;Taylor 1962; Inger 1966; Berry 1975; Dring 1983; Ingeretal. 1985; SarkarandSanyal 1985; Inger and Dutta 1986; Kiew 1987; Daniel and Sekar 1989; Yang et al. 1991; Brown and Alcala 1994; Manthey andGrossman 1997; IngerandStuebing 1997; Iskandar 1998; Chan-ardetal. 1999; Fei 1999; Inger et al. 1999; Das 2000; Ohler et al. 2000; Vasudevan and Dutta 2000; Orlov et al. 2001; Ziegler and Kohler 2001; Chanda 2002; Harvey et al. 2002; Malkmus et al. 2002). mm Measurements were taken using dial calipers to the nearest 0.1 as follows: snout-vent length (SVL, fromtipofsnouttovent); head length (HL. fromtipofsnouttohindborderofangleofjaw); 42 WILKINSON ETAL.: NEW RHACOPHORUS FROM MYANMAR 43 head width (HW, width of head at its widest point); internarial distance (IND, distance between nares); interorbital distance (IOD, minimum distance between upper eyelids); snout length (SL, fromanteriorborderofeye totip ofsnout); distance from nostril toeye (DNE, fromnostriltoante- rior border ofeye); forelimb length (FLL, from elbow to tip of third finger); hand length (HAL, from base ofouter palmer tubercle to tip ofthird finger); thigh length (THL, from vent to knee); tibia length (TIL, from knee to foot); foot length (FL, from proximal end ofmetatarsal tubercle to tip offourthtoe); widthofdiskofthirdfinger(3FDW, greatesthorizontal width); andwidthofdisk offourth toe (4TDW, greatest horizontal width). Species Description Rhacophorus htunwini Wilkinson, Thin Thin, Kyi Soe Lwin, andAwan Khwi Shein, sp. nov. Figs. 1-3. Htun Win's treefrog — Diagnosis. Rhacophorus htunwini can be distinguished from all other species of Rhacophorus and Polypedates by the following combination ofcharacters: intermediate body size in the male (SVL 37.8-50.4 mm); extensive yellow webbing between fingers; thick dermal fringe on forearm and foot, dermal projection (calcar) on heel; squared-offsupracloacal fold, snout point- ed:brightgreendorsal color(slatebluein alcohol); yellowinthe outerportionoftheiris; veryfaint crossbands on the limbs; reddish-orange foot webbing; two large black spots on each side ofbody, one in the axilla—ry region and one at the middle ofthe flank. Holotype. CAS 229893 (Fig. 1), an adult male, collected from Nagmung Township, Au Yin Ga Camp (27°17'36.9"N, 97°51'45.3"E), Putao District, Kachin State, Myanmar, elevation approximately 878 m. collected on 2 May 2002 by Htun Win, Young Ngai Thi Na, Ram Sar, and Hpe Ram. — Description of holotype. An adult male with slender habitus and head slightly longer than wide, 36% ofSVL; snout pointed in dorsal view, gently slopes in lateral view to nostrils, then becomes slightly spatulate extending beyond mandible (Figs, la, c); nostrils closer to eye than tip ofsnout and anteriorly protuberant; canthus distinct, rounded, and inwardly curved; medial rostral areas between eyes and nostrils and between nostrils and tip of snout slightly concave; lores con- cave to nostril; eye directed anterolaterally with horizontal pupil. Tympanum distinct and circular; weak supratympanic fold, curving ventrally from dorso-posterior edge of tympanum to posterior edge ofaxilla. Vomerineprocesses with 8/6roundedteeth respectively andapproximately equal totransverse plane, separated medially by a space equal to two times their width, and laterally in contact with anteromedial edge ofchoanae; choanae small, ovoid to a medial point, and wholly visible at edge oflingual shelves ofmaxillae when viewed ventrally; tongue deeply bifurcates posteriorly; paired vocal slits oval and lateral to tongue. Dorsal body surface smooth; ventral abdominal surface and region below thighs areolate; pec- toral and gular regions much less areolate. Vent protrudes posteriorly, squared supracloacal fold medially notched. Arms short and slender; hand 73% as long as foot; when adpressed, relative length offingers 3>4>2> is 1; tips offingers rounded; digital pads on hands and feet well developed and oval, withcircummarginal grooves; distal phalangesbifurcate (as seen fromdorsal aspectofdigital tips). Hands extensively webbed, webbing formula for digits is 12-2111-1III1-1IV following Myers and Duellman (1982); narrow dermal fringe extends along lateral margin of fourth finger to base of hand. Subarticulartubercles between penultimate and adjoining proximal phalange round and well developed; proximal subarticulartubercles on finger3 smallest; righthand withone, three, andtwo 44 PROCEEDINGS OFTHE CALIFORNIAACADEMY OF SCIENCES Volume 56, No. 4 B Figure 1. (A) Dorsal and (B) ventralviewsofthebody, (C)lateralviewofthehead, and ventral viewsofthe (D) left handand(E) leftfootoftheholotypeofRhacophorushtunwinisp.nov. (CAS 229893). small supernumerary tubercles in a row between proximal tubercle and base of hand on fingers two, three, and four, respectively; left hand with less obvious supernumerary tubercles; thenar tubercle low, extends medially at base offirst finger, palmar tubercle absent. Thick dermal flange extends from lateral base offourth finger to elbow, at widest approximately 18% ofwidth offore- arm. Hind limbs moderately long and slender: when adpressed to body, tibiotarsal articulation reaches beyond anterior edge of eye; webbing on foot reaches to base of pads on all toes; when adpressed, relative length oftoes is4>5 = 3>2> 1: thick dermal fringe from base ofpad oftoe 5 extends along lateral edge oftarsus toheel where itdevelops intobroadflange with laterally pro- jecting calcar on lateral edge ofheel. A single subarticular tubercle on toes 1 and 2, two subartic- ular tubercles on toes 3, 4. and 5; proximal tubercle on toe 5 approximately same size as distal tubercle: supernumerary tubercles and an outer metatarsal tubercle absent; inner metatarsal tuber- cle flat, oval, and pointed medially. WILKINSON ETAL.: NEW RHACOPHORUS FROM MYANMAR 45 Coloration in preservative (Fig. 1). Dorsal color of body slate blue, extending laterally and ventrally lhofflanks and limbs, from elbow to halfway up middorsal aspect ofhindarm, and along dorsal aspect of forearm, lateral fringe, and lateral half of fourth finger to base ofpad, and from vent to knee along middorsal aspect ofthigh, entire dorsal aspect oftibia, and lateral halfoffoot, lateral fringe, and fifth toe tojust short ofbase ofpad. Lateral margins oftarsal and supracloacal fringes light cream; first to third fingers and webbing, medial side offorearm, and all but middor- sal distal half of hindarm cream yellow; similarly, all but middorsal aspect of thigh, lateral and medial sides of tibia, medial half of foot, and first through fourth toes cream yellow. Webbing between toes twothrough five with streaks oforange, giving an orange appearance, butcream yel- low between toes one and two; small, elongated patch ofslate blue on lateral side ofsecond pha- lange offourth toe and within webbing at same position between fourth and fifth toes; venter and flankscreamyellow. Posterolateral fringe oflowerjaw andmidventralaspectoffifthtoe with some slate blue pigmentation; cream yellow margin on upper lip. Two large black oval spots on sides in mm axillary and mid-flank; axillary spot smaller, 8.7 horizontal diameter, mid-flank spot larger, mm 10.8 horizontal diameter. Color in life based on a colortransparency (Fig. 2a). Dorsum bright green with sparsely scat- teredblack and whitepin-sizedspots. Dorsal surface offingers one through three, toes onethrough four, all digital pads, webbing on hand, lateral margin of fringe from foot to heel, ventrum, and sides yellow to yellowish orange. Two largejet black spots, with clusters oflightblue spots on the dorsal margins, on axillary and mid-flank. Faint crossbands present on dorsal aspect ofthigh and tibia. Pupil surrounded by light grayish brown horizontally rectangular iris, with yellow above and below, more so above. Yellow color extends posterior onto interior of orbit. Black thin line sur- rounds eye at ma—rgin with eyelid. Variation. The holotype, paratypes, and referred specimens ofR. htunwini are male, sex- ual dimorphism could not be determined. The paratypes and referred specimens are similar to the holotype except for the following. CAS 222065 and 222136 have smaller calcars than holotype. CAS 222065 is much smaller(SVL37.8 mm), and specimen CAS 222136 has one large black spot in axillary region, without posterior spot on flank. Supratympanic fold ofCAS 221351 strong on both sides ofhead and covers dorsoposterior edge oftympanum, but does so only on left side of CAS 222065, in all other specimens supratympanic fold similar to holotype. The dorsum ofCAS 221351 is lighter in coloration than other specimens in alcohol, although color pattern is same, howeverdarkerbluish greeninlife. CAS 221351 has scatteredblackpin-sizespottingonhead, dor- sum, and dorsal aspect ofthighs. Snout ofthis specimen rounded instead ofpointed as in all other specimens, and tip—s ofpads more squared offthan other specimens. Etymology. Thenamehtunwiniisgiven inhonorofthe late U HtunWin, whodevotedthe lasteightyears ofhis lifetothepursuitofknowledgeofthediversity andnatural historyoftherep- tiles and amphibians within his country. As team leader of the Myanmar Herpetological Survey Team, he first recog—nized this frog as potentially new to science. Comparisons. Because R. htunwini is a medium size tree frog that possesses expanded discs on the fingers and toes, an intercalary element between the penultimate and terminal pha- langes, a narrow bony metasternum, a flange on the distal end of the third metacarpal, Y-shaped terminal phalanges, and extensive webbing between the fingers and toes, it has been placed with- in Rhacophorus (Wilkinson and Drewes 2000). Rhacophorus is a relatively large genus ofapprox- imately60speciesfromAsia(Frost2004), andmembersofthisgenuscloselyresemblethe approx- imately 28 species ofthe genus Polypedates (Liem 1970). Because ofthis close resemblance, sev- eral species have been moved back and forth between the two genera, orPolypedates has notbeen 46 PROCEEDINGS OFTHE CALIFORNIAACADEMY OF SCIENCES Volume 56, No. 4 recognized as a genus separate from Rhacophorus (Dubios 1986; Fei 1999). Recently, Wil- kinson et al. (2002) provided molecular evidence to separate the genera Polypedates and Rhacophorus, and to move two species in Polypedates (P. den- nysi and P. prasinatus) back into Rhacophorus. We believe that generic level reversals are still required in order to ensure the correct taxonomic placement of many species within these two generaandthereforehave includ- edmembers ofboth generain the comparisons below. Following the taxonomic designations in Frost (2004), R. htunwini can be distinguished from other species ofthe follow- ing Rhacophorus and Poly- pedates from Bangladesh, Cam- bodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar. Thai- land, and Vietnam as follows: from members ofPolypedates in the P. leucomystax species group (P. colleti, P. cruciger, P. eqites. P. leucomystax, P. macrotis, P. maculatus, P. mutus, P. otilo- phus, and P. zed), P. iusularis, P. megacephalus, P. uaso, P. pseu- docruciger, members of Rha- cophorus in the subgenus Rha- Figure 2. Photos in life of (A) a male Rhacophorus htunwini sp. nov. (CAS 229893).(B)afemaleR. bipunctatus(CAS 229902),and(C)amaleR. cophorus in the R. appendicula- bipunctatus(CAS224676). tus species group (R. appendicu- latus, R. bisacculus, R. verrucopus), R. baliogaster. R. balueusis. R. barisani, R. bimaculatus, R. calcaneus, R. catamitus, R. cyanopunctatus,R. exechopygus,R. margaritifer,R. modestus, R. nam- daphaensis. R. orlovi, R. poecilonotus, R. translineatus, R. tuberculatus, and R. verrucosus by a bright green dorsal color; from members ofPolypedates in the P. chenfui species group (P. chen- fui, P. hungfuensis, and P. yaoshanensis). the P. dugritei species group (P. dugritei, and P. omei- montis), P. dorsoviridis. P. duboisi, P. nigropunctatus, P.pingbianensis, P.puerensis, P. zhaojuen- sis, members ofRhacophours in the subgenus Rhacophorus and the R. dennysii species group (R. dennysi and R.feae), the R.pardalis species group (R. annamensis. R. notator. R. pardalis, and R. robinsonii), R. achantharrhena, R. augulirostris, R. taronensis. andR. variabilis by the presence of asharpdermal calcarat the heel; from members oiRhacophorus in the subgenusRhacophorusand WILKINSON ETAL.: NEW RHACOPHORUS FROM MYANMAR 47 Figure3. Dorsal view ofrepresentative specimens ofRhacophorus htunwini sp. nov. (toprow), representative speci- mensoffemaleR. bipimctatus(middlerow),andrepresentative specimensofmaleR. bipunctatus(bottomrow). the R, malabaricus species group (R. calcadensis andR. malabaricus), R. lateralis, R.pseudoma- labaricus, and R. turpes by axillary spots. Rhacophorus htunwini closely resembles members of the R. reinwardtii species group in the subgenus Rhacophorus (R. bipunctatus, R. dulitensis, R. maximus, R. nigropalmatus, R. promi- nanus,R. reinwardtii) andR. hoangliensis, butcan be distinguishedfrom all butR. bipunctatus and R. reinwardtii by the presence ofaxillary spots. It can be distinguished from R. reinwardtii (SVL male 68 mm) by its smaller size and yellow hand webbing (black hand webbing inR. reinwardtii). Rhacophorus htunwini most closely resembles R. bipunctatus, which also has axillary spots, dermal calcarsattheheels, apointed snout, and sometimes agreendorsal color(Fig. 2b). However, it can be distinguished from R. bipunctatus by size (Table 1, Fig. 3); the males ofR. htunwini are larger (average SVL=45.7 mm) than the males of R. bipunctatus (average SVL = 34.9 mm). Rhacophorushtunwinialsohas abrightgreen dorsal colorin lifethatbecomes slatebluewhenpre- served, whereas some members of R. bipunctatus have an olive green dorsal color in life that becomes lightbluish gray orbrown when preservedandothers areorangetotan in lifewithadark- er brown pattern (blotching or an X mark) on the dorsum, which become brown when preserved (Figs. 2-3).TheeyeofR. htunwinicontainsyellow attheupperand lowerportion ofthe iris, which is absent in R. bipunctatus (Fig. 2). Rhacophorus bipunctatus has distinct crossbands on the fore and hindlimbs (Figs. 2b-c), whereas R. htunwini has faint crossbands that disappear in alcohol CFig. 2a). Rhacophorus htunwinihas amore extensive dermal fringe on the forearm, a more exten- sivedermal calcaratthe heel, and moreextensive webbing on the handthan the male of/?, bipunc- tatus. In all but one specimen, R. htunwinihas two large black equal size spots on the sides, one in 48 PROCEEDINGS OFTHE CALIFORNIAACADEMY OF SCIENCES Volume 56, No. 4 the axillary region and one on the flank, whereas, the major- ity ofmale specimens ofR. bipunctatus examined had only one spot in the axillary region, and in specimens that had two spots the posteriorspot was much smallerthan the ante- rior spot. — Distribution and Natural History. At present Rhacophorus htunwini is known from Nagmung and Machanbaw Townships. Putao District. Kachin State, and from much further south in Rahkine State in the southwest- - M Y A N M A ern foothills of Rakhine Yoma. Gwa Township, and KyauktawTownship, Sittawe District (Fig. 4). This distribu- tional pattern indicates that this species may be restricted to the Indo-Burman Mountain Range thatarcsfrom southwest- ern Myanmar along the border with India, and the Eastern Himalayas in northern Myanmar. The absence ofspecimens from the Chin Hills of western Myanmar is probably due solely to a lack ofsurveys in the region. kilometers The type specimens including the holotype (CAS Figure 4. Distribution ofRhacophorus USNM m htunwini sp. now in Myanmar with type 229913, 561869) were found approximately 2 off localityindicatedbyastar(attipofarrow). the ground in bamboo. Referred specimens were found in undisturbed habitat near a spring (CAS 222136) or seasonal (CAS 221351) and permanent (CAS 222065) streams. Other species ofPolypedates and Rhacophorus found in the vicinity ofthe type locality were P. leucomystax, R. bipunctatus. and R. dennysi. Material Examined Rhacophorushtunwini(paratypes): CAS 229913.USNM561869adultmalescollectedatthesamelocal- ity and date as the holotype. Rhacophorus htunwini (referred specimens): CAS 221351, an adult male, collected between Ahtan Ga and Au Rin Ga (27°15'27.2"N, 97°50'32.4"E), Ma Chan Baw Township. Putao District, Kachin State, Myanmar,collectedon4September2001 by HtunWin andRan Shaung;CAS 222136,anadultmale,collect- edfromYea Pu Camp (17°56'02.6"N, 94°38'02.9"E). GwaTownship, Rakhine State, Myanmar, collected on 8 June 2001 by HlaTun. Kyi Soe Lwin. andAwan Khwi Shein; CAS 222065. an adult male, collected from Pin Lone Camp. Pe Chaung, near Saba Sate Village (21°00'54.9"N, 92°52'06.6"E), Kyaut Taw Township, Sittawe District. Rakhine State, Myanmar, collected on 4 July 2001 by Htun Win, Kyi Soe Lwin, andAwan Khwi Shein. Polypedates chenfui: FMNH 232963, 232964 (China). Polypedates colletti: FMNH 234773, 235631 (Malaysia). Polypedates cruciger. CAS 85280 (Sri Lanka). Polypedatesdugritei: CAS 64273 (China). Polypedates eques: CAS 85281, 85282 (Sri Lanka). Polypedates leucomystax: FMNH 239159 (Malaysia); FMNH 254649 (Lao PDR): CAS-SU 15163 (India); CAS 14943 (China); CAS 94573 (Bangladesh); CAS 103624 (Indonesia); CAS 105003 (Vietnam); CAS 105972 (Malaysia); CAS 111336 (Cambodia); CAS 172691 (Thailand): CAS 221962, 224461 (Myanmar). Polypedates macrotis: FMNH 239107, 239119 (Malaysia): CAS 60630. 60631. 60684, 60804, 62138 (Philippines);CAS 62581 (Malaysia);CAS 64074(Philippines);CAS64077(Indonesia); CAS 64089-64092 (Philippines); CAS 105974, 105975 (Malaysia). Polypedates maculates: CAS 16922-16924 (Sri Lanka): CAS 94571. 94572. 104152. 125365-125370 (India). WILKINSON ETAL.: NEW RHACOPHORUS FROM MYANMAR 49 ROM Polypedatesmegacepholus: (field numbers) 18038, 18045 (Vietnam). Polypedatesotilophus: FMNH 230836, 239147 (Malaysia). Rhacophorusangulirostris: FMNH 235035 (Malaysia). Rhacophorus annamensis: FMNH 253933. 253940 (Vietnam); ROM 29889, 29890, 29891, 29892, 29897, 29901, 29904 (Vietnam). Rhacophorusappendicular: CAS 60169-60174, 62261, 64078-64086 (Philippines). Rhacophorusbimaculatus: CAS 61840, 133178-133180, 133251 (Philippines). Rhacophorus bipunctatus: FMNH 253122, 253124 (Vietnam); NMNS 3220 (China); CAS 224676, 228808, 229887, 229889, 229890, 229898, 229899, 229901-229907, 229910 (Myanmar). Rhacophoruscalcaneus:FMNH256456,257933 (LaoPDR);ROM29849,29850,29854,29855,29875, 29877, 29879, 29880 (Vietnam). Rhacophorus dennysi: FMNH 256449, 256450 (LaoPDR); ROM 29839, 29840, 29841, 29842, 29843, 29846. 30245 (Vietnam); CAS 64224 (China); CAS 221535, 224496, 224659 (Myanmar). Rhacophorusdulitensis: FMNH 235741 (Malaysia). Rhacophorusfeae: FMNH 257910 (LaoPDR); CAS-SU 6387, 6388 (Vietnam). Rhacophorusgauni: FMNH 235044, 239238 (Malaysia). Rhacophorus maximus: CAS 221516, 221517 (Myanmar). Rhacophorusmicrotympanum: CAS 85283 (Sri Lanka). Rhacophorusnigropalmatus: FMNH 230901, 230902 (Malaysia). Rhacophorus pardalis: FMNH 235750 (Malaysia); FMNH 259530 (Philippines); CAS 60472-60476, 61386, 128725. 129267-126270 (Philippines). Rhacophorus reinwardtii: FMNH235034(Malaysia),FMNH 255305 (Lao PDR); NMNS 3213 (China). Rhacophorus rufipes: FMNH 231377 (Malaysia). Rhacophorus taronensis: BMNH 1947.2.8.17 (Myanmar). Rhacophorus turpes: BMNH 1947.2.8.69, 1947.2.8.70 (Myanmar). Rhacophorus verrucosus: CAS 224441, 224442, 224469, 224737, 224754, (Myanmar). Acknowledgments We thank U Shwe Kyaw, Director General, Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry, and U Khin Maung Zaw, Director, Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division, Forest Department, Ministry ofForestry for their continued support ofthe Myanmar Herpetological Project. We also thank Barry Clarke, Mark Wilkinson, and Nick Arnold of the British Museum, Alan Resetar and Harold Voris ofthe Field Museum ofNatural History, Wen-Hao Chou ofthe National Museum of Natural Science, Taiwan, and RobertMurphy and Ross MacCulloch ofthe Royal Ontario Museum for loaning specimens. Fieldwork was supported by National Science Foundation Grant (DEB- 9971861) to the late Joseph B. Slowinski (Alan E. Leviton, current PI) and George Zug. Michelle Koo provided Figure 1. Dong Lin provided the photographs forFigures 2 and 4, and HlaTun pro- vided the photographs forFigure 3. Jens Vindum and GuinevereWogan critically read and provid- ed valuable comments on the manuscript. Literature Cited Berry, P.Y. 1975. TlieAmphibian Fauna ofPeninsularMalaysia. Tropical Press, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 130 pp. Boulenger, G.A. 1920. III. Reptiles and batrachians collected in Korinchi, West Sumatra, by Messrs. H.C. Robinson and C. Boden Kloss. JournaloftheFederatedMalayStatesMuseums 8:285-306. Bolrret, R. 1942. LesBatraciensde I'Indochine. Memoires de LTnstitut Oceanographique de LTndochine. GouvernementGeneral de LTndochine. Hanoi, Indochina (Vietnam). 547 pp. Brown, W.C., and A.C. Alcala. 1994. Philippine frogs of the family Rhacophoridae. Proceedings ofthe CaliforniaAcademy ofSciences48:185-220. 50 PROCEEDINGS OFTHE CALIFORNIAACADEMY OF SCIENCES Volume 56, No. 4 Chanda S.K. 2002. HandBookofIndianAmphibians. Zoological Survey ofIndia, Kolkata, India. 335 pp. Chan-ard, T., W. Grossmann, A. Gumprecht, and K.-D. Schulz. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles of PeninsularMalaysiaandThailand,An illustratedChecklist. BushmasterPublications,Wuerselen. 240pp. Daniel, J.C., and A.G Sekar. 1989. Field guide to the amphibians ofwestern India. Part 4. Journal ofthe BombayNaturalHistorySociety 86:194-200. Das, I. 2000. Nomenclatural history and rediscovery ofRhacophorus lateralis Boulenger, 1883 (Amphibia: Rhacophordae). CurrentHerpetology 19:35—10. Dring, J. 1983[1984]. Some new frogs from Sarawak. Amphibia-Reptilia4:103-112. Dubois,A. 1986. Miscellaneataxinomicabatrachologica (I).Alytes 5:17-95. Fei, L. 1999. Atlas ofAmphibians ofChina. Publishing House for Scientific and Technological Literature, Hunan, China. 432 pp. Frost, D.R. 2004. Amphibian Species ofthe World: an Online Reference. Version 3.0 (22 August, 2004). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/heipetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum ofNatural History, NewYork, USA. Harvey, M.B., A.J. Pemberton, and E.N. Smith. 2002. New and poorly known parachuting frogs (Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from Sumatra andJava. HerpetologicalMonographs 16:46-92. Inger, R.F 1966. The systematics and zoogeography of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana: Zoology 52:1-102. Inger, R.F, and S.K. Dutta. 1986. An overview ofthe amphibian fauna ofIndia. Journal ofthe Bombay NaturalHistonSociety 83(Suppl.):135-146. Inger, R.F,N.L. Orlov,andI.S. Darevsky. 1999. FrogsofVietnam: areportonnewcollections. Fieldiana: Zoology92:1-46. Inger, R.F, H.B. Shaffer, M. Koshy, and R. Bakde. 1985 [1984]. Areport on a collection ofamphibians and reptiles from the Ponmudi. Kerala, south India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 81:551-570. Inger, R.F, and R.B. Stuebing. 1997. A Field Guide to the Frogs ofBorneo. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu. 205 pp. Iskandar, D.T. 1998.AmphibiansofJavaandBali. Research and DevelopmentCentre forBiology, Jakarta, Indonesia. 117 pp. Kiew, B.H. 1987. An annotated checklist of the herpetofauna of Ulu Endau, Johore, Malaysia. Malayan NatureJournal41:413—123. Leviton, A.E., R.H. Gibbs. Jr.. E. Heal, and C.E. Dawson. 1985. Standards in herpetology and ichthyolo- gy: Part I. Standard symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology. Copeia 1985:802-832. Liem, S.S. 1970.The morphology, systematics, andevolution ofthe OldWorldtreefrogs (Rhacophoridae and Hyperoliidae). FieldianaZoology57:1-145. Liu, C.C.,and S.Q. Hu. 1961. TaillessAmphibiansofChina. Science Press, Peking, China. 364 pp. Malkmls, R.. U. Manthey, G Vogel, P. Hoffmann, and J. Kosuch. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of MountKinabalu.A.R. G GantnerVerlag Kommanditgesellschaft, Ruggel, 424 pp. Manthey, U., and W. Grossmann. 1997. Amphibien and Reptilien Siidostasiens. Natur und Tier Verlag, Miinster, Germany. 511 pp. Myers, C.W.. and W.E. Duellman. 1982. Anew species ofHyla from Cerro Colorado, and other tree frog records andgeographical notes fromwestern Panama.American MuseumNovitates (2752):1-32. Ohler, A., O. Marquis. S. Swan, and S. Grosjean. 2000. Amphibian biodiversity of Hoang Lien Nature Reserve(LaoCaiProvince,northernVietnam)withdescriptionoftwonewspecies.Herpetozoa 13:71-87. Orlov, N.L., A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, and H.T. Cue. 2001. Frogs ofthe family Rhacophoridae (Anura: Amphibia) in the northern Hoang Lien Mountains. RussianJournalofHerpetology 8:17-44. Sarkar,A.K.,andA.K. Sanyal. 1985.Amphibia. Records oftheZoologicalSurveyofIndia 81:285-295. Smith, M.A. 1924. Newtree-frogsfrom Indo-Chinaand the Malay Peninsula. ProceedingsoftheZoological Society, London 1924:225-234. Smith. M.A. 1940. The amphibians and reptiles obtained by Mr. Ronald Kaulback in upper Burma. Records ofthe Indian Museum 42:465—186. 1 WILKINSON ETAL.: NEW RHACOPHORUS FROM MYANMAR 5 Taylor. E.H. 1962. The amphibian faunaofThailand. University ofKansasScience Bulletin43:265-599. Vasudevan, K., and S.K. Dutta. 2000. A new species ofRhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats, India. Hamadryad25:21-28. Wilkinson. J.A., and R.C. Drewes. 2000. Character assessment, genus level boundaries, and phylogenetic analyses of the family Rhacophoridae: a review and present day status. Contemporary Herpetology 2000:2. Wilkinson. J.A.. R.C. Drewes, and O.C. Tatum. 2002. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of the family RhacophoridaewithanemphasisontheAsianandAfricangenera.MolecularPhylogeneticsandEvolution 24:265-273. Yang D.T., S. Li. W. Liu,and S. Lu. 1991.Amphibian Fauna ofYunnan, China. Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. 259 pp. Ziegler, T., and J. KOhler. 2001. Rhacophorus orlovi sp. n., a new tree frog from Vietnam (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae). Sauria 23:37-46.