Kurixalus appendiculatus (Günther, 1858)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Rhacophoridae > Subfamily: Rhacophorinae > Genus: Kurixalus > Species: Kurixalus appendiculatus

Polypedates appendiculatus Günther, 1858, Arch. Naturgesch., 24: 324. Syntypes: BMNH (22 specimens) according to Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 79; lectotype designation of specimen from "Philippines" by designation of Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 86, as "Type". Type locality: "Philippinen"; subsequently implied (apparently in error) to be "Philippines"; "Java"; "Singapore"; and "East Indies" by Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 79; restricted to "Philippines" by lectotype designation.

Rhacophorus appendiculatusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 86.

Rhacophorus phyllopygus Werner, 1900, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 13: 494. Holotype: NHMB 1187 according to Forcart, 1946, Verh. Naturforsch. Ges. Basel, 57: 130. Type locality: "Indragiri", Sumatra, Indonesia. Synonymy by Roux, 1918, Rev. Suisse Zool., 26: 414; Van Kampen, 1923, Amph. Indo-Austral. Arch.: 255; Wolf, 1936, Bull. Raffles Mus., 12: 161; Inger, 1954, Fieldiana, Zool., 33: 374.

Rhacophorus appendiculatus appendiculatusSmith, 1930, Bull. Raffles Mus., 3: 113.

Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) appendiculatusAhl, 1931, Das Tierreich, 55: 143; Wolf, 1936, Bull. Raffles Mus., 12: 161; Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 77.

Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) appendiculatus appendiculatusWolf, 1936, Bull. Raffles Mus., 12: 161.

Leptomantis appendiculatusIskandar and Colijn, 2000, Treubia, 31: 95.

Rhacophorus appendiculatusHarvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002, Herpetol. Monogr., 16: 47, by implication.

Kurixalus appendiculatusYu, Zhang, and Yang, 2013, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 47: 31; Hertwig, Schweizer, Das, and Haas, 2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 68: 573. 

English Names

Philippine Flying Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 113).

South-east Asian Tree Frog (Das and Dutta, 1998, Hamadryad, 23: 67; Mathew and Sen, 2010, Pict. Guide Amph. NE India: 108).

Brown-eyed Tree Frog (Nutphund, 2001, Amph. Thailand: 145).

Frilled Treefrog (Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 154; Das, Jankowski, Makmor, and Haas, 2007, Mitt. Hamburg. Zool. Mus. Inst., 104: 164).

Rough-armed Tree Frog (Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 39).

Frilled Tree Frog (Das, 2007, Amph. Rept. Brunei: 75).

Distribution

Arunachal Pradesh, India (and presumably into adjacent northern Myanmar); peninsular Myanmar, southern peninsular Thailand, Cambodia, and central and southern Vietnam; Sumatra, Borneo, and the Philippines. See comment. 

Comment

In the Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) appendiculatus group of Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 77 (see comment under Rhacophorus for dissenting opinion). Discussed by Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 416-420. See also Berry, 1975, Amph. Fauna Peninsular Malaysia: 96-98; and Inger, 1966, Fieldiana, Zool., 52: 285-289, for account. Dring, 1979, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool., 34: 211, noted that the generic status of this frog is uncertain. See account of Philippine population by Brown and Alcala, 1994, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 48: 206. It seems extremely unlikely that one species of treefrog would range from eastern India to the Philippines to the islands of the Sunda Shelf; detailed study of geographic variation is warranted (DRF). Orlov, Lathrop, Murphy, and Ho, 2001, Russ. J. Herpetol., 8: 20, listed this species as part of the Vietnam fauna. Das and Dutta, 1998, Hamadryad, 23: 67, regarded this species as part of the Indian fauna. See identification table by Manthey and Grossmann, 1997, Amph. Rept. Südostasiens: 122-123, to compare this species to other rhacophorids of the Sunda Shelf region. Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002, Herpetol. Monogr., 16: 47, discussed and rejected the assignment of this species to Leptomantis by Iskandar and Colijn, 2000, Treubia, 31: 1-134. Orlov, Murphy, Ananjeva, Ryabov, and Ho, 2002, Russ. J. Herpetol., 9: 97, commented on the Vietnamese distribution. Malkmus, Manthey, Vogel, Hoffmann, and Kosuch, 2002, Amph. Rept. Mount Kinabalu: 204-206, provided an account. Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 154-155, provided a very brief account, map for Thailand, and photograph. Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 39, provided specific localities for Vietnam. Dutta, 1997, Amph. India Sri Lanka: 97-98, provided systematic notes, access to literature, and range for Indian population. Das, Jankowski, Makmor, and Haas, 2007, Mitt. Hamburg. Zool. Mus. Inst., 104: 164, provided a brief description for Sarawak. Orlov, Nguyen, and Ho, 2008, Russ. J. Herpetol., 15: 67-84, provided a photograph and a key to differentiate this species from others in Vietnam. Das, 2007, Amph. Rept. Brunei: 75, provided a photograph and brief account. Mathew and Sen, 2010, Pict. Guide Amph. NE India: 108, provided a brief characterization and photograph of the animal assigned to this species in northeastern India. Siler, Welton, Siler, Brown, Bucol, Diesmos, and Brown, 2011, Check List, 7: 182-195, briefly discussed this species in Aurora Province, Luzon Island, Philippines. Yu, Zhang, and Yang, 2013, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 47: 31-37, provided evidence for the placement of this species in KurixalusGonzalez, Su, Siler, Barley, Sanguila, Diesmos, and Brown, 2014, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 72: 35-41, discussed molecular biogeography in Borneo and the Philippines.  Sumarli, Grismer, Anuar, Muin, and Quah, 2015, Check List, 11(4, Art. 1679): 15, reported a specimen from Lata Tembaka, Terregganu, West Malaysia, and briefly reported on their morphology and habitat.  Matsui, Kawahara, Eto, Hamidy, Ahmad, and Hossman, 2018, Alytes, 36: 170–177, reported on the mtDNA relationships of populations in Malaya, Borneo, and the Philippines, not sampling the populations from eastern India, peninsular Myanmar and Thailand, or Sumatra. These authors recognized a population in peninsular Malaysia as Kurixalus chaseni, this leaving the status of the populations outside of the Philippines (the imprecise type locality) uncertain. Moreover, from the evidence presented, it looks like multiple species exist within the Philippine archipelago, a result that will surprise exactly no one. 

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.