Indirana salelkari, a new species of leaping frog (Anura: Ranixalidae) from Western Ghats of Goa, India

 

Nikhil Modak 1, Neelesh Dahanukar 2, Ninad Gosavi 3 & Anand D. Padhye 4

 

1,4 Department of Biodiversity, MES Abasahab Garware College, Karve Road, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India

2 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), G1 Block, Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pashan, Pune, Maharashtra 411008, India

2 Systematics, Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO), 96 Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India

3 Department of Zoology, Willingdon College, Sangli, Maharashtra 416416, India

4 Department of Zoology, MES Abasahab Garware College, Karve Road, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India

1 nikhilsmodak@gmail.com, 2 n.dahanukar@iiserpune.ac.in, 3 ninad.gosavi4@gmail.com, 4 anand.padhye@mesagc.org (corresponding author)

 

 

 

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4262.7493-509 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:56DD8B89-0C01-498F-92C6-177BA55A5205

 

Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of publication: 26 July 2015 (online & print)

 

Manuscript details: Ms # o4262 | Received 10 March 2015 | Final received 25 June 2015 | Finally accepted 03 July 2015

 

Citation: Modak, N., N. Dahanukar, N. Gosavi & A.D. Padhye (2015). Indirana salelkari, a new species of leaping frog (Anura: Ranixalidae) from Western Ghats of Goa, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(9): 7493–7509; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4262.7493-509

 

Copyright: © Modak et al. 2015. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

 

Funding: Nikhil Modak is supported by DST-INSPIRE Student Fellowship [IF 120398]. Nikhil Modak was supported by Ernst Mayr Travel Grant, MCZ, Harvard University, US, for examination of specimens at NHM, London and MNHN, Paris. Neelesh Dahanukar is supported by DST-INSPIRE Faculty Fellowship and Research Grant [IFA12- LSBM-21].

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript writing.

 

Author Contribution: NG first reported the population. ADP, NM and ND diagnosed the species. NM and NG collected specimens. NM studied the type and comparative material. NM and ND performed molecular analysis. ND performed statistical analysis. NM, ND and ADP wrote the paper.

 

Author Details: Nikhil Modak is a doctoral student interested in ecology, systematics and evolution of amphibians of the Western Ghats. Neelesh Dahanukar works in ecology and evolution with an emphasis on mathematical and statistical analysis. He is also interested in taxonomy, distribution patterns and molecular phylogeny of fish and frogs. Ninad Gosavi is an undergraduate student interested in amphibian ecology. Anand D. Padhye is an Associate Professor working on systematics, ecology, diversity, distribution and evolution of amphibians.

 

Acknowledgements: We thank Head of the Zoology and Biodiversity Departments and Principal, MES’ Abasaheb Garware College, Pune and Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, for providing infrastructural facilities. We are thankful to Dr. H.V. Ghate for helpful discussions and valuable suggestions. We are grateful to Dr. Asad Rahmani, Director; Dr. Deepak Apte, COO; Rahul Khot, incharge Natural History Collection; and Vithoba Hegde, senior field assistant, for their help during study of the museum specimens and registration of specimens at Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), Mumbai. NM thanks Dr. Barry Clarke, Curator; Dr. David Gower and Dr. Ralph Britz for their help and advice while working at Natural History Museum (NHM), London. NM is indebted to Dr. Annemariae Ohler of Amphibians and Reptiles section, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN) for her help and guiding discussions about taxonomy. NM is also thankful to the staff at NHM and MNHN for their kind help. We also thank Dr. P.S. Bhatnagar, officer-in-charge, and Dr. Shrikant Jadhav, Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Center (ZSI-WRC), Pune, for their help in registering specimens in ZSI-WRC. We are thankful to Dr. Sanjay Molur and Keerthi Krutha for help in registration of specimens in the Wildlife Information Liaison Development (WILD), Coimbatore. We are thankful to Chinmay Tanshikar, Vivek Kale and Yugandhar Shinde for helping us variously.

 

 

 

 

Abstract: Indirana salelkari, a new species of leaping frog, is described from Netravali, Goa, India. The species can be distinguished from its congeners by a combination of morphological characters, viz., head longer than wide, narrow and deep buccal cavity, vomerine teeth large and acutely placed close to each other, oval choanae, distinct canthus rostralis, first finger longer than or equal to second, presence of double outer palmer tubercles, elongated inner metatarsal tubercle, moderate webbing, discs of fingers and toes with crescentic deep marginal grooves restricted only to the anterior side of the discs, dorsal skin with glandular folds but without warts, ventral skin granular with some mottling on throat and, palms and soles dark brown. Indirana salelkari differs from its sister taxa, I. chiravasi, in the placement and structure of vomerine teeth and choanae. The new species is genetically distinct from I. chiravasi, with a genetic distance of 3.8% for the 16S rRNA gene. We also provide phylogentic placement of Indirana salelkari based on mitochondrial 12S and 16S ribosomal genes and nuclear rhodopsin gene along with molecular clock analysis, which further confirms its genetic distinctness from other related taxa.

 

Keywords: Buccal cavity structure, molecular phylogeny, multivariate analysis, new species, tadpole oral apparatus structure, taxonomy.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The genus Indirana Laurent, 1986, is characterized by small to moderate size, forked omosternum, vomerine teeth present behind the choanae, large nasal bones in contact with each other and fronto-parietals, clubbed metatarsus barely separated by webbing, presence of deeply notched tongue bearing a mid-ventral lingual papilla, Y-shaped terminal phalanges, and having specialized tadpoles adapted to terrestrial development (Laurent 1986). Currently, there are 11 known species in the genus, namely I. beddomii (Günther, 1876), I. brachytarsus (Günther, 1876), I. diplosticta (Günther, 1876), I. leptodactyla (Boulenger, 1882), I. phrynoderma (Boulenger, 1882), I. semipalmata (Boulenger, 1882), I. leithii (Boulenger, 1888), I. longicrus (Rao, 1937), I. tenuilingua (Rao, 1937), I. gundia (Dubois, 1986), and I. chiravasi Padhye et al. (2014). Recent species and distributional delimitation based on molecular studies (Nair et al. 2012; Modak et al. 2014) and description of a new species in the genus (Padhye et al. 2014) suggests that there are several undescribed species in the genus.

During the field surveys in Goa region of the Western Ghats, we came across a population of Indirana which was found to be morphologically and genetically different from other known species of the genus. The new species is described here.

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Study site and specimen collection

Specimens of the new species were collected from the Tanshikar Spice Farm at Netravali (Neturlim) in Sanguem Taluk of South Goa, India (15.0950N & 74.2110E; elevation 78m). Four male and four female specimens were collected and preserved in absolute alcohol for further analysis. Ten tadpoles of different stages were collected from the lateritic rocks near the same locality.

 

Museum details

Specimens studied in this paper are deposited in the museum of the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), Mumbai; the Wildlife information Liaison Development (WILD) Society, Coimbatore; the Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Center (ZSI-WRC), Pune and Abasaheb Garware College, Zoology Research Laboratory (AGCZRL), Pune, India. Type specimens from the Natural History Museum (BMNH), London and the Muséum National d’histoire Naturelle (MNHN), Paris, were studied for comparison by the first author.

 

Morphometry

Morphometric measurements were carried out with the help of a digital caliper (Ocean Premium measuring instruments) to the nearest 0.1mm. A total of 27 characters were measured following Padhye et al. (2014), viz.: SUL (Length of specimen from snout to the visible tip of urostyle); HL (Head length: from the posterior border of tympanum to the tip of snout); HW (head width: width of head between to posterior borders of tympanum); SL (Snout length: from the anterior orbital border to the tip of snout); EL (Eye Length: Horizontal length of eye between orbital borders); TYL (maximum tympanum length); UEW (upper eyelid width); SNL (snout to nostril distance); ENL (eye to nostril distance); INL (inter-narial distance); IOL (inter-orbital distance: minimum distance between two eyelids); UAL (Upper arm length); FoAL (Fore-arm Length); F1 to F4 (Finger 1 to Finger 4 length from the base of the sub-articular tubercle); THL (thigh length from hip joint to joint between thigh and shank); TL (Tibia/shank length from joint between thigh and shank to joint between shank and tibiotarsal articulation); ACL (Astragalo-calcaneal length from joint between shank and tibiotarsal articulation to the base of the inner metatarsal tubercle); FOL (Foot length: from the base of the inner metatarsal tubercle to the tip of the fourth toe); TFOL (Total foot length: from the tibio-tarsal articulation to the tip of fourth toe) and T1 to T5 (Toe1 to Toe5 length from the base of the respective sub-articular tubercle). Webbing formula was determined following the method provided by Savage & Heyer (1967) with modifications by Myers & Duellman (1982). We also measured the characters related to the roof of buccal cavity (Fig. 1a) using stage and ocular micrometer scale (least count 0.01mm) in Leica 58AP0 dissecting microscope. The depth of the buccal cavity (Fig. 1b) was determined by measuring the difference in the focal planes of upper lip and vomerine region of the buccal roof using scale (least count 0.002mm) on the fine focus knob of Zeiss Primostar compound microscope.

 

 

 

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of the morphometric data was performed on size adjusted measurements by taking all measurements as percent of SUL to remove the bias due to body size variation. Multivariate normality of the data was checked using Doornik & Hansen (2008) omnibus. Discriminant Analysis (DA) was performed to understand whether related species form significantly different clusters (Huberty & Olejnik 2006) in the genus Indirana. Pillai’s trace statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean vectors of different clusters are equal (Harris 2001). Mahalanobis distances (Harris 2001) between pair of individuals were calculated and were used for computing Fisher’s distances (distance between the centroids of the clusters, divided by the sum of their standard deviations) between two clusters to check if the clusters were significantly different. Statistical analysis was performed in PAST 3.0 (Hammer et al. 2001).

 

Molecular analysis

Thigh muscles of the three specimens (BNHS 5931, WILD-15-AMP-551 and AGCZRL-Amphibia-210) were used for extracting DNA and conducting molecular analyses. Genomic DNA extraction, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for two mitochondrial (12S and 16S) and one nuclear (rho) genes, PCR product purification and sequencing was performed following the protocols detailed in Padhye et al. (2014). Sequences were checked by BLAST tool (Altschul et al. 1990) to identify the nearest congeners. These sequences have been deposited in GenBank (KP826821 to KP826829). Additional sequences of related species were retrieved from NCBI GenBank database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). GenBank accession numbers of the sequences used for the analysis are provided in Appendix A. Gene sequences were aligned separately using MUSCLE (Edgar 2004) implemented in MEGA 6 (Tamura et al. 2013) and were concatenated to make a combined matrix of 921 nucleotides. Best fit model for nucleotide substitution was selected from 24 models using MEGA 6 (Tamura et al. 2013) based on minimum Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) value (Schwarz 1978; Nei & Kumar 2000). This best fit model was also used for constructing the phylogenetic trees using maximum likelihood in MEGA 6 (Tamura et al. 2013). Reliability of the phylogenetic tree was estimated using bootstrap values run for 1000 iterations. Phylogenetic tree was edited in FigTree v1.4.2 (Morariu et al. 2009). Pairwise raw genetic distances using 16S rRNA gene and combined matrix of 12S, 16S and rho genes were calculated using p distances method in MEGA 6 (Tamura et al. 2013).

 

Molecular clock analysis

A subset of concatenated sequences, with monophyletic clades, were used for molecular clock analysis. Separation of Nasikabatrachidae (149.5 mya); separation of Nyctibatrachidae (91.6 mya) and separation of Micrixalidae (89.7 mya) were used as calibration points obtained from time tree (Hedges et al. 2006). Aligned sequences were used for finding the best fit model for nucleotide substitution using J Model test (Darriba et al. 2012). The best fit models for the three partitions (12S: TIM2ef + G; 16S: TIM2 + G; Rho: K80 + Inv) were used for molecular clock analysis using BEAST v.1.8.0 (Drummond et al. 2012). Phylogenetic tree was edited in FigTree v1.4.2 (Morariu et al. 2009). Time of taxa split are expressed as mean ± 95% Highest Posterior Density (HPD).

 

 

RESULTS

 

Indirana salelkari sp. nov.

(Images 1, 2, 3a, 4, 5)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:93051A81-FF8E-4B22-AB3D-D7F7AB65EF01

 

Holotype: BNHS 5931, 11.x.2014, male, 27.7mm SUL, Tanshikar Spice Farm in Neturlim (15.0950N & 74.2110E; elevation 78m), Sanguem Taluk, South Goa District, Goa, India, coll. Nikhil Modak.

Paratypes (n = 7): BNHS 5933, female, 30.2mm SUL, locality same as holotype; BNHS 5932, male, 26.2mm SUL, locality same as holotype; WILD-15-AMP-551, female, 30.8mm SUL, locality same as holotype; WILD-15-AMP-552, male, 24.7mm SUL, locality same as holotype; ZSI-WRC A/1547, female, 30.0mm SUL, locality data as holotype; AGCZRL-amphibia-209, male, 26.0mm, Tanshikar Spice Farm in Neturlim (15.0950N & 74.2110E; 78m), Sanguem Taluk, South Goa District, Goa, India, collected on 6.ix.2014 by Nikhil Modak and Ninad Gosavi; AGCZRL-amphibia-210, female, 30.9mm SUL, Tanshikar Spice Farm in Neturlim (15.0950N & 74.2110E; 78m), Sanguem Taluk, South Goa District, Goa, India, collected on 1.vi.2014 by Ninad Gosavi.

Diagnosis: Indirana salelkari sp. nov. differs from all other congeners based on the following combination of characters: medium-sized frog (20.9–30.9 mm SUL), head longer than wide, distinct canthus rostralis, first finger longer than or equal to second, presence of double outer palmar tubercle, elongated inner metatarsal tubercle, webbing moderate (I1-2II1-2½III1¼-3IV3-1¼V), discs of fingers and toes with crescentic deep marginal grooves restricted only to the anterior side of the discs, buccal cavity narrow and deep, vomerine teeth large and acutely placed closer to each other with a distance less than the length of vomerine teeth series, oval choanae, dorsally skin with glandular folds but without warts, ventrally skin granular with some mottling on throat and palms and soles dark brown.

 

 

Description

General appearance of holotype as in Image 1 and of female paratype as in Image 2. Morphometric details as in Table 1.

 

Description of the Holotype (BNHS 5931; male) (all measurements in mm)

Medium-sized frog (SUL 27.7); head longer than wide (HL 11.6 > HW 9.5); snout longer than horizontal diameter of eye (SL 4.8 > EL 3.4); pupil horizontal; outline of snout suboval dorsally, truncated laterally; ventrally snout slightly protruding beyond the mouth; nostrils nearer to snout than to the eye (SNL 2.0 < ENL 2.5); tympanum about 3/4th the diameter of eye (TYL = 2.7; EL = 3.4), very close to eye; supra-tympanic fold distinct; upper eyelid width 3/4th the horizontal diameter of eye; upper eyelids smooth; inter-orbital distance equal to inter-narial distance (IOL 2.6 = IOL 2.6); canthus rostralis obtuse; loreal region slightly concave and oblique; buccal cavity narrow, deep, vomerine teeth in two sharply oblique rows at the posterior border of choanae (Image 3); tongue thin, bifid, bearing a mid ventral papilla.

Upper arm shorter than fore arm (UAL 5.0 < FoAL 5.7); hand long (PAL 6.0); finger lengths from shortest to longest - F2 (2.1) < F1 (2.2) < F4 (2.3) < F3 (2.5); palmar tubercles present, outer palmar tubercle double, subarticular tubercles moderate, supernumerary tubercles present, single; finger discs moderate in shape, broad, truncate, bearing semicircular groove; fingers without web or fringe of skin.

Hind limbs long; thigh shorter than shank (tibia) (THL 12.4 < TL 15.2); total foot length (including astragalus-calcaneum) longer than tibia (TFOL 20.9); toe lengths from shortest to longest are - T1 (1.4) < T2 (1.8) < T3 (4.3) < T5 (4.8) < T4 (7.0); toe discs moderate; bear semicircular groove; inner metatarsal tubercle thin and elongated; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; supernumerary tubercles absent; subarticular tubercles moderate; tarsal fold and outer phalangeal fringe absent; webbing formula I1-2II1-2½III1¼-3IV3-1¼V.

Dorsal and ventral skin smooth; few longitudinal folds on dorsal side; lateral side granular.

 

Description of Female (Paratype, BNHS 5933) (all measurements in mm)

Medium-sized frog (SUL 30.2); with head longer than wide (HL 11.8 > HW 11.2); snout longer than eye (SL 5.6 > EL 3.5); outline of snout suboval in shape dorsally; truncated laterally; ventrally slightly protruding beyond the mouth; nostrils slightly nearer to snout than to the eye (SNL 2.5 < ENL 2.8); tympanum about 3/4th the diameter of eye (TYL = 2.8; EL = 3.1); supra-tympanic fold distinct; upper eyelid width slightly more than half the horizontal diameter of eye; upper eyelid bearing very few granulations; inter-narial width slightly wider than inter-orbital distance (INL 3.2 < IOL 2.8); canthus rostralis obtuse; loreal region slightly concave and oblique; buccal cavity narrow and deep, vomerine teeth in two sharply oblique rows at the posterior border of choanae; tongue thin, bifid; bearing a mid-ventral papilla.

Upper arm shorter than fore arm (UAL 7.3 < FoAL 6.8); hand (PAL 8.3) about 1/4th of SVL; finger lengths from shortest to longest - F2 (2.2) < F1 (2.8) < F4 (3.6) < F3 (4.4); palmar tubercles present, outer palmar tubercle double; subarticular tubercles moderate; all supernumerary tubercles present, single; finger discs moderate in shape, broad, truncate, bearing semicircular groove; fingers without web or fringe of skin.

Hindlimb about double the SVL, thigh and tibia subequal (THL 17.0 < TL 17.4); total foot length (including astragalus-calcaneum) (22.7) longer than tibia; toe lengths in order of T1 (2.3) < T2 (3.2) < T3 (5.0) < T5 (5.5) < T4 (8.7); toe discs moderate; bear semicircular groove; inner metatarsal tubercle thin, long; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; supernumerary tubercles absent; subarticular tubercles moderate; tarsal fold and outer phalangeal fringe absent; webbing formula I1-2II1-2½III1¼-3IV3-1¼V.

Dorsal and ventral skin smooth; few longitudinal folds on dorsal side; lateral and ventral side granular.

 

 

 

Coloration in life (Image 4)

Dorsum Pale to dark brown, some specimens were also observed with pinkish dorsum; dark band between the eyes which continues on the upper eyelid; interrupted W shaped mark on the back of the head may or may not be present; upper and lower mandible barred with brown stripes which are sometimes interrupted or absent on upper mandible; a dark brown stripe running from the tip of the snout to shoulder through the eye and tympanum; forelimbs and hind limbs bearing transverse bands which are also present on fingers and toes which may not be quite distinct in darker specimens (usually these bands are paler in females); lateral margin of forelimbs and hind limbs densely spotted with dark brown or black (fewer in females) which may continue on ventral side in forelimbs; palm dark brown in color; foot and soles dark brown; ventrally white, throat in some specimens mottled with brown.

 

Coloration in preservation (Image 1 and 2)

Dorsal pale to dark brown, dark band between the eyes which continues on the upper eyelid; interrupted W shaped mark on back of the head which may or may not be present; upper and lower mandible barred with brown strips sometimes interrupted or absent on upper mandible; dark brown strip running from tip of snout to shoulder through eye and tympanum visible; few dark spots on the lateral side of abdomen; forelimbs and hindlimbs barred with dark brown strips which may not be quite distinct in darker specimens; lateral margin of forelimbs and hind limbs densely spotted with dark brown or black which may continue on ventral side in forelimbs; region near outer palmer tubercle darker; sole and foot dark brown; ventrally creamish to white; brown mottling on the throat of some specimens.

 

 

 

 

 

Sexual Dimorphism

In the breeding season males bear nuptial pad on the outer side of first finger and femoral glands on thighs.

 

Etymology

The species is named after Prakash Salelkar, Range Forest Officer, Netravali, Goa, to honor his dedicated work on the conservation of wildlife in Goa State and for his continual help since 2003 during field work in Goa.

 

Distribution

The species is currently known only from its type locality in Sanguem Taluk of South Goa, India (15.0950N & 74.2110E; 78m) (Image 5).

 

Habitat

General habitat at type locality is shown in Image 6. The specimens were collected from Tanshikar Spice Farm. The species was seen to occupy nearby riparian habitats. Some sub adults were seen under leaf litter. The tadpoles were collected from the exposed laterite in the vicinity of the type locality.

 

Natural history and description of tadpoles

Tadpoles of various stages in prometamorphic (Stage 36, stage 39 and stage 41) and metamorphic (stage 45, Image 7) stages (McDiarmid & Altig 1999) were collected from exposed laterite in the vicinity of type locality. Tadpoles of stage 41 showed semi-condensed individual keratodont formula (Dubois 1994) as 4[A1-A4]/4[P1-P2] (Image 8). The oral apparatus is divided into two lateral parts by large horny beak. The first anterior keratodont ridge A1 is divided while three succeeding anterior keratodont ridges A2–A4 are placed lateral to the horny beak. On the posterior labia keratodont ridge P1 is marginal and keratodont ridge P2 is placed lateral to the horny beak and P3 and P4 are continuous.

 

Common name

Netravali Leaping Frog.

 

 

 

 

 

Genetic analysis

Best fit model for 16S rRNA barcoding gene was GTR+G (BIC = 6137.51, lnL = -2496.68, G = 0.37). The best fit model for the nucleotide substitution for cconcatenated genetic sequences (921 bases) of mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNA genes and nuclear rho gene was GTR+G+I (BIC = 10429.89, lnL = -4596.32, I = 0.32, G = 0.58). Maximum likelihood analysis of the genetic data (Figs. 1 and 2) suggested that Indirana salelkari sp. nov. is a monophyletic group genetically distinct from the other Indirana species for which genetic data are available. The sister taxa for I. salelkari is I. chiravasi from which it differs with the raw distance of 3.8% in 16S rRNA gene and 3.1–3.2 % in concatenated sequences. Molecular clock analysis (Fig. 4) suggested that Indirana salelkari separated from I. chiravasi about 10.9 myr ago (95% HPD 14.5-7.4).

 

Statistical analysis

Size corrected morphometric data was not significantly different from multivariate normal (Doornik and Hansen omnibus, within group Ep = 74.91, P = 0.0512). MANOVA suggested that there were significantly distinct clusters among the species (Pillai’s trace = 5.13, F234,333 = 1.886, P < 0.0001). Discriminant Analysis extracted nine factors out of which first three canonical axes explained 86.77% of the total variation in the data where the first axis explained 40.13%, second axis explained 26.26% and third axis explained 20.38% of the total variation (Fig. 3c). First two canonical axes readily separated Indirana salelkari sp. nov. from I. diplosticta, I. leptodactyla and I. phrynoderma (Fig. 3a). Indirana salelkari sp. nov. was separated from I. leithii, I. beddomii, I. brachytarsus, I. chiravasi, I. gundia and I. semipalmata on the third canonical axis (Fig. 3b). DA loadings of morphometric characters on the first three canonical axes are shown in Table 2. Relatively higher values of characters such as TFOL, FOL, TL, THL, T1 and ACL and lower values of TYL separated Indirana salelkari sp. nov. from other related species.

 

Comparison with other species of Indirana

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. differs from I. diplosticta, I. leithii, I. leptodactyla, I. longicrus and I. phrynoderma in having first finger equal to or longer than second finger (vs. first finger shorter than second).

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. differs from I. tenuilingua in having head longer than broad (vs. head slightly wider than long), inter-orbital distance equal to or wider than inter-narial distance (vs. interorbital width more than twice the distance between the nostrils) and toes and fingers with crescentic deep marginal grooves restricted only to the anterior side of the discs (vs. semicircular groove in front of the toes and fingers absent, faint or indistinct).

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. differs from I. semipalmata in having broader head (34.3-38.1% SVL vs. 33.6-33.7% SVL) and moderately webbed toes with the webbing formula I1-2II1-2½III1¼-3IV3-1¼V (vs. half webbed toes with the webbing formula I2-2II2-3III2-3¼IV3¼-2V). Genetic distance between I. salelkari and I. semipalmata is 5.9–6.4% for 16S gene and 4.1-4.7% for concatenated sequences.

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. differs from I. beddomii in having narrow and deep buccal cavity (vs. broader and shallow buccal cavity); vomerine teeth close to each other (vs. vomerine teeth quite apart from each other) (Image 3); the webbing formula I1-2II1-2½III1¼-3IV3-1¼V (vs. webbing formula I1-2II1-2III1-3IV3-1V).

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. can be distinguished from I. brachytarsus in having moderate webbing I1-2II1-2½III1¼-3IV3-1¼V (vs. extensive webbing, webbing formula, I1-2II1-2½III1-3IV3-1V), longer upper arm (17.1-24.9% SVL vs. 16.1% SVL), deep and narrow buccal cavity (vs. shallower and broader), large choanae (vs. small) and thick vomerines (vs. thin) (Image 3). Furthermore, genetic distance between I. salelkari and I. brachytarsus is 8.3% for 16S gene and 7.0% for concatenated sequences.

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. differs from I. gundia in having tympanum flushing with the lateral side of the head (vs. tympanum protruding out of the lateral side of the head) and discs have marginal groove (vs. discs of males and females have sub-marginal groove). Genetic distance between I. salelkari and I. gundia is 4.3–4.5 % for 16S gene and 3.2–3.3% for concatenated sequences.

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. is morphologically similar to I. chiravasi, however it differs from I. chiravasi in having thin elongated metatarsal tubercle in males and females (vs. thin shovel shaped in males and thin elongated in females) and deep and narrow buccal cavity (vs. shallow and broad, Image 3, Table 3). Both the species also differ in their placement and structure of vomerine teeth in relation to choanae (Image 3, Table 3) where I. salelkari has a much longer and acutely placed vomerine teeth series, which are placed closer to each other with a distance less than the length of vomerine teeth series (vs. shorter vomerine teeth series placed at a distance larger than the length of vomerine teeth series) (Table 3). Further, I. salelkari has oval choanae that are more laterally placed in the buccal cavity as compared to I. chiravasi which has circular and dorsally placed choanae (Image 3, Table 3). Indirana salelkari is genetically different from I. chiravasi with a genetic distance 3.8% in 16S rRNA gene and 3.1-3.2% in concatenated sequences.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Indirana salelkari sp. nov. is the twelfth species of the monogeneric family Ranixalidae, endemic to the Western Ghats of India. Indirana chiravasi, the sister species of I. salelkari, is a widely distributed species in northern Western Ghats from 15.4­–18.5 0N latitudes (Modak et al. in prep.). Indirana salelkari is known from just south of this range (15.10N), it is morphologically distinct species and forms a monophyletic group in genetic analysis. Although, the raw genetic distance between the two species is only 3.8%, Vences et al. (2005) have observed differentiation among species ranging from 1–16.5 %. Further, we are delineating the species based on morphology, by studying the available types of known species, and genetic evidence is just used as a support to bolster our claims. The other genetically closely related individuals are identified as I. beddomii by Nair et al. (2012) with voucher numbers IND/AA/DD-220, 231, 200, 227 and 230. However, our study of the type material of I. beddomii clearly suggests that I. salelkari is distinct from I. beddomii.

Oral apparatus structure in the tadpoles of I. chiravasi, I. leithii and I. semipalmata (Sekar 1992; Gopalan et al. 2012; Padhye et al. 2014) are similar to that of I. salelkari. Bonacci et al. (2008) have suggested that the oral apparatus structure can be related to feeding habits and dietary specializations. We have observed similar feeding habits in I. leithii, I. chiravasi and I. salelkari, where the semiterrestrial tadpoles occupy wet rocks and boulders to feed on the algal matter. Owing to similar food and feeding habits, the members of this genus might have developed similar oral apparatus. Unfortunately, very little information is available on the ecology of Indirana and more studies in this respect are essential.

In the IUCN redlist of threatened taxa (IUCN 2014), six species of Indirana are currently listed under threatened categories and include I. gundia and I. phrynoderma under Critically Endangered; I. brachytarsus, I. diplosticta and I. leptodactyla under Endangered; and I. leithii under Vulnerable. Two species, I. gundia and I. phrynoderma, are also Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) species (Parr et al. 2009). Further, there are reports of chytrid infection in Indirana brachytarsus and I. leithii (Nair et al. 2012, Dahanukar et al. 2013; Molur et al. 2015). The fact that half of the known species in this endemic family are threatened calls for immediate attention towards their conservation. Given that the taxonomy and distribution of several of these species is still ambiguous and there is also possibility of discovering cryptic species within the genus (Nair et al. 2011; Modak et al. 2014), further explorations and molecular studies are essential to reveal conservation status of this taxon.

 

Comparative Material

Indirana beddomii (n=12): Syntype, NHM 1947.2.27.72 (female), Syntype, NHM 1947.2.27.82 (Female), Syntype, NHM 1947.2.27.83 (Male), Syntype, NHM 1947.2.27.85 (female), 4 exs., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme; Syntypes, NHM 1947.2.27.89–91 (Females), 3 exs. Anamallays (=Annamalai), collected by Col. Beddomme; Syntype, NHM 1947.2.4.86 and 87 (females), NHM 1947.2.4.88 (male), 3 exs., Sevagherry (=Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu), collected by Col. Beddomme; Syntype, NHM 1947.2.27.87 (Female), Syntype NHM 1947.2.27.88 (male), 2 exs., Travancore, collected by Col. Beddomme.

Indirana brachytarsus (n=2): Lectotype, NHM 1947.2.27.92 (female), 1 exs., Anamallays (=Annamalai), collected by Col. Beddomme; Paralactotype, NHM 1947.2.2.85 (female), 1 exs., Sevagherry (=Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu), collected by Col. Beddomme.

Indirana diplosticta (n=3): Syntypes, NHM 1947.2.2.21 and 23 (females), 2 exs., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme; Syntype, NHM 1947.2.2.22 (Male), 1 ex., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme.

Indirana gundia (n=18): Holotype, MNHN 1985.0633 (Male), 26.vii.1984, 1 ex., Gundia, forêt de Kemphole, à l’ouest de Sakleshpur, Karnataka, Inde (Gundia, Kemphole, west of Sakleshpur, Karnataka, India), collected by A. Dubois; Paratypes, MNHN 1985.0596 (male), 24.vii.1984, 1 ex., MNHN 1985.0599, MNHN 1985.0603, MNHN 1985.0605, MNHN 1985.0608, 1985.0610 and MNHN 1985.0628 (males), 26.vii.1984, 6 exs.; MNHN 1985.0637-0638 (females), 26.vii.1984, 2 exs., MNHN 1985.0611, MNHN 1985.0617–0620 and MNHN 1985.0622 (females), 27.vii.1984, 6 exs., Gundia, forêt de Kemphole, à l’ouest de Sakleshpur, Karnataka, Inde (Gundia, Kemphole, west of Sakleshpur, Karnataka, India), collected by A. Dubois. WILD-14-AMP-499 (Male), 1 ex., 29.vii.2014, Gundya, Karnataka (12.8250N & 75.5690E, 128m), collected by A. Padhye, N. Modak and S. Sulakhe; WILD-14-AMP-500 (female), 1 ex., 29.vii.2014, Gundya, Karnataka (12.8290N & 75.6070E, 224m), collected by A. Padhye, N. Modak and S. Sulakhe.

Indirana leithii (n=6): Topotype, BNHS 2830-31, BNHS 2833, BNHS 2838-39 (females), 8.viii.1991, 5 exs., Matheran, Mumbai, India, collected by A. G. Sekar and V. Hegde; Topotype, BNHS 5590 (female), 30.ix.12, 1 exs., Matheran, Mumbai, India, collected by N. Modak and A. Bayani.

Indirana leptodactyla (n=4): Syntype, NHM 1947.2.29.39-40 (females), 2 exs., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme; Syntype NHM 1947.2.29.41 (male), 1 exs., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme; Non-Type, NHM 1897.1.10.11 (female), 1 exs. Devicolum, Travancore, 1220–2130 m., collected by Fergusson.

Indirana phrynoderma (n=2): Syntypes, NHM 1947.2.3.8-9 (males), 2 exs., Anamallays (=Annamalai), collected by Col. Beddomme.

Indirana semipalamata (n=2): Syntype, NHM 1947.2.29.50 (female), 1 ex., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme; Syntype, NHM 1947.2.29.51 (male), 1 ex., Malabar, collected by Col. Beddomme.

Indirana chiravasi (n=7): Holotype, BNHS 5888, male, 27.3mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 11.vi.2013 by Nikhil Modak, Neelesh Dahanukar, Keerthi Krutha and Unmesh Katwate. Paratype, BNHS 5889, female, 39.2mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 9.vi.2014 by Nikhil Modak. Paratype, BNHS 5890, male, 25.0mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 11.vi.2013 by Nikhil Modak, Neelesh Dahanukar, Keerthi Krutha and Unmesh Katwate; Paratype, WILD-14-AMP-489, male, 24.7mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 11.vi.2013 by Nikhil Modak, Neelesh Dahanukar, Keerthi Krutha and Unmesh Katwate; Paratype, WILD-14-AMP-490, 31.7mm SVL, female, 39.2mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 9.vi.2014 by Nikhil Modak; Paratype, WILD-14-AMP-491, male, 25.6mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 19.vii.2013 by Nikhil Modak, Neelesh Dahanukar, Keerthi Krutha and Unmesh Katwate; Paratype, ZSI-WRC A/1541, male, 25.2mm SVL, India: Maharashtra: Sindhudurg District: Amboli, collected on 11.vi.2013 by Nikhil Modak, Neelesh Dahanukar, Keerthi Krutha and Unmesh Katwate.

Data for I. longicrus and I. tenuilingua from Rao (1937) as the type specimens are missing and are suggested to be lost (Dubois 1984).

 

 

References

 

Altschul, S.F., W. Gish, W. Miller, E.W. Myers & D.J. Lipman (1990). Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215: 403–410; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2

Bonacci, A., E. Brunelli, E. Sperone & S. Tripepi (2008). The oral apparatus of tadpoles of Rana dalmatina, Bombina variegata, Bufo bufo, and Bufo viridis (Anura). Zoologischer Anzeiger 247(2008): 47–54; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2007.02.004

Dahanukar, N., K. Krutha, M.S. Paingankar, A.D. Padhye, N. Modak & S. Molur (2013). Endemic Asian chytrid strain infection in threatened and endemic Anurans of the Northern Western Ghats, India. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77528; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077528

Darriba, D., G.L. Taboada, R. Doallo & D. Posada (2012). jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9(8): 772; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109

Doornik, J.A. & H. Hansen (2008). An Omnibus Test for Univariate and Multivariate Normality. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 70: 927–939; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00537.x

Drummond, A.J., M.A. Suchard, D. Xie & A. Rambaut (2012). Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Molecular Biology And Evolution 29: 1969–1973; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss075

Dubois, A. (1994). Keratodont formulae in anuran tadpoles: proposals for a standardization. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 32(4): 297–318; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.1994.tb00489.x

Edgar, R.C. (2004). MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32(5): 1792–1797; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340

Gopalan, S.V., A. Nair, K.S. Kumar, J. Merilä & S. George (2012). Morphology of Indirana semipalmata (Boulenger, 1882) (Amphibia; Anura) adults and tadpoles from the Western Ghats, India. Herpetology Notes 5: 263–273.

Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper & P.D. Ryan (2001). Past: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for education and data analysis. Paleontología Electrónica 4: 1­­­­­–9. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.html

Harris, R.J. (2001). A primer for multivariate statistics. Third Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.

Hedges, S.B., J. Dudley & S. Kumar (2006). TimeTree: a public knowledge-base of divergence times among organisms. Bioinformatics 22: 2971–2972; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl505

Huberty, C.J. & S. Olejnik (2006). Applied MANOVA and Discriminant Analysis. 2nd Edition. Hohn Wiley and Sons, N.J., 488pp; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/047178947X

IUCN (2014). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 March 2015.

Kimura, M. (1980). A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16(2): 111–120; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01731581

Laurent, R.F. (1986). Sous-classe des lissamphibiens (Lissamphibia). Systématique. pp. 594–797. In: Grassé, P. and M. Delsol (eds.) Traité de zoologie: anatomie, systématique, biologie vol. XIV, Batraciens, fas. 1B.

McDiarmid, R.W. & R. Altig (1999). Research materials and techniques, pp. 7–23. In: McDiarmid, R.W. and R. Altig (eds.). Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. The University of Chicago Press, 444pp.

Modak, N., U. Katwate, K. Krutha, N. Dahanukar & A.D. Padhye (in prep.). Niche based distribution of two leaping frogs, Indirana chiravasi and I. leithii, endemic to northern Western Ghats of India.

Modak, N., A. Padhye & N. Dahanukar (2014). Delimiting the distribution range of Indirana leithii (Boulenger, 1888) (Anura: Ranixalidae), an endemic threatened anuran of the Western Ghats, based on molecular and morphological analysis. Zootaxa 3796(1): 62–80; http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3796.1.3

Molur, S., K. Krutha, M.S. Paingankar & N. Dahanukar (2015). Asian strain of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is widespread in the Western Ghats, India. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 112: 251–255; http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao02804

Morariu, V.I., B. V. Srinivasan, V. C. Raykar, R. Duraiswami & L.S. Davis (2009). Automatic online tuning for fast Gaussian summation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 1113–1120). Available online at - http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~morariu/publications/MorariuFigtreeNIPS08_preprint.pdf. Accessed on 10 Feb 2015.

Myers, C.W. & W.E. Duellman (1982). A new species of Hyla from Cerro Colorado, and other tree frog records and geographical notes from western Panama. American Museum Novitiates 2752: 1–32.

Nair, A., O. Daniel, S.V. Gopalan, S. George, K.S. Kumar, J. Merilä & A.G.F. Teacher (2011). Infectious disease screening of Indirana frogs from the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. Herpetological Review 42(4): 554–557.

Nair, A., S.V. Gopalan, S. George, K.S. Kumar, A.G.F. Teacher & J. Merilä (2012). High cryptic diversity of endemic Indirana frogs in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. Animal Conservation 2012: 1–10; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00539.x

Nei, M. & S. Kumar (2000). Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New York.

Padhye, A.D., N. Modak & N. Dahanukar (2014). Indirana chiravasi, a new species of leaping frog (Anura: Ranixalidae) from Western Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(10): 6293–6312; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4068.6293-312

Parr, M. J., L. Bennun, T. Boucher, T. Brooks, C.A. Chutas, E. Dinerstein, G.M. Drummond, G. Eken, G. Fenwick, M. Foster, J. E. Martı´nez-Go´mez, R. Mittermeier & S. Molur (2009). Why we should aim for zero extinction. Trends in ecology & evolution 24(4): 181; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.001

Savage, J.M. & W.R. Heyer (1967). Variation and distribution in the tree‐frog genus Phyllomedusa in Costa Rica, central America: With 6 figures. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 5(2): 111–131; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650526709360400

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6: 461–464.

Sekar, A.G. (1992). Morphometry, habitat, behaviour & food of the tadpoles of Leith’s frog Rana leithii. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 89(2): 259–261.

Tamura, K., G. Stecher, D. Peterson, A. Filipski & S. Kumar (2013). MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 2725–2729; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197

Vences, M., M. Thomas, A. van der Meijden, Y. Chiari & D.R. Vieites (2005). Comparative performance of the 16S rRNA gene in DNA barcoding of amphibians. Frontiers in Zoology 2(1): 1–12; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-2-5