identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
DF611DEA4B0C5ADCBF9C0F36646C9A2E.text	DF611DEA4B0C5ADCBF9C0F36646C9A2E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Liurana kempii (Annandale 1912) Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Liurana kempii (Annandale, 1912) nov. comb.</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Megalophrys kempii Annandale, 1912: 20 .</p><p>Panophrys kempii — Rao and Yang (1997): 98 –99.</p><p>Megophrys (Xenophrys) kempii — Dubois and Ohler (1998): 14.</p><p>Megophrys kempii — Fei (1999): 116.</p><p>Xenophrys kempii — Ohler (2003): 23.</p><p>Philautus kempii — Delorme et al. (2006): 17.</p><p>Aquixalus kempii — Fei et al. (2009): 17.</p><p>Liuixalus kempii — Fei et al. (2012): 512.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Philautus kempii (Fig. 10) was originally described as Megalophrys kempii from Rotung (= Rottung), Arunachal Pradesh based on a single specimen (Annandale 1912). Since its description this species has never been reported from the type locality. However, it was transferred to megophryid (Rao and Yang 1997; Dubois and Ohler 1998; Fei 1999; Ohler 2003) and rhacophorid genera (Delorme et al. 2006; Fei et al. 2009, 2012) by implication. Delorme et al. (2006) placed this species in the genus Philautus based on characters such as granular abdominal skin and indistinct digital discs, and this combination has been followed subsequently (Zug 2022; Frost 2025).</p><p>Our observation of the holotype (ZSI 17013) (Fig. 10) showed that it has a distinct and enlarged tympanum with a diameter of 70 % of the eye length, located close to the eye, which is also mentioned in the original description (Annandale, 1912). Based on characters such as 1) small body size (SVL 14.8 mm), 2) large tympanum, 3) absence of vomerine teeth, 4) dilated finger and toe tips (Fig. 10 E), 5) obscurely granular abdomen, 6) rudimentary webbing on foot, 7) fourth toe much longer (Fig. 10 E), 8) granules on lateral side of thigh towards vent, 9) subarticular tubercles not much pronounced, 10) crossbands on hindlimbs, we argue that the nomen is not a rhacophorid but resembles the ceratobatrachid genus Liurana Fei, Ye &amp; Huang, 1997 . Although Annandale (1912) mentioned metacarpal tubercles and metatarsal tubercles absent (vs. present in Liurana), supratympanic fold absent (distinct or indistinct in Liurana), we could not study much of the characters of the holotype as it is dehydrated and the limbs are damaged (Fig. 10). The dorsal colouration of the specimen could not be determined, but the colouration in Liurana is variable (personal observation). Morphometric measurements of the holotype are provided in Table S 11.</p><p>The absence of vomerine teeth and a granular abdomen are characteristics of Raorchestes (Biju et al. 2010) . So far, we have not recorded any species of Raorchestes with an enlarged tympanum like ZSI 17013. On the other hand, granular abdomen and thighs are not characters of Megophrys or Xenophrys . Furthermore, we have not recorded any Xenophrys species with an enlarged tympanum close to the eye. Mahony et al. (2013, 2018, 2020) did not report this condition in any species in their revisions. Additionally, the holotype of P. kempii does not have characters that match with characters of other known genera of Megophryidae from the Eastern Himalayas such as Scutiger Theobald, 1868 and Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838 by: 1) absence of axillary and pectoral glands (present in Scutiger); 2) absence of keratinised warts on dorsum (vs. present in Scutiger); 3) absence of shovel shaped inner metatarsal tubercle (present in L. bompu Sondhi &amp; Ohler, 2011 known from Arunachal Pradesh); 4) presence of enlarged tympanum (vs. tympanum indistinct if present in L. bompu). Also, even though small bodied species of Leptobrachella are known from the hills south of Brahmaputra Valley [i. e., L. khasiorum (Das, Tron, Rangad &amp; Hooroo, 2010) and L. nokrekensis (Mathew &amp; Sen, 2010) from Meghalaya, L. lateralis (Anderson, 1871) from Nagaland, and L. tamdil (Sengupta et al., 2010) from Mizoram and Manipur], the genus Leptobrachella has not been reported from Eastern Himalayas. However, recent studies have reported Liurana species ( L. himalayana Saikia &amp; Sinha, 2019, L. indica Saikia &amp; Sinha, 2019, L. medogensis Fei, Ye &amp; Huang, 1997, L. minica Saikia &amp; Sinha, 2019) from the state of Arunachal Pradesh (Saikia and Sinha 2019). During this study, we also observed Liurana spp. from Adi Hills near the type locality, which matches the original description of Philautus kempii as mentioned above. Therefore, based on the original description and the figure and our examination of the type specimen, we formally transfer Philautus kempii to Liurana kempii nov. comb. However, further studies are needed to confirm that L. kempii is not a species of Megophryidae, given that no individuals of megophryids with characters such as small body size with elongated fourth toe and large tympanum have been recorded from this region. Furthermore, it is necessary to confirm whether the specimens of Liurana spp. from the Adi Hills represent L. kempii or a different species of Liurana .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/DF611DEA4B0C5ADCBF9C0F36646C9A2E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
D9FD2D4CC21A53D39EFC44A55031FA96.text	D9FD2D4CC21A53D39EFC44A55031FA96.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nasutixalus jerdonii (Gunther 1876)	<div><p>Nasutixalus jerdonii (Günther, 1876)</p><p>Figures 7, 8; Tables S 10, S 11</p><p>Synonymy and chresonymy.</p><p>Polypedates jerdonii Günther, 1876: 571 .</p><p>Rhacophorus jerdonii — Boulenger (1882): 80; Das and Dutta (1998): 67.</p><p>Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) jerdonii — Ahl (1931): 114; Dutta (1997): 101.</p><p>Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) buergeri jerdonii — Wolf (1936): 172.</p><p>Philautus (Kirtixalus) jerdonii — Dubois (1987): 73.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) jerdonii — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 25.</p><p>Philautus sahai Sarkar &amp; Ray, 2006: 303 .</p><p>Pseudophilautus sahai — Li et al. (2009): 519.</p><p>Philautus sahai — Ahmed et al. (2009): 16.</p><p>Raorchestes sahai — Biju et al. (2010): 1120.</p><p>Frankixalus jerdonii — Biju et al. (2016): 6 –13.</p><p>Nasutixalus jerdonii — Sivongxay et al. (2016): 439–440.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Raorchestes sahai (Fig. 7) was originally described as Philautus sahai by Sarkar and Ray (2006) based on two specimens collected by S. S. Saha on 29 February 1988 from 10 km north of Gandhigram, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India. After Biju et al. (2010), this species was placed under Raorchestes by implication (Frost 2025). Since its description, this species has not been reported from the type locality and no attempt has been made to study the types or compare them with other species in Raorchestes or other genera of small rhacophorids. We examined the type series (ZSIA 8500 and ZSIA 8501) available at the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. Our examination of the types revealed some characteristics that contradict the original description of the species by Sarkar and Ray (2006), such as vomerine teeth present in both types although underdeveloped (vs. vomerine teeth absent in original description) (Fig. 7); snout truncated in dorsal and lateral view, rounded in ventral view (vs. snout rounded in original description); rudimentary webbing present on hand (vs. not mentioned in original description). Thus, presence of vomerine teeth in the type specimens suggest that this species does not belong to the nominal genus Raorchestes . Between the years 2022 and 2023, we collected three rhacophorid specimens from Gandhigram that morphologically correspond to the type specimens of R. sahai based on the following set of characters such as truncated snout, protruding eyes, vomerine teeth present, tympanum distinct, rudimentary webbing present on hand, webbing well developed on foot, disc on fingers and toes, abdomen and thigh granular (Figs 7 and 8).</p><p>Furthermore, in our phylogenetic analysis (ML) based on the 16 S mitochondrial gene, the newly collected samples (of both subadult and adult) formed a clade with Nasutixalus jerdonii (Günther, 1876) from northeast India (Fig. 8 A). The uncorrected p distance between the newly collected samples and available sequences of N. jerdonii from India included in this study are 0.0–0.2 % in the 16 S gene (Table S 10).</p><p>We also examined the type specimens of N. jerdonii at the Natural History Museum, London collection (BMNH 1947.2.7.84 and BMNH 1947.2.7.85). Our topotypes agreed with the N. jerdonii types based on the following set of morphological characters: 1) snout rounded or almost truncate in dorsal view and nearly vertical in lateral view; 2) tympanum distinct; 3) small webbing present on hand; 4) circum-marginal groove present on finger and toe disc; 5) toe webbing moderate; 6) granular belly and ventral aspect of thigh; 7) dark patch covering posterior part of head on dorsal aspect, continuing to dorsum and posteriorly bifurcate. The following exceptions or variations were observed in the newly collected material and previously published descriptions. Biju et al. (2016) mentioned that vomerine ridges present in two oblique series without teeth. However, the original description mentioned that vomerine teeth are present. Based on our specimens collected from different parts of northeast India (Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh), most of the specimens of N. jerdonii have blunt vomerine teeth on two oblique series. In some other specimens (for example WII-ADA 3240) which is genetically similar, vomerine ridge is present without teeth. Additionally, Jiang et al. (2016) mentioned that vomerine teeth are present in N. medogensis Jiang, Wang, Yan &amp; Che, 2016, while Yang and Chan (2018) mentioned vomerine ridge present without teeth in N. yingjiangensis Yang &amp; Chan, 2018 . Thus, this character is not consistent within the genus and species. Biju et al. (2016) mentioned that metacarpal tubercles are absent. However, metacarpal tubercles are visible in the types as well as in our newly collected specimens. Based on the morphological similarity of the topotypes to the holotype and paratype and the phylogenetically close position of the topotypes to N. jerdonii, we consider “ R. sahai ” to be a junior subjective synonym of N. jerdonii . However, none of the available DNA sequences of N. jerdonii by Biju et al. (2016) and Muansanga et al. (2022) are from the type locality in Darjeeling. Those available sequences are from the hill ranges of the southern slope of the Brahmaputra Valley. Therefore, topotypic samples are needed to determine whether N. jerdonii sensu stricto from Darjeeling and the populations from south of Brahmaputra Valley currently referred to as N. jerdonii belong to the same species or represent different species.</p><p>Sarkar and Ray (2006) placed this species in the genus Philautus probably because of the small body size of the collected material. Although Sarkar and Ray (2006) referred to the type series as adults, we confirmed that the types are subadults based on the newly collected subadult and adult specimens from the type locality at Gandhigram. Additionally, this species was never compared with N. jerdonii in the past probably because both the species were placed in different genera. For taxonomic stability, we provide here an expanded description of N. jerdonii based on the newly collected material from the type locality of “ R. sahai ”.</p><p>Materials examined.</p><p>A subadult female (WII-ADA 1770) and an adult male (WII-ADA 1773) collected by BB, AD and NGP on 16 September 2022 at <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.93704&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.265139" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.93704/lat 27.265139)">Gandhigram</a> (27.265139°N, 96.937041°E, elevation 1120 m a. s. l.), Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; an adult male (WII-ADA 3240) collected from same locality by AD, SD, RNV and JDG on 23 May 2023 .</p><p>Description of newly collected male specimen (WII-ADA 1773; Fig. 8 B – H).</p><p>Medium sized rhacophorid frog, SVL 41 mm; head slightly wider than long (HW / HL = 0.98); snout rounded in dorsal and semicircular in ventral view, vertical in lateral view; snout length smaller than eye length (SL / EL = 0.9); canthus rostralis indistinct, oblique; loreal concave; nostrils oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented; nostril closer to snout tip than eye; snout anteriorly depressed at internarial space; internarial space equal to inter-upper eyelid width and upper eyelid width; eyes protruding, moderate in size, less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.42); tympanum distinct, round, nearly half of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.47); tongue posteriorly notched; choanae round; vomerine teeth present between choanae and angular to body axis; a pair of internal vocal sac openings on lower jaw; habitus stout, its length nearly half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.47).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; forearm length smaller than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.71); third finger longest; fingers with rounded disc; disc on third and fourth finger nearly equal to tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove present on disc; subarticular tubercles rounded and distinct; supernumerary tubercles present; palmar tubercles distinct, oval shaped; rudimentary webbing present between fingers; nuptial pad not visible.</p><p>Hindlimbs comparatively stout; thigh length and tibia length equal, less than half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.43); foot length greater than thigh and tibia length (TL / FOL = 0.96); fourth toe longest; toes with rounded discs; toe discs width slightly smaller than that of fingers; circum-marginal groove present on discs; subarticular tubercles distinct and rounded; supernumerary tubercles absent; inner metatarsal tubercle present; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; webbing moderate, reaching first subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head smooth with numerous enlarged, distinct spinules including on upper eyelids; similar spinules on loreal region, below eyes, and on mandibular region; skin on dorsum smooth with numerous spinules, which decrease in number posteriorly; flank with flat granular tubercles; ventrum of head and chest smooth; abdomen granular; granules on thigh indistinct; flat tubercles below vent; forelimbs, tibia, and tarsus smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life (based on specimen WII-ADA 1773; Fig. 8 F).</p><p>Top and lateral sides of head brown; tip of snout with enlarged olive-brown patch to below nostrils and vertical pale yellow line at tip of snout; a similarly coloured spot in front of interorbital space; olive-brown stripe on loreal region below canthus rostralis; a similarly coloured patch below eyes, bordered with pale yellow; dark brown iris with irregular golden patches; olive-brown streak along anterior part of supratympanic fold and a few irregular spots on tympanum; dorsum pale yellowish brown with enlarged olive brown hourglass shaped patch, starting from interorbital space and covering posterior half of upper eyelids, posteriorly bifurcating in middle of dorsum, directing towards groin as gradually diffusing; two pale yellowish brown spots on dark patch, one on back of head and another elongated one on anterior part of back; flank pale brown with some irregular small olive-brown spots; dorsum of forelimb pale yellowish brown; broad olive-brown band on forearm; similar patch on base of hands and dorsal aspect of fingers; hindlimbs pale yellowish brown on top with three broad olive-brown, irregular bands on each thigh and tibia; small patch of similar colour on knees; similar bands on tarsus, base of foot, and on dorsal aspect of toes; ventrum of head, abdomen, and limbs uniform pale cream coloured.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head, dorsum, and limbs brown; markings on head, dorsum, and limbs visible as in life; ventrum of head, back and limbs uniform pale brown.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Overall, the newly collected material from the type locality of “ R. sahai ” similar to the types of N. jerdonii . However, following variations were observed among the individuals. Head slightly wider than length in WII-ADA 1773 which is similar to that of holotype of “ R. sahai ” (ZSIA 8500). However, in the paratype (ZSIA 8501) and two newly collected specimens (WII-ADA 3240 and WII-ADA 1770), head length is equal to head width. Snout length is equal to eye length in the type specimens of “ R. sahai ” (ZSIA 8500, ZSIA 8501), but slightly shorter in the newly collected specimens. Snout length greater than eye length in the types of N. jerdonii (BMNH 1947.2.7.84, BMNH 1947.2.7.85). Inter-upper eyelid width greater than upper eyelid width in the types of “ R. sahai ” (ZSIA 8500, ZSIA 8501) and types of N. jerdonii (BMNH 1947.2.7.84, BMNH 1947.2.7.85). Inter-upper eyelid width is equal to the upper eyelid width in WII-ADA 1773 and in two specimens (WII-ADA 3240 and WII-ADA 1770), inter-upper eyelid width is smaller than upper eyelid width. Internarial distance equal to inter-upper eyelid width in the types of “ R. sahai ” (ZSIA 8500, ZSIA 8501) and WII-ADA 1773. Internarial distance equal to inter-upper eyelid width in the types of “ R. sahai ” (ZSIA 8500, ZSIA 8501) and WII-ADA 1773 while internarial distance greater than inter-upper eyelid width in WII-ADA 3240 and WII-ADA 1770. Internarial distance smaller than inter-upper eyelid width in the types of N. jerdonii (BMNH 1947.2.7.84, BMNH 1947.2.7.85). Tibia length smaller than thigh length in types of “ R. sahai ” (ZSIA 8500, ZSIA 8501) and the two topotypes (WII-ADA 3240 and WII-ADA 1770) but thigh length and tibia length equal in WII-ADA 1773. Tibia length greater than thigh length in the types of N. jerdonii (BMNH 1947.2.7.84, BMNH 1947.2.7.85). A detailed morphometric variation of the newly collected material is provided in Table S 11. Dorsal markings on head, dorsum and limbs of the types are barely visible unlike the topotypes. In addition, WII-ADA 3240 has a distinct nuptial pad on the first finger; irregular shaped and sized brown patches present on ventrum of head, chest, and forelimbs of WII-ADA 1770.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Nasutixalus jerdonii is widely reported from northeast India (Biju et al. 2016). It was previously reported from Darjeeling (Günther 1876); Mawphlang Sacred Grove, Wahlynkien (Marai Kaphon), Cherrapunji in Meghalaya; Zaraengtung, Raenghzaeng Village in Manipur; Sechüma village, Zubza, Meriema Village, Seukwehii, Tseminyu Village in Nagaland (Biju et al. 2016); Hmuifang Community Reserve Forest, Murlen National Park in Mizoram (Muansanga et al. 2022). Rahman et al. (2020) reported this species from Ziradum, Myanmar. Zug (2022) reported this species from northern Myanmar (Kachin). During our study, we recorded the species from Gandhigram and near Glaw Lake at Kamlang Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh, and in Hmuifang, Mizoram. At Gandhigram, subadult individuals were recorded on leaves at a height of ~ 20 cm above ground near a small stream ~ 300 cm wide at around 20: 00 hrs. Adult individuals were recorded on leaves at a height of ~ 100 cm above ground at around 22: 00 hrs in September 2022. Calling males were observed active among tree ferns at three meters above ground in late May.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D9FD2D4CC21A53D39EFC44A55031FA96	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
A8146DB7CEE15F44906811784E87F911.text	A8146DB7CEE15F44906811784E87F911.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nasutixalus microdiscus (Annandale 1912) Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Nasutixalus microdiscus (Annandale, 1912) nov. comb.</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Rhacophorus microdiscus Annandale, 1912: 114 .</p><p>Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) microdiscus — Ahl (1931): 57, 121.</p><p>Philautus (Kirtixalus) microdiscus — Dubois (1987): 73.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) microdiscus — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 40.</p><p>Philautus microdiscus — Ahmed et al. (2009): 16.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>What is currently known under Philautus microdiscus (Fig. 9) was originally described by Annandale (1912), based on a single specimen (ZSI 16924), as Rhacophorus microdiscus from Kobo in the foothills of Abor (now in Assam; Fig. 1 A). This species has never been reported since its description. Gorham (1974) synonymized this species with Rhacophorus jerdonii (now Nasutixalus jerdonii) but this was not followed by Dubois (1987) and Bossuyt and Dubois (2001). Gorham (1974) was only followed by Sarkar and Ray (2006). Dubois (1987) placed this species in the genus Philautus under the subgenus Kirtixalus . Later, Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) transferred it to the nominotypical subgenus Philautus . However, Garg et al. (2021) questioned the placement of this species in the genus Philautus . Based on molecular data of bush frogs collected from across northeast India, we argue that there are no species of the genus Philautus (sensu stricto) present in this region.</p><p>After a review of Annandale’s original description and examination of the holotype (ZSI 16924) we provide the following characters for the holotype: small body size (28.7 mm); presence of vomerine teeth; presence of rudimentary webbing on hand; presence of discs on digits. Annandale (1912) mentioned that the disc on the third finger is less than half of the tympanic diameter, but this may be because the specimen was in a dehydrated state as seen on the sketch provided in the original description); granular abdomen and thighs; subtriangular marking on head; concave stripes on dorsum; crossbars on dorsal surface of limbs (Fig. 9); lateral sides of thighs reddish (based on original description).</p><p>The holotype being a small bodied frog (28.7 mm) with a comparatively short rounded snout and discs on the fingers and toes (as with species in Nasutixalus, Philautus, Pseudophilautus, and Raorchestes), from northeast India (as we argue only with Nasutixalus and Raorchestes) with vomerine teeth (absent in Raorchestes) strongly suggests that “ P. microdiscus ” belongs to the genus Nasutixalus Jiang et al., 2016 . Species of the genus Nasutixalus (e. g., N. medogensis) are known to occur in the Adi (= Abor) Hills of Arunachal Pradesh (Biju et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2018). During our field surveys over the past five years we recorded several populations of Nasutixalus in the upper reaches of the Adi Hills and throughout the State of Arunachal Pradesh. These recorded specimens partially match Annandale’s description by the following set of characters: dorsally rounded and laterally nearly truncate snout shape, distinct canthus rostralis, presence of vomerine teeth, distinct tympanum, presence of dorsal stripes, presence of dark bar on inter-upper eyelid space, crossbars on limbs, granular belly, discs on fingers, webbing on foot. Thus, we formally transfer Philautus microdiscus to Nasutixalus microdiscus nov. comb. but acknowledge that further studies involving collecting specimens from the type locality or near the type locality of N. microdiscus and including molecular data for phylogenetic comparisons will be necessary to confirm the identity of these records. In addition, the type localities of N. microdiscus and N. medogensis are 90 km apart. Therefore in the light of these new findings, the identity of N. medogensis needs to be verified. Morphometric measurements of holotype of N. microdiscus taken in this study are provided in Table S 11.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>In the original description, the type locality was given as “ Kobo, at the base of Abor foothills ”. However, species of the genus Nasutixalus are known to occur above 1000 m elevation, while the elevation of Kobo (present day) is below 150 m a. s. l. (Bossuyt and Dubois 2001). It is possible that the specimens were collected from the hills immediately above Kobo in Adi Hills. Fresh material from the area or DNA from the type specimen will help to resolve the true identity of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A8146DB7CEE15F44906811784E87F911	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
A86505ABA5475E28B5030C4CDC0D4FB4.text	A86505ABA5475E28B5030C4CDC0D4FB4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Philautus dubius (Boulenger 1882)	<div><p>Philautus dubius (Boulenger, 1882)</p><p>Synonymy and chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus jerdonii Günther, 1876: 575 .</p><p>Rhacophorus dubius Boulenger, 1882: 81 .</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) dubius — Ahl (1931): 55, 93.</p><p>Philautus (Kirtixalus) dubius — Dubois (1987): 73.</p><p>Philautus jerdonii — Sarkar et al. (1992): 90.</p><p>Rhacophorus dubius — Das and Dutta (1998): 66.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) dubius — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 26.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>What is currently known as Philautus dubius was originally described as Ixalus jerdonii Günther, 1876 (Fig. 11). Boulenger (1882) replaced its name with Rhacophorus dubius when both Polypedates jerdonii (= Nasutixalus jerdonii) and Ixalus jerdonii were transferred to the genus Rhacophorus . The type locality of this species is still unclear, whether it is Darjeeling, West Bengal or the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya (Günther 1875; Bossuyt and Dubois 2001). Günther (1875) mentioned that although the single specimen of this nomen was from T. C. Jerdon’s collection from Darjeeling, the specimen might have been from Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, which Jerdon (1870) had mentioned. Dubois (1987) placed this species in the genus Philautus solely based on the large depigmented eggs present in the holotype. The taxonomic identity of this species remains unknown (Garg et al. 2021).</p><p>The body size (SVL 43.4 mm) of this specimen is larger than any known species of direct developing frogs from northeast India. Furthermore, the specimen has papilla on tongue, dermal fringe present along forearms, and moderate webbing on toes (TII, TIV, TV), and trace of vomerine ridge visible. Therefore this species is a member of other rhacophorid genus and not Philautus . However, fresh samples from the type locality or historical DNA from the type specimen will be helpful to determine the taxonomic identity of this species. In absence of molecular data and topotype, as of now we refrain from transferring the species to any other genus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A86505ABA5475E28B5030C4CDC0D4FB4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
CDF4ACB6595E57559D8078C8ED226CE2.text	CDF4ACB6595E57559D8078C8ED226CE2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes andersoni (Ahl 1927)	<div><p>Raorchestes andersoni (Ahl, 1927)</p><p>Synonymy and chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus tuberculatus Anderson, 1879 “1878”: 845.</p><p>Rhacophorus andersoni Ahl, 1927: 36 .</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) andersoni — Ahl (1931): 53, 67.</p><p>Philautus tuberculatus — Bourret (1942): 178.</p><p>Philautus andersonii — Bourret (1942): 452 (incorrect spelling).</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) andersoni — Bourret (1942): 452.</p><p>Philautus andersoni — Bourret (1942): 526; Ahmed et al. (2009): 15.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) tuberculatus — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 28.</p><p>Aquixalus tuberculatus — Fei et al. (2009): 714.</p><p>Theloderma andersoni — Li et al. (2009): 520.</p><p>Liuixalus tuberculatus — Fei et al. (2012): 513.</p><p>Theloderma (Theloderma) andersoni — Poyarkov et al. (2015): 276.</p><p>Theloderma tuberculatus — Hou et al. (2017): 114.</p><p>Raorchestes andersoni — Chen et al. (2020): 4.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Raorchestes andersoni was originally described by Anderson in 1879 “1878” as Ixalus tuberculatus from Nampoung [= Nanben River] in the centre of the Kakhyen Hills, Yingjiang County, Yunnan, China (Hou et al. 2017). Ahl (1927) gave the replacement name as Rhacophorus andersoni for the nomen I. tuberculatus, as it became a secondary homonym of Polypedates tuberculatus Anderson, 1871, when both species ( I. tuberculatus and P. tuberculatus) were placed in the genus Rhacophorus (see Frost 2025). Bourret (1942) placed this species under the genus Philautus without discussion of Ahl’s (1931) placement of this species under the genus Rhacophorus and subgenus Philautus . Li et al. (2009) placed this species in the genus Theloderma Tschudi, 1838 mentioning its morphological similarity to T. albopunctatum (Liu &amp; Hu, 1962) without further discussion. Later Hou et al. (2017) obtained topotypic specimens of this species and reallocated them to the genus Raorchestes . Hou et al. (2017) provided a photograph of the species and mentioned morphological similarity with topotypic specimens of R. longchuanensis (Yang &amp; Li, 1978) but did not provide a description. Subsequently, Chen et al. (2020) supported this reallocation by Hou et al. (2017) and provided a phylogenetic status of R. andersoni . However, Chen et al. (2020) did not mention about the locality of the sample they referred to as R. andersoni . Raorchestes andersoni has never been reported from the type locality since its original description until Hou et al. (2017) reported it, and the type specimen, which was deposited in the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata is presumed lost (Bossuyt and Dubois 2001; Frost 2025).</p><p>It is worth mentioning that the original sketch of the species provided by Anderson (1878) and, the original description of “ I. tuberculatus ” (on page 845 of Anderson 1878) does not correspond to the sketch provided in figure 7 of plate LXXVIII of Anderson (1878), as reproduced in Figure 12 here. Instead, it corresponds to “ fig. 6 ” on the same plate named as “ I. kakhienensis ”, which was also described in the same communication (page 845 of Anderson 1878). The latter species ( I. kakhienensis) is now a tentative synonym of Amolops afghanus (Gunther, 1858) (Dever et al. 2012; Frost 2025). In the original description of “ I. tuberculatus ” Anderson stated “ a transverse pale yellowish band between the eyes and two similar bands behind the eyes ”. However, this is not shown in “ fig. 7 ”, but two white bars are clearly visible in “ fig. 6 ” and the original description mentioned “ A large black irregular spot on the groin, extending halfway up the side with two yellow spots, the thigh broadly but obscurely banded with dark brown and yellow, one broad band across the middle of the thigh and lower leg ”. But there is no large black irregular spot visible on the groin in “ fig. 7 ” and more than one broad band is clearly present on the thigh and tibia of “ fig. 7 ”. However, the sketch of “ fig. 6 ” has at least one broad band visible on the thigh and tibia. In addition, the original description of the species stated that the hindlimbs are very weekly webbed, with the webbing only extending to the end of the first phalanx. However, more extensive webbing can be seen in “ fig. 7 ” but not in “ fig 6 ”. Thus, a redescription (in which the text matches an image) of the species based on fresh material from the type locality will be helpful in stabilising the taxonomic identity of this species.</p><p>Annandale (1912) reported Raorchestes andersoni from the Adi Hills (Abor Hills), Arunachal Pradesh, India based on morphology. Bourret (1942) discussed the dissimilarity of Annandale’s specimen with the original description. We now refer to this population from Adi Hills as a new species described below. Recently, a few species of Raorchestes have been described from the nearest locality to the type locality of R. andersoni in Yunnan, such as R. hillisi Jiang et al., 2020, R. huanglianshan Jiang et al., 2020, and R. dulongensis Wu et al., 2021 . However, none of these authors discussed the phylogenetic status of R. andersoni . Che et al. (2020) provided a record and phylogenetic status of R. andersoni as “ Raorchestes cf. tuberculatus ” from Tibet. Sen and Mathew (2008) reported one specimen from Nagaland and claimed its distribution in much of northeast India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram). Later, Mathew and Sen (2010) provided photographs of a specimen of Philautus andersoni and maintained its distribution in northeast India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram), but did not include Nagaland in its distribution. Wangyal and Jamtsho (2022) reported R. andersoni from Bhutan based on photographs. Since there is still no molecular data available from an individual from the type locality that matches the original description of this species, these records require further verification and may represent some undescribed species or one of our newly described species from this region.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CDF4ACB6595E57559D8078C8ED226CE2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
D074A3D36C6A597591D505A4786E0906.text	D074A3D36C6A597591D505A4786E0906.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes annandalii (Boulenger 1906)	<div><p>Raorchestes annandalii (Boulenger, 1906)</p><p>Figures 45, 46; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus annandalii Boulenger, 1906: 385 .</p><p>Ixalus annandalei — Annandale (1908): 305; incorrect spelling.</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) annandalii — Ahl (1931): 71.</p><p>Philautus annandalii — Bourret (1942): 451; Gorham (1974): 166; Sarkar et al. (1992): 90; Dutta (1997): 74; Ahmed et al. (2009): 15, 147.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) annandalii — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 38.</p><p>Pseudophilautus annandalii — Li et al. (2009): 519.</p><p>Raorchestes annandalii — Subba et al. (2017): 4, 11; Frost (2025).</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Boulenger (1906) described Raorchestes annandalii from Kurseong, Darjeeling (= Darjiling), West Bengal, India. Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) redescribed the lectotype (BMNH 1947.2. 26.58; female). We re-examined the lectotype at NHM, London and we collected topotypes from Darjeeling. We found the following exception in our collected specimens against the lectotype description by Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 1) head longer than wide (vs. head length equal to width), snout length equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than or equal to eye length); tibia longer than thigh (vs. tibia shorter than or equal to thigh). Based on new information, we provide a revised diagnosis and expanded description of this species.</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Lectotype (BMNH 1947.2. 26.58; Fig. 45) collected by N. Annandale from Kurseong, Darjeeling (= Darjiling), West Bengal .</p><p>Newly collected material.</p><p>Four adult males (WII-ADA 521, WII-ADA 537, WII-ADA 548, WII-ADA 551) and three adult females (WII-ADA 520, WII-ADA 530 and WII-ADA 533) collected by NGP on 23 April 2018 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=88.34717&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.2879" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 88.34717/lat 27.2879)">Ravangla</a> (27.2879°N, 88.34717°E, elevation 1780 m a. s. l.), Namchi District, Sikkim ; one adult male (WII-ADA 2721) and two adult females (WII-ADA 2716 and WII-ADA 2722) collected by NGP on 8 August 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=88.22889&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.02778" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 88.22889/lat 27.02778)">Rock Garden waterfall</a> (27.02778°N, 88.22889°E, elevation 1500 m a. s. l.), Darjeeling District, West Bengal .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A small sized Raorchestes (Fig. 46), SVL 17.3–19.6 mm in adult males and SVL 18.9–21.6 mm in adult females; head length equal to head length; vomerine teeth absent; snout rounded to sub ovoid in dorsal view; snout slightly longer than eye length or equal to eye length (EL / SL = 0.82–1.03); snout length greater than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (SL / IUE = 0.97–1.23); snout length greater than or equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.96–1.15); nostrils equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; dorsal skin on head and dorsum smooth or shagreened; scattered tubercles towards dorsum and flank; dark brown band on inter-upper eyelid space; a pair of concave dark brown stripes on dorsum; brown mottling and white flecks on ventrum.</p><p>Description of a newly collected material (WII-ADA 2721).</p><p>An adult male, small size, SVL 17.3 mm; head as long as wide (HL / HW = 0.98); snout rounded in dorsal view, protruding beyond lower jaw in lateral and ventral views; snout length slightly greater than eye length (EL / SL = 0.92); canthus rostralis rounded, oblique; loreal concave; narial region protruding; internarial distance slightly less than inter upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.91) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.75); inter-upper eyelid space slightly convex; nostril oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented, equidistant between eye and snout tip; eye in moderate size, less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.4), slightly greater than inter upper eyelid width (IUE / EL = 0.92); tympanum barely visible, rounded, one fourth of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.25); supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue posteriorly wide and medially notched, posterior two lobes widely separated; pair of internal vocal sac opening on lower jaw; habitus dorso-ventrally flattened, length more than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.52).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; hand longer than forearm (FAL / HAL = 0.83); relative length fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; fingers with rounded disc; disc on third finger slightly wider than tympanic diameter (HTYD /FIIID = 0.75); circum-marginal groove present on each disc; subarticular tubercles distinct and rounded except the proximal subarticular tubercles on third and fourth finger which small and indistinct; palmar tubercles indistinct; webbing on fingers absent; a fine granular nuptial pad on first finger.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.94) and less than half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.48); relative length toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; rounded disc on toe; disc width equal to that of fingers; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded except the lower subarticular tubercles on toe III – V which are small and indistinct; indistinct inner metatarsal tubercle present and outer one absent; webbing slight, reaching second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Snout and dorsal aspect of head smooth; an indistinct longitudinal ridge on middle of head; lateral aspect of head smooth, a tubercle present on mandibular region; dorsum smooth; flank granular towards ventrolateral aspect, indistinct; forelimbs and hindlimbs smooth on top; on ventrum, throat smooth; posteriorly gular skin granular; chest, and abdomen granular; granules on ventral aspect of thigh indistinct; tibia smooth on ventral aspect.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Head, dorsum and limbs brown on dorsal aspect; anterior part of head to interorbital space slightly paler than posterior part of head and dorsum; loreal region slightly darker; indistinct dark brown patch ventral to eye; a dark-brown stripe below the supratympanic fold; dark brown concave bar on inter-upper eyelid space and dark brown patch posterior to it; pair of concave dark brown stripes on dorsum, starting behind upper eyelid and posterior ends directing towards groin; a broad dark brown crossbar on forearm; similar band on each thigh, tibia, and tarsus; disc on finger and toe yellow; groin, lateral aspect of thigh, inner lateral side of tibia and tarsus reddish-brown; dark brown patch around vent; brown marbling and irregular white flecks on ventral side of head, abdomen and limbs.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Males have a pair of internal vocal sac openings on lower jaw; external subgular vocal sac, and nuptial pad on first finger. Dorsal concave stripes and cross bars may be indistinct in some individuals of this species; tubercle towards flank may be completely absent; Detailed morphometric variations are given in Table S 12.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes annandalii differ from R. andersoni, R. dulongensis, R. hillisi, R. huanglianshan, R. menglaensis, and R. tytthus nov. comb. by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by snout length being greater than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length smaller than eye length); it differs from R. dulongensis by nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second fingers); it differs from R. hillisi and R. huanglianshan by nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.3–19.6 mm (vs. 13.6–14.0 mm); it further differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid by head length being greater than or equal to head width (vs. head wider than long), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.3–19.6 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by absence of black patches on groin and inner lateral aspect of thigh (vs. black patches present on groin and inner lateral side of thigh); it differs R. menglaensis by nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. mindat by the absence of black or white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), by absence of white patches on the lateral side of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on the lateral side of thigh); it differs from R. parvulus absence of dark brown and whitish blotch on groin (vs. dark brown marbling enclosing a whitish blotch present on groin); it differs from R. rezakhani by absence of dark or light pattern on the groin (vs. a short brown streak present on groin), and by snout length being greater than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter upper eyelid width); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by position nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip (vs. nostrils closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length). Morphological comparisons of R. annandalii with newly described species in this study are provided in the morphological comparison section of each respective species and Table 1.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Phylogenetically R. annandalii recovered as basal lineage to three species including R. arunachalensis sp. nov., R. magnus sp. nov. and R. longchuanensis in ML analysis with weak support (Fig. 2). In BI analysis, it is sister to R. mindat with weak support (Fig. 3). The genetic divergence with its congeners included in this study are 3.8–8.2 % in the 16 S, 13.7–19.7 % in the cyt b and 10.0–16.8 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Sarkar et al. (1992) reported this species from Kalimpong, Goomti, Mahanadi, Ghum Bhanjan in Northern West Bengal; Subba et al. (2017) reported it from Sikkim; Srestha (2001), Anders (2002), Khatiwada et al. (2021) and Shah and Tiwari (2004) reported it from Nepal. Calling aggregations were observed on shrubs after the dusk during April – July (Fig. 44 B).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Annandale (1912) reported this species from Mangaldai, Assam; Chanda (1992, 1994) reported this species from Goalpara in Assam and Namdapha in Arunachal Pradesh followed by Sarkar and Ray (2006). Ao et al. (2003) reported this species from Nagaland. However, our sampling across the region shows that R. annandalii is restricted to Sikkim (Ravangla), Darjeeling (Rock Garden Waterfall) and eastern Nepal. Furthermore, the present study suggests that the previous records of this species from Assam (Annandale 1912), Nagaland (Ao et al. 2003) and Arunachal Pradesh (Sarkar and Ray 2006; Mathew and Sen 2010) are erroneous. Wangyal et al. (2020) reported this species from Bhutan, which requires further verification to confirm the identity of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D074A3D36C6A597591D505A4786E0906	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
3240A61F3D105F6EB49DFE52BB0D6BDD.text	3240A61F3D105F6EB49DFE52BB0D6BDD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes arunachalensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 41; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus tuberculatus — Annandale (1912): 7, 17</p><p>Ixalus annandalei — Annandale (1912): 7, 16 (spelling error)</p><p>Raorchestes annandalii — Ohler et al. (2018): 282, 286</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1553) collected by BB on 17 June 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.27059&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.14136" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.27059/lat 28.14136)">Rengging village</a> (28.14136°N, 95.27059°E, elevation 470 m a. s. l.), East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Paratype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1554) collected along with holotype from the same locality .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Two adult females (WII-ADA 676, WII-ADA 677) and four subadult males (WII-ADA 491, WII-ADA 678, WII-ADA 680 and WII-ADA 681) collected by BB and AD on 17 October 2019 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=93.8497&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.34786" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 93.8497/lat 27.34786)">Potin</a> (27.34786°N, 93.84970°E, elevation 580 m a. s. l.), Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one subadult (WII-ADA 1712) collected by BB on 29 October 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.27216&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.06245" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.27216/lat 28.06245)">Balek village</a> (28.06245°N, 95.27216°E, elevation 520 m a. s. l.), East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1308 and WII-ADA 1327) collected by BB and AD on 12 May 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.38949&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.49662" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.38949/lat 27.49662)">Deban</a> (27.49662°N, 96.38949°E, elevation 380 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1336, WII-ADA 1345) collected by BB VJ and AD on 13 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.33134&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.4869" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.33134/lat 27.4869)">Motijheel trail</a> (27.48690°N, 96.33134°E, elevation 660 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1551 and WII-ADA 1552) collected by BB on 16 June 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.15619&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.14113" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.15619/lat 28.14113)">Rottung</a> (28.14113°N, 95.15619°E, elevation 390 m a. s. l.), East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1549 and WII-ADA 1550) collected by BB, KB and DSG on 29 June 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.5377&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.10079" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.5377/lat 27.10079)">Sessa</a> (27.10079°N, 92.53770°E, elevation 1030 m a. s. l.), West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh ; four adult males (WII-ADA 1704 – WII-ADA 1707) collected by BB on 8 August 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.90596&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.15436" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.90596/lat 28.15436)">Mehao nallah</a> (28.15436°N, 95.90596°E, elevation 930 m a. s. l.), Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3203) collected by RNV and SD on 2 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.38569&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.49284" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.38569/lat 27.49284)">Deban</a> (27.49284°N, 96.38569°E, elevation 490 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3215) collected by RNV and SD on 10 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.44037&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.5381" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.44037/lat 27.5381)">Hornbill</a> (27.53810°N, 96.44037°E, elevation 660 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3250) collected by AD, RNV, SD and JDG on 25 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.78273&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.38734" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.78273/lat 27.38734)">70 mile</a> (27.38734°N, 96.78273°E, elevation 870 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3265) collected by AD, RNV, SD and JDG on 29 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.42758&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.46148" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.42758/lat 27.46148)">Kamala Valley</a> (27.46148°N, 96.42758°E, elevation 650 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh ; one subadult (WII-ADA 2537) collected by KB on 27 August 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.41797&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.04747" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.41797/lat 27.04747)">Sessni</a> (27.04747°N, 92.41797°E, elevation 1260 m a. s. l.), West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one subadult (WII-ADA 2548) collected by KB on 28 August 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.41408&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.01314" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.41408/lat 27.01314)">Khellong</a> (27.01314°N, 92.41408°E, 800 m a. s. l.), West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A medium sized Raorchestes, SVL 19.6–26.3 mm in adult males and SVL 22.3–27.7 mm in adult females; vomerine teeth absent; snout rounded to subovate in dorsal view; nostril closer to snout tip than eye; inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; numerous tubercles on head, dorsum and limb intermixed with spinules; prominent bluntly conical tubercles on upper eyelid; a broad dark brown “ X ” marking on dorsum extending to groin; broad dark brown crossbars on forelimb and hindlimb.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype well preserved except for an incision on underside of right thigh. Medium sized Raorchestes, adult male with vocal sac, 24.8 mm in SVL; head length nearly equal to width (HL / HW = 0.97); snout sub-oval in dorsal view, truncated in lateral view, slightly protruding beyond lower jaw in ventral view; snout slightly depressed dorsally at internarial region; snout length less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.81); canthus rostralis distinct, obliqued; loreal region slightly concave; narial region protruding; nostril oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented; nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip; internarial distance less than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.85) and equal to upper eyelid width; eye moderate in size, less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.45); tympanum distinct, rounded less than one fourth of eye length; supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae rounded; tongue posteriorly notched; trunk dorso-ventrally flattened, its length nearly half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.49).</p><p>Forelimbs slender, forearm length nearly equal to hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.94); relative length of fingers = FI &lt;FII &lt;FIV &lt;FIII; fingers with rounded disc; disc on fourth finger widest and wider than tympanic diameter (HTYD /FIVD = 0.63); circum-marginal groove present on discs; palmar tubercles indistinct; subarticular tubercles distinct and rounded, proximal subarticular tubercle on third and fourth fingers smaller than distal ones; enlarged finely granular nuptial pad present on first finger; webbing between fingers absent.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender, thigh slightly longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.96) and more than half of the snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.54); relative length of toes = TI &lt;TII &lt;TIII &lt;TV &lt;TIV; each toe with rounded disc; disc as wide as finger disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; elongated metatarsal tubercle present; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; webbing moderate, reaching second subarticular tubercle of fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and anterior part of head smooth with scattered tubercles; prominent tubercles on upper eyelid; posterior part of the head with dense spinules intermixed with blunt slightly large tubercles; scattered tubercles below loreal region and few prominent tubercles on mandibular region; numerous spinules on dorsum and flank; blunt tubercles scattered among spinules on flank; forelimbs smooth dorsally; hindlimbs smooth dorsally with scattered blunt tubercles; on ventral aspect of throat and chest smooth; abdomen and thigh granular; tibia smooth; tubercles on ventro-lateral aspect of tarsus and forearm.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head, dorsum, limbs greyish brown; indistinct light bar with darker edge present on inter-upper eyelid space a broad dark brown “ X ” mark on dorsum, posterior ends of this marking extending to groin where it is darker; dark brown stripe along supratympanic fold covering tympanum; broad dark stripe on upper jaw ventral to eye; narial region dark brown; a broad dark brown band on forearm, one on base of the hand and one on each third and fourth finger; three broad dark brown crossbars on thigh and tibia; one similar bar on each tarsus and base of foot; irregular dark brown patches on top of foot and toes; dark brown patches on lateral aspect of thigh; enlarged dark brown patch around vent; on ventral aspect of lower jaw, chest, abdomen and limbs whitish; brown mottling along lower jaw; pale yellowish patches on gular area and base of lower arm.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head and dorsum brown; upper eyelid dark grey; markings on head, dorsum and limbs visible as in life; forearm, thigh, and tibia paler than dorsum; hand, tarsus, and foot pale cream coloured dorsally; on ventral aspect, head, abdomen, and limbs pale cream coloured with brown mottling; mottling dense on lower jaw and outer ventro-lateral aspect of forearm.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Males have a pair of internal vocal sac opening on the lower jaw, an external sub gular vocal sac and an enlarged nuptial pad on the first finger. Morphometric variations among the individuals are given in Table S 12. Live colouration varies among individuals; dorsal colour varies as pale yellowish brown, pale brown or greyish brown. Dorsal marking on head, back and limbs may be faint or distinct; paratype (WII-ADA 1554) has pronounced tubercles on head, dorsum, forelimb, and hindlimbs; intensity of spinules on dorsum varies moderate to heavy; some individuals have pair of concave dark stripes on dorsum instead of “ X ” mark; an inverted triangular mark on head present in some individuals; a distinct or indistinct white bar on inter-upper eyelid space may be present; WII-ADA 1308 have a broad white bar across interorbital space covering anterior half of the upper eyelids.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by presence three broad crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single broad band on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. annandalii by presence of dense tubercles on dorsum (vs. skin on dorsum smooth or nearly smooth); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by presence of white and dark brown patches or dark brown patch on yellow background (vs. brown patch on groin present); it differs from R. boulengeri sp. nov. by large body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–26.3 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 17.5–19.1 mm in adult males), by nostrils being closer to snout tip than eye (vs. nostrils equidistant between eye and snout tip); it differs from R. dibangensis sp. nov. and R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. by presence of white and dark-brown patches or dark-brown patch on yellow background on groin (vs. no marking on groin); it differs from R. cinerascens, R. dulongensis, R. hekouensis, R. hillisi, R. leiktho, R. malipoensis, R. mindat, R. parvulus by larger body size, SVL 19.6–26.3 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 16.0 mm in R. cinerascens, 15.0–19.0 mm in R. dulongensis, 16.1–17.5 mm in R. hekouensis, 15.9–17.7 mm in R. hillisi, 15.7–15.8 mm in R. leiktho, 14.6–17.7 in R. malipoensis, 16.7–18.3 mm in R. mindat, 17.0– 18.6 mm in R. parvulus); further the new species differs from R. huanglianshan by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–26.3 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm), and inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. kempiae and R. orientalis sp. nov. by presence of white and dark brown patches or dark brown patch on yellow on groin (short brown streak on groin); it differs from R. khonoma sp. nov. by inter-upper eyelid being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width equal to eye length); it differs from R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. by presence of white and dark brown patches or dark brown patch on yellow on groin (vs. dark brown band with white edge), by presence of three brown crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single broad cross bar on thigh and tibia bordered with white spots); it differs from R. leiktho by presence of white and dark brown patches or dark brown patch on yellow on groin (vs. a short brown bar present on groin), by presence of prominent bluntly conical tubercles on upper eyelid (vs. small pointed spinules present on upper eyelid); it differs from R. longchuanensis and R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by inter-upper eyelid width being smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length); it differs from R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. by large body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–26.3 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 16.0– 18.7 mm in adult males); it differs from R. menglaensis by snout length being equal to or smaller than eye length (snout length longer than eye length); it differs from R. monolithus sp. nov. by presence of three crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. one cross bar on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. nasuta sp. nov. by rounded or sub ovoid snout (vs. snout acute), by presence of white and dark brown patches or dark brown patch on yellow background on groin (vs. yellow patches present on groin); it differs from R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by presence of white and dark brown patches or dark-brown patch on yellow background on groin (vs. no pattern or marking on groin), by dorsum being moderate to heavily tuberculated (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. parvulus by presence of dense tubercles on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum), by thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than or equal to tibia length); it differs from R. rezakhani by presence of white and dark brown patches on groin or dark brown patches on yellow background (vs. a brown short streak on groin); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length). Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov. morphologically close to R. garo, however, tubercles on upper eyelid and behind its much more pronounced than that of R. garo, further the posterior ends of the “ X ” mark on dorsum extends to the groin where it is much darker and broader (vs. dark brown or black marking on groin irregular shaped and sometimes with bright yellow spots). Detailed morphological comparison with the congeners is provided in Table 1. Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov. is morphologically very similar to R. shillongensis . However, mean body size (SVL) of R. arunachalensis sp. nov. (23.57 ± 1.87 mm) is greater than that of R. shillongensis (17.02 ± 1.51 mm). Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov. is distributed in north and east of Brahmaputra Valley while R. shillongensis is distributed only in Khasi Hills of Meghalaya.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Phylogenetically R. arunachalensis sp. nov. has a sister species relationship with an undescribed lineage from Arunachal Pradesh (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3) with genetic divergence of 2–3.6 % in the 16 S, 5.2–9.3 % in the cyt b and 3.9–6.7 % in the COI genes. The genetic divergence with other congeners included in this study is 2.9–7.8 % in the 16 S, 11.8–19.6 % in the cyt b and 7.6–14.3 % in the COI genes (Tables S 7 A – C).</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov. were recorded near Deban, Namdapha Tiger Reserve on 12 May 2022 at 19: 10 hrs and at an ambient temperature of 22.4 ° C. The call description is based on 39 calls from a single individual (WII-ADA 1327). The calls are of a single type, non-pulsatile, emitted in groups (2–33 calls per group) at regular intervals (Fig. 40). The mean call duration is 23.9 ± 1.78 ms (15–25 ms) with call rise time 1.21 ± 0.41 ms (1–2 ms) and a call fall time of 22.63 ± 1.84 ms (14–24 ms). The mean interval between calls is 137.14 ± 7.24 ms (125–158 ms). The mean dominant frequency is 2752.84 ± 108.94 Hz (2411.7–2842.4 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name of the State “ Arunachal Pradesh ” in India where this species is widely distributed across the State.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Arunachal bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes arunachalensis sp. nov. is currently distributed throughout the State of Arunachal Pradesh from West Kameng District in the west, Lower Subansiri District, East Siang District, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary and Namdapha Tiger Reserve in the east, within an elevation range of 380–1260 m a. s. l. (Figs 25 B, 33 H).</p><p>The holotype and the paratype were recorded on shrub at a perch height of approximately two meters above ground in dense bushy thickets; calling individuals were observed on a hillside near a cultivated area in Rottung; in Sessa, we observed calling individuals along roadside vegetation while it was drizzling; calling males were found on shrubs at a height of about one metre above the ground in Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary; in Namdapha Tiger Reserve, we found calling males on woody shrubs upto three meter height along hill slope and near streams. Other sympatric species recorded with this species are R. barakensis sp. nov., R. orientalis sp. nov., Amolops sp., Alcalus fontinalis Boruah et al., 2023, Gracixalus patkaiensis Boruah et al., 2023, Xenophrys ancrae (Mahony, Teeling &amp; Biju, 2013) and Limnonectes sp. in Namdapha Tiger Reserve; Kurixalus naso (Annandale, 1912), Theloderma cf. baibungense, Amolops sp., Ingerana borealis (Annandale, 1912) in Abor hills.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Annandale (1912) most likely reported this species as “ Ixalus tuberculatus ” (= R. andersoni) based on morphology (Fig. S 1). However, the type locality of R. andersoni is in Yunnan, China, approximately 300 km northwest of the nearest locality of R. arunachalensis sp. nov. in Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh (see comments on R. andersoni above).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3240A61F3D105F6EB49DFE52BB0D6BDD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
A373B686842E50CBB75B51954909164B.text	A373B686842E50CBB75B51954909164B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes barakensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes barakensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 28; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 612) collected by BB on 18 April 2019 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.76859&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=24.973743" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.76859/lat 24.973743)">Maruwacherra</a> (24.973744°N, 92.768593°E, elevation 50 m a. s. l.), Cachar District, Assam, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Six adult males (WII-ADA 611, WII-ADA 613 – WII-ADA 617). Collection details are same as for the holotype .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Three adult males (WII-ADA 862, WII-ADA 863 and WII-ADA 865) collected by BB and AD on 2 August 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.8731&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.8312" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.8731/lat 25.8312)">Aramsangram</a> (25.8312°N, 94.8731°E, elevation 1460 m a. s. l.), approximately 1.6 km (aerial distance) northeast to Pungro, Kiphire District, Nagaland ; one adult male (WII-ADA 942) collected by BB, NGP and AD on 4 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.75236&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=23.45357" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.75236/lat 23.45357)">Hmuifang</a> (23.45357°N, 92.75236°E, elevation 1500 m a. s. l.), Aizawl District, Mizoram ; one adult male (WII-ADA 1050) collected by BB, NGP and AD on 13 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.41584&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=23.53537" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.41584/lat 23.53537)">Phuldungsei</a> (23.53537°N, 92.41584°E, elevation 780 m a. s. l.), Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mamit District, Mizoram ; seven adult males (WII-ADA 1335, WII-ADA 1340, WII-ADA 1346 – WII-ADA 1350) collected by BB and AD on 13 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.33256&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.49963" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.33256/lat 27.49963)">Motijheel Trail</a> (27.49963°N, 96.33256°E, elevation 370 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; three adult males (WII-ADA 1451 – WII-ADA 1453) collected by BB, VJ and AD on 20 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.33169&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.50168" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.33169/lat 27.50168)">Gibbons Land</a> (27.50168°N, 96.33169°E, elevation 350 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1643 and WII-ADA 1644) collected by BB on 25 July 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=93.70851&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=24.5954" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 93.70851/lat 24.5954)">Lamdan</a> (24.5954°N, 93.70851°E, elevation 1270 m a. s. l.), Churachandpur District, Manipur ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3207) collected by RNV and SD on 5 May 2023 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.32147&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.50166" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.32147/lat 27.50166)">M’Pen village</a> (27.50166°N, 96.32147°E, elevation 370 m a. s. l.), Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 16.7–21.0 mm in adult males; head length equal to or less than width (HL / HW = 0.89–1.01); snout length less than or equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.82–1.03); nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip or slightly closer to snout tip; internarial distance less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.74–1.0) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.7–0.91); inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length (IUE / EL = 0.72–0.96); vomerine teeth absent; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; blunt tubercles on head, upper eyelid, behind upper eyelid, forearm, thigh, tiba, and tarsus; spinules on dorsum intermixed with blunt tubercles; a brown “) - (“ marking on dorsum; brown crossbars on forearm, thigh and tibia; disc on inner two fingers yellow; bony projection on humerus on ventral aspect.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype in good condition except for an incision on abdomen towards left side and another incision on ventral side of right thigh. Adult male with vocal sac, 20.4 mm in SVL; head length equal to width; snout rounded in dorsal view, truncated in lateral view and slightly protruding beyond lower jaw; canthus rostralis smooth, obliqued; loreal region concave; snout length equal to eye length; nostril oval, laterally positioned, obliquely oriented, slightly closer to snout tip than eye (NS / EN = 0.86); internarial distance slightly smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.88) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.86); internarial region slightly concave; area between nostril and snout tip slightly concave; tympanum distinct, round, its diameter less than one third of eye length; tongue posteriorly wide and deeply notched; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; pair of internal slit like openings present on lower jaw towards edges; symphysial knob present on lower jaw; habitus stout, half of the snout-vent length.</p><p>Forelimbs slender, hand length slightly less than forearm length (HAL / FAL = 0.94), digit with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; third finger longest, relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; disc on third finger largest and slightly wider than tympanic diameter (HTYD /FIIID = 0.73); webbing on hand absent; subarticular tubercles distinct, enlarged and round except proximal ones on third and fourth fingers which are indistinct and smaller; subarticular tubercle formula on fingers I – IV = 1: 1: 2: 2; palmar tubercles indistinct; bony projection on humerus directed ventrally (Fig. 25)</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.51); tibia length nearly equal to thigh length (TBL / TL = 0.97) and longer than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.78); foot length greater than tarsus length (TarL / FOL = 0.70); fourth toe longest, relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc, disc on fourth toe as wide as that of third finger; small inner metatarsal tubercle present and outer one absent; subarticular tubercles enlarged and round except proximal subarticular tubercles of toes III – V which are indistinct and smaller, proximal one on fourth toe barely visible; SAT on toe I – V = 1: 1: 2: 3: 2; webbing among toes small, reaching proximal to second subarticular tubercle of fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout, head and upper eyelid shagreen; few indistinct, flat and rounded tubercles on upper eyelid; loreal region shagreen and ventral to eye smooth; supratympanic fold distinct; two rounded tubercles on mandibular region on each side behind angle of jaw; skin on dorsum shagreen with numerus spinules and intermixed with scattered small blunt tubercles, spinules dense on middle of dorsum and towards the dorsolateral aspect, scattered on anterior part of dorsum and absent towards the posterior part; few small blunt tubercles scattered behind upper eyelid and above supratympanic fold; flank ventro-laterally granular, but indistinct; limbs dorsally smooth with scattered small blunt tubercles on forearm and tibia; area of forelimb insertion granular; on ventral aspect, head smooth; skin on gular region loose; chest smooth; underside of lower arm granular; indistinct, flat and enlarged tubercles along ventral aspect of forearm and continuing to palm proximal to fourth finger; few indistinct flat tubercles on palm; finely granular nuptial pad on first finger; abdomen granular; thigh granular towards base; tibia and tarsus smooth; few flat indistinct tubercles scattered along ventro-lateral aspect of tarsus and base of foot proximal to fifth toe; numerous granular tubercles on ventral aspect of foot.</p><p>Colouration in preservatives.</p><p>Snout and inter-upper eyelid space greyish brown on dorsal aspect; upper eyelid dark grey; posterior part of head slightly paler in middle; loreal region slightly darker brown; dorsum brown, paler towards flank; dark brown “) - (“ mark on dorsum, anterior ends of this marking starts from posterior corner of upper eyelid and above supratympanic fold, posterior ends directing towards groin; forelimb brown dorsally, one dark brown cross bar on forearm and another short one on hand proximal to fourth finger; disc of the two inner fingers are cream coloured dorsally while the disc of the two outer fingers with brown patch or marbling; dorsal aspect of thigh pale yellowish brown with three dark brown crossbars, outer two bars indistinct and incomplete; tibia on dorsal aspect brown with three dark brown crossbars; tarsus and foot slightly paler than tibia; dark brown crossbar on tarsus and another short one on base of foot proximal to fifth toe; two or three indistinct crossbars on fourth and fifth toe; area around vent dark brown; ventrum pale cream coloured, mottled with brown; mottling heavy on chin region and along lower jaw border, less dense on chest, abdomen and lower arm; forearm, palm and fingers heavily mottled with brown; mottling absent on tubercles of hand, forearm, finger and on granules of abdomen; brown mottling darker on tarsus and foot than thigh and tibia and mottling absent on tubercles on tarsus and foot.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Head, dorsum and limbs brown dorsally with scattered tiny dark brown spots; slightly darker patch on inter-upper eyelid space; irregular dark brown patches on both upper and lower jaw and below supratympanic fold; “) - (“ marking on dorsum not visible as on preserved condition which is broken into irregular dark brown patches in life condition; flank slightly paler than dorsum; dark brown crossbars on forelimb and hindlimb distinct; outer crossbars on thigh and shank incomplete; irregular dark brown mottling on hand, finger, foot and toe; disc of first and second finger yellow while disc of the two outer fingers yellow with brown mottling; toe discs pale yellowish brown with dark brown mottling; ventrally flesh coloured with irregular brown mottling; tubercles on forelimb and granules on abdomen pale yellowish; tibia, tarsus, and foot dark brown; irregular pale yellowish patches on thigh and tarsus; flank near groin slightly darker brown; lateral aspect of thigh dark brown.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Morphometric variations among individuals of the species are provided in Table S 12. Dorsal colouration varies greyish brown to pale brown; concave stripes on dorsum and crossbars on limb may be indistinct; intensity of tubercles and spinules on head and dorsum varies among individuals (Fig. 28).</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes barakensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from its congeners included in this study except R. rezakhani by the presence of bony projection on humerus which is absent in other congeners from the region. Detailed comparisons are given in Table 1. Further the new species differs from R. dulongensis by head length being equal to or smaller than width (vs. head longer than wide; it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. huanglianshan and R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 16.7–21.0 mm (vs. 13.6–14.0 mm), and inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 16.7–21 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. longchuanensis, R. yadongensis and R. malipoensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); R. malipoensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length); it further differs from R. mindat by presence of an enlarged brown patch on the groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin); it differs from R. rezakhani by the presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum).</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of Raorchestes barakensis sp. nov. were recorded in its type locality Maruwacherra, Assam on 18 April 2019 at an ambient temperature of 28.5 ° C between 19: 00 hrs and 19: 30 hrs; at Motijheel Trail, Namdapha Tiger Reserve on 13 May 2022 at 18: 30 hrs and an ambient temperature of 23.6 ° C; at Lamdan, Manipur on 25 July 2022 at an ambient temperature of 21.6 ° C at 19: 00 hrs. Call description is based on analyses of 35 calls from three individuals (WII-ADA 613, WII-ADA 1335 and WII-ADA 1643). The calls are single type, pulsatile and mostly emitted at regular intervals rather than in groups (Fig. 24). The mean call duration is 714.0 ± 909.05 ms (91–4464 ms) with 9.05 ± 12.46 pulses per call (2–59 pulses per call) and at pulse rate of 13.15 ± 0.62 pulses / sec (11.73–14.08 pulses / sec). The mean call rise time is 405.14 ± 404.02 ms (72–2327 ms) and the mean fall time is 306.4 ± 594.49 ms (19–2137 ms). The mean pulse duration is 19.69 ± 9.14 ms (10–34 ms) and the mean pulse period is 77.82 ± 39.44 ms (30–92 ms). The mean interval between calls is 1094.44 ± 638.54 ms (534–2281 ms). The mean dominant frequency is 3718.47 ± 119.97 Hz (3445.3–3832.9 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes barakensis sp. nov. is sister to R. jakoid (UFB 100, PP 0.99; Figs 2, 3) with genetic divergence of 4.5–5.9 % in the 16 S. The genetic divergence with other congeners included in this study is 3.6–7.6 % in the 16 S, 13.8–21.2 % in the cyt b and 10.1–16.8 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name of the river “Barak” in Assam. The type locality of this species lies in Barak valley.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Barak Valley bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>The new species is widely distributed in the hills ranging south of Brahmaputra valley within an elevation range 50–1500 m a. s. l. (Fig. 25 A). Currently this species is recorded from in and around Barail Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam; Aramsangram in the state of Nagaland; Hmuifang and Dampa Tiger Reserve in Mizoram; Lamdan in Manipur to Namdapha Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh. We found individuals of this species calling from shrubs, and bamboo thickets at lower perch heights of approximately one metre above ground.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A373B686842E50CBB75B51954909164B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
0415707FE17454A1B9AD0BD7CBFF3A6B.text	0415707FE17454A1B9AD0BD7CBFF3A6B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes boulengeri Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes boulengeri sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 27; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1539) collected by BB on 2 June 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=91.69745&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.27696" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 91.69745/lat 25.27696)">Cherrapunji</a> (25.27696°N, 91.69745°E, elevation 1380 m a. s. l.), approximately one kilometre east of Nohkalikai Waterfall, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Three adult males (WII-ADA 1540, WII-ADA 1541 and WII-ADA 1542). Collection details are the same as for the holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, adult male, SVL 17.5–19.1 mm; female unknown; head length equal to width; vomerine teeth absent; snout rounded in dorsal view; snout length less than or equal to eye length; snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width; nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip; bluntly conical tubercles on dorsal aspect of head, upper eyelid, behind eyelid, dorsolateral aspect of trunk, on dorsal aspect of tibia, and tarsus; spinules on dorsum; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; pair of concave dark brown stripes on dorsum; crossbars on forearm, thigh, and tibia; lower arm orange yellowish; supratympanic fold pale yellowish; finger disc yellow; irregular sized white patches on axilla, groin and abdomen.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype is in good condition except for an incision under right thigh; adult male with vocal sacs, SVL 17.9 mm, overall specimen in good condition, a small portion of muscle from ventral side of right thigh was sampled. Body slender, dorsoventrally flattened, head oval in shape, dorsoventrally flattened, length equal to width; snout rounded in dorsal view, acute in lateral view, slightly protruding beyond lower jaw; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue posteriorly broad and slightly notched medially at posterior end; pair of slit like openings on lower jaw; snout length slightly less than eye length; canthus rostralis distinct, rounded and vertical; loreal region concave; inter-upper eyelid space flat; narial region slightly raised; internarial distance slightly less than inter-upper eyelid width (INS/ IUE = 0.87) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW /INS = 0.75); nostril oval, laterally positioned, obliquely oriented, equally positioned between eye and snout tip; eye moderate in size (EL / HL = 0.45), protruding in life condition; tympanum barely visible, (HTYD / EL = 0.3); supratympanic fold distinct; trunk slender, dorsoventrally flattened, less than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.45).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; forearm slightly longer than hand length; digits with rounded disc, disc on third and fourth finger slightly wider than tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove on disc present; palmar tubercles barely visible; indistinct flat granules present on palm; subarticular tubercles large distinct and round, proximal ones on finger III and IV smaller than distal subarticular tubercles; subarticular tubercles on finger I – IV = 1: 1: 2: 2; enlarged nuptial pad on first finger; relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; webbing among fingers absent.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length nearly equal to tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.97) and half of the snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.49); tibia longer than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.89); toes with rounded disc; relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;V &lt;III &lt;IV; circum-marginal groove present on toe disc; disc on fourth toe as wide as disc on finger III and IV; elliptical inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer one absent; subarticular tubercles visible, round (1: 1: 2: 3: 2); webbing slight, not reaching second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Dorsal skin on head nearly smooth, upper eyelid granular with indistinct blunt tubercles; few tubercles on mandibular region posterior to angle of jaw; tubercles above supratympanic fold and above axilla running dorso-laterally to middle of the trunk; flank granular, becoming distinct ventro-laterally; tubercles and spinules on head and dorsum in preserved condition not distinct as in life; tubercles on forelimb and hindlimb not visible in preserved condition unlike in life; gular skin loose; skin on chest, abdomen, and on ventral aspect of thigh granular, but granules not as distinct on abdomen; ventral side of forelimbs with barely visible flat granules to palm; tibia and tarsus smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Head dorsally brown; anterior part of inter-upper eyelid space slightly reddish brown; indistinct, brown inverted triangular mark on head starting from inter-upper eyelid space and extending posteriorly; dorsum reddish brown, pair of broad dark brown stripes on dorsum, inwardly curved and outer margins diffused toward flank, starting from posterior end of upper eyelid, extending up to groin; tip of tubercles on head, upper eyelid, dorsum and flank white; lateral aspect of head pale greyish brown with brown mottling on it, small irregular white and faint brown patches on lips; supratympanic fold cream coloured, lower end broad, faint brown stripe in front of supratympanic fold staring from posterior corner of the eye to angle of jaw; lateral aspect trunk pale greyish brown with pinkish tinge and brown mottling on it; few large white patches on groin, ventrolateral aspect of flank and axilla; lower arm dorsally orange yellow, forearms and hands pale brown; a slightly darker crossbar on forearm; finger disc yellow, brown mottling on fourth finger disc; hind limb pale brown, short dark brown crossbars on thigh, tibia, and tarsus, base of thigh dorsally pale yellowish, tibio-tarsal articulation and outer lateral aspect of tarsus reddish brown; disc of inner three toes yellow; ventrally gular region with brown and white mottling, abdomen with irregular white patches and brown mottling.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsally head pale brown; upper eyelid dark grey; a slightly darker greyish brown reversed triangular mark on head, staring between upper eyelids extending posteriorly, posterior end of the marking diffused; loreal region slightly darker, remaining lateral aspect of head paler; dorsum anteriorly pale brown, pair of pale cream coloured broad stripes, inwardly curved, both stripes merge and diffused posteriorly; forelimb, hindlimb, and digital discs dorsally pale yellowish with brown mottling; faint brown crossbars on forearm, thigh, and tibia. Ventrally pale yellowish with brown mottling.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Detailed morphometric variations are provided in Table S 12. In addition, pair of stripes on dorsum prominent in the paratypes than holotype; tubercles behind upper eyelid and spinules on dorsum prominent in WII-ADA 1541 than that of other paratypes and holotype; crossbar on forearm and tibia prominent in WII-ADA 1542 than that of other type specimens; skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head shagreen in WII-ADA 1540 and WII-ADA 1541; snout tip slightly more pronounced in WII-ADA 1541 than holotype and other paratypes.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes boulengeri sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by head length being equal to width (vs. head length less than width), position nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. annandalii by presence of dark brown and white patches on groin (vs. no pattern on groin), presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by snout length being greater than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length equal to inter-upper eyelid width), position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. dulongensis by head length being equal to head width (vs. head longer than its width), nuptial pad present on first finger in males (vs. nuptial pad absent); it differs from R. garo by smaller body size, SVL 17.5–19.1 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 19.9–26.9 mm in adult males); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. hillisi and R. menglaensis by head length being equal to head width (vs. head longer than wide), snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. huanglianshan by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.5–19.1 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm), and inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.5–19.1 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm), position of nostril equidistant from eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. longchuanensis and R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by inter-upper eyelid width being smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length); it differs from R. mindat by presence of comparatively smaller white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), absence of white patches on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. parvulus by thigh length greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length smaller than or equal to tibia length), three crossbars present on thigh and tibia (vs. one on thigh and one or two on tibia); it differs from R. rezakhani by head length being equal to width (vs. head wider than long), snout length being greater than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. shillongensis by presence of dense spinules on back (vs. skin on dorsum moderately or heavily tuberculated); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout longer than eye length), position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); morphologically R. boulengeri sp. nov. is close to R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. A detailed morphological comparison of this species with its congeners is summarized in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. boulengeri sp. nov. recorded in its type locality on 2 June 2022 at 18: 15 hrs at an ambient temperature of 25.9 ° C. The call description is based on 40 calls from the holotype (WII-ADA 1539). The calls are single type, non-pulsatile (Fig. 24), emitted as a single call at the beginning and gradually modified in groups (2 calls per group). The mean call duration is 25.03 ± 3.48 ms (20–31 ms) with a rise time of 1 ms and fall time of 24.1 ± 3.47 ms (20–30 ms). The mean interval between calls is 187.06 ± 13.18 ms (173–216 ms) when calls were emitted in groups. The dominant frequency is 3740.33 ± 20.81 Hz (3703.7–3789.8 Hz). The call of R. boulengeri sp. nov. differs from the call of its sister species R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. by the following characters: call duration of R. boulengeri sp. nov. is generally longer, 20–31 ms (vs. call duration 13–20 ms), inter-call interval is lower, 173–216 ms (vs. inter-call interval 1127–2133 ms), and peak frequency range is lower, 3703–3789 Hz (vs. 4263–4608 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes boulengeri sp. nov. is sister to R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. (Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence between these two species is 2.5–2.9 % in the 16 S, 3.9–4.4 in the cyt b, and 3.6–3.9 % in the COI genes. The genetic divergence of R. boulengeri sp. nov. with other congeners varied between 3.4–9.8 % in the 16 S, 9.3–18.0 % in the cyt b and 6.0–14.6 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>This species is named after George Albert Boulenger for his contribution to Indian herpetology, particularly bush frogs.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Boulenger’s bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes boulengeri sp. nov. is currently known only from the type locality (Fig. 25 A). Calling individuals of this species were recorded on shrubs and bamboo thickets in a small isolated forest patch. The forest patch was surrounded by grasslands. A small stream was present approximately 300 m west of the forest. Other sympatric anuran species recorded in the area were Amolops sp. and Minervarya sp.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0415707FE17454A1B9AD0BD7CBFF3A6B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
36B523572C3C5874B7AB0CC3C56AC8B6.text	36B523572C3C5874B7AB0CC3C56AC8B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes cinerascens (Stoliczka 1870) Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes cinerascens (Stoliczka, 1870) nov. comb.</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus cinerascens Stoliczka, 1870: 275 .</p><p>Ixalus cinerascens — Sclater (1892 a): 347; Sclater (1892 b): 20; Annandale (1908): 305.</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) cinerascens — Ahl (1931): 75.</p><p>Philautus cinerascens — Broadley (1971): 112; Chanda et al. (2000): 112; Zug (2022): 42.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) cinerascens — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 23.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Philautus cinerascens (Fig. 14) was described by Stoliczka (1870) based on specimens collected by W. Theobald from “ Atran River, east of Moulmein (Tanintharyi Division) ”, Myanmar. Annandale (1913) mentioned the type locality as “ probably the Dawna Hills inland from Moulmein ”. Since its description, there is no further report of this species from the type locality. The original voucher numbers for the specimens were not mentioned in Stoliczka (1870). Stoliczka (1872) mentioned that this species was described based on two specimens from Moulmein. However, Chanda et al. (2000) mentioned that there are four syntypes under the number “ ZSIC 2716 ”. Although this species was described based on multiple specimens (Bossuyt and Dubois 2001), only a single type specimen is mentioned in the literature (e. g., Anderson 1871; Sclater 1892 a, 1892 b; Annandale 1908, 1913). Sclater (1892 b) gave the voucher number “2716” and called it the “ type of the species ”. We found four specimens (Fig. 14) with the same voucher number “ ZSI 2716 ” at ZSI, Kolkata. As these specimens are in a bad state of preservation, only a few characters could be examined. Among the four specimens, the largest specimen (SVL 16 mm) can be assigned to the genus Raorchestes based on the following morphological characters and geographical distribution of Philautus sensu stricto: 1) vomerine teeth absent, 2) absence of serrated dermal fringe along forearms and tarsus, 3) absence of light coloured dorsolateral stripes along the dorsum, 4) absence of calcar. The original description corresponds to this specimen, where Stoliczka (1870) mentioned the size of this specimen as “ ¾ of an inch ” and as the largest of the specimens. Sclater (1892 a) and Annandale (1913) also mentioned this specimen as “ a true Ixalus ”. However, the other three specimens differ from the “ type ” and no doubt belong to one or more rhacophorid genera but not Raorchestes or Philautus . These three specimens have smooth skin on the dorsal surface of the head, dorsum, and limbs; abdominal skin indistinctly granular; thigh ventrally smooth. Most importantly, these three specimens have much longer hind limbs. One which we measured (Fig. 14 G, H) has a femur length 60 % of the SVL (13.9 mm) and a tibia length of 62 % of SVL. At this stage it is not possible to assign these three specimens to any genus due to the condition of the specimens. We propose to consider the largest type specimen (ZSI 2716) as Raorchestes (Fig. 14 E, F) which corresponds to the original description, and because Sclater (1892 a) and Annandale (1913) referred to this specimen as the type for the nomen and as a “ true Ixalus ”. Thus, based on the above-mentioned morphological characteristics, we transfer Philautus cinerascens to Raorchestes cinerascens nov. comb. Consequently, we designate this specimen as the lectotype for Raorchestes cinerascens nov. comb. However, the status of the other three specimens will remain pending. To stabilize the taxonomy of this specimen and the other three syntypes, a redescription based on the newly collected material from the type locality is necessary.</p><p>Description of lectotype.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 16 mm (Fig. 14 E, F); lower jaw broken anteriorly; both the forelimbs broken at elbow; left hind limb broken at groin and tibiotarsal articulation; right hindlimb broken at knee and toes completely damaged; longitudinal incision on belly. Snout rounded in dorsal and ventral aspect; canthus rostralis indistinct; vomerine ridge or teeth absent; tympanum indistinct; supratympanic fold distinct; finger disc rounded, circummarginal groove present; thigh length slight greater than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.98); toe disc rounded, with circummarginal groove; skin on dorsal aspect of head, dorsum and limbs smooth; a few indistinct tubercles on upper eyelids and posterior part of head behind upper eyelids; on ventral aspect, gular region and chest smooth; belly and thigh granular; tibia smooth on ventral aspect.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head, dorsum and limbs brown, slightly paler towards flank and base of the hindlimb; ventral aspect nearly uniform brown but slightly paler than the dorsal colour. Except slightly dark patch on groin and slightly dark and single broad cross bar on thigh and tibia, other colour pattern such as dark bar on inter-upper eyelids space, stripes on dorsum; bands on forearms, silvery tinge encircling dark patch on groin as mentioned in the original description are not visible now.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/36B523572C3C5874B7AB0CC3C56AC8B6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
74724658FC445BD9B1BD8A71A10C8F84.text	74724658FC445BD9B1BD8A71A10C8F84.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes dibangensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes dibangensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 35; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1677) collected by BB on 7 August 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.89392&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.09974" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.89392/lat 28.09974)">Abango</a> (28.09974°N, 95.89392°E, elevation 410 m a. s. l.), Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Paratype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1671) collected along with holotype from the same locality .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A small sized Raorchestes, SVL 19.6–21.8 mm in adult males, female unknown; head length equal to width; snout rounded, its length equal to or less than eye length; tympanum indistinct; small blunt tubercles on upper eyelid; spinules on middle of dorsum, above supratympanic fold, flank and sparsely present on limb; two indistinct crossbars on thigh and tibia; dorsum pale brown with a pair of faint concave stripes, posterior ends of these stripes distinct near groin; white bar present on inter-upper eyelid space in some individuals; small white spots visible on abdomen in life.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype well preserved except for an incision on underside of right thigh; small sized. Adult male with vocal sac, SVL 21.8 mm; head length equal to width; snout rounded in dorsal view and nearly truncated in lateral view, its length (2.9 mm) equal to eye length (2.9 mm); nostril obliquely oval in shape, laterally positioned and oblique, closer to snout tip than eye (NS / EN = 0.69); narial region raised; canthus rostralis smooth, obliqued; loreal region concave; internarial distance equal to inter-upper eyelid width and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.68); tympanum indistinct, round, less than one third of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.28); supratympanic fold distinct; tongue posteriorly wide and deeply notched; small flat tubercles on tongue; choanae oval; vomerine teeth absent; a pair of slit like openings on lower jaw near angle of jaw; symphysial knob present on lower jaw.</p><p>Habitus slender, dorso-ventrally flattened, less than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.44); forelimb slender; hand length greater than forearm length (FAL / HAL = 0.86); digit with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; third finger longest, relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; disc on third finger wider than tympanic diameter (HTYD /TIIID = 0.73); palmar tubercles barely visible; subarticular tubercles rounded, proximal ones on third and fourth finger smaller than distal ones and indistinct; no webbing among the fingers; finely granular nuptial pad on first finger; hindlimb slender; thigh longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.94) and nearly half snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.48); fourth toe longest; toe with rounded disc, disc width equal to those of fingers; relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III = V &lt;IV; no dermal fringe along fifth toe; webbing slight, not reaching the second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe; small inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer one absent; subarticular tubercles round, proximal subarticular tubercles on toe III – V barely visible; no supernumerary tubercles.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head smooth; snout on dorsal aspect and upper eyelids shagreen; indistinct tubercles on upper eyelid; at least two blunt tubercles on mandibular region, behind angle of jaw; spinules on dorsolateral aspect of trunk and middle of dorsum, starting above posterior part of supratympanic fold, few scattered on anterior and posterior part of dorsum; flank, forelimb and hindlimb smooth on dorsal aspect; throat and chest smooth; gular skin loose; abdomen granular; thigh granular but not as distinct as on abdomen; tibia smooth on ventral aspect.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head brown; pale white bar on inter-upper eyelid space followed by a slightly darker inverted triangular mark on head; upper eyelid dark grey; loreal region darker than dorsal aspect of head; supratympanic fold dark brown; dorsum darker than head, paler on flank; forelimb pale brown on dorsal aspect; a slight dark brown crossbar on forearm; a similar short bar on hand below fourth finger; hindlimbs pale brown dorsally, slightly darker towards knee; single dark brown cross bar on each thigh; a single cross bar on left tibia and two on right tibia; two crossbars on each tarsus, faint; a short dark brown bar on foot below fifth toe; area around vent darker; chin, throat, chest, abdomen, ventral aspect of limb, hand, and feet creamy white with brown mottling, chin towards the edge of lower jaw heavily mottled.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Head and body and limbs on top pale greyish brown; a broken pale white bar on inter-upper eyelid space; iris whitish with brown spots and irregular wavy brown lines, golden mottling on upper half of it; a pair of barely visible, faint brown concave stripes on dorsum; single faint brown crossbar on forearm; similar two crossbars on each thigh and tibia and single cross bar on tarsus towards distal end; disc on inner two fingers and inner two toes yellow; ventral aspect of head, abdomen and limbs pale flesh coloured with brown mottling; vocal sac pale yellow and pale semi-transparent,; white spots of irregular size on granules of abdomen; irregular white spots on thigh, tibia, tarsus, and forearm.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Morphometric details are given in Table S 12. The paratype does not have a white bar on inter-upper eyelid space; crossbars on limbs not visible in preserved condition unlike holotype; lower jaw and chest heavily mottled with brown unlike holotype.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes dibangensis sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by head length being equal to width (vs. head wider than length); R. annandalii by presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. skin on dorsum smooth); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by absence of pattern on groin (vs. enlarged brown patch on groin), two indistinct crossbars present on thigh and tibia (vs. three narrow bands present on thigh and tibia), concave stripes on dorsum indistinct or not visible (vs. concave stripes on dorsum distinct); it differs from R. boulengeri sp. nov., R. dulongensis, R. hekouensis, R. hillisi, R. malipoensis and R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. by larger body size, SVL 19.6–21.8 mm in adult males (vs. 17.5–19.1 mm in R. boulengeri sp. nov., 15.0–19.0 mm in R. dulongensis, 16.1–17.5 mm in R. hekouensis, 15.9–17.7 mm in R. hillisi, 14.6–17.7 mm in R. malipoensis and 16.0– 18.7 mm in R. mawsynramensis sp. nov.); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by dense spinules on middle of dorsum. (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum), by presence of two indistinct crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. three crossbars on thigh and tibia), absence of blotch or pattern on groin (vs. a spot partially encircled by yellow tinge on groin); it differs from R. garo by absence of enlarged dark brown patches and yellow spots on groin and thigh (vs. present); it differs from R. huanglianshan and R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–21.8 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm), inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid greater than eye length), and thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length) and thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. by nostril being closer to snout tip than eye (vs. nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip), absence of pattern or blotch on groin (dark brown stripe with white spots), concave stripes on dorsum indistinct (vs. broad dark brown concave stripes on dorsum); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–21.8 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. menglaensis by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and head length being equal to its width (vs. head longer than wide); it differs from R. mindat by larger body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–21.8 mm (vs. SVL 16.7–18.3 mm), dark or white patches absent on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), and absence of white patches on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. nasuta sp. nov. by rounded snout (vs. snout acute), head length being equal to width (vs. head longer than wide); it differs from R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by presence of dense spinules on the middle of dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum), presence of two indistinct crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single broad crossbar on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. orientalis sp. nov. by concave stripes on dorsum and crossbars on limbs being faint or not visible (vs. concave stripes on dorsum and crossbars on limbs distinct), absence of blotch or pattern on groin (vs. a short brown stripe on groin); it differs from R. parvulus by larger body size in adult males, SVL 19.6–21.8 mm (vs. SVL 17.0– 18.6 mm), thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length smaller than or equal to tibia length); differs from R. rezakhani by head length being equal to width (vs. head wider than long); it differs from R. shillongensis by presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. blunt tubercles present on dorsum); it differs from R. yadongensis by head length being equal to width (vs. head wider than long). Raorchestes dibangensis sp. nov. is morphologically close to R. kempiae . A detailed morphological comparison with other congeners is presented in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. dibangensis sp. nov. were recorded in Abango, Arunachal Pradesh on 7 August 2022 at 18: 30 hrs. The call description is based on 40 calls of the paratype (WII-ADA 1671). The calls are pulsatile, single type, emitted at regular intervals, not in groups (Fig. 31). The amplitude of the calls increases gradually. The number of pulses per call varies from 2 to 3 (2.28 ± 0.45 pulses / call), call starts with two pulses and after attaining maximum amplitude the number of pulses per call increases to three. The mean call duration is 69.1 ± 21.29 ms (58–127 ms) with a rise time of 34.73 ± 21.06 ms (1–50 ms) and a fall time of 42.6 ± 48.11 (11–126 ms). Call rise time is longer when calls consist of two pulses and shorter when there are three pulses. Conversely, call fall time decreases when the calls have two pulses and increases when the calls consist of three pulses. The mean call interval between calls is 291.05 ± 119.17 ms (48–514 ms). The pulse duration varies between 10–15 ms (13.22 ± 1.69 ms) with a pulse rate of 18.68 ± 1.59 pulses / sec (16.95–22.22 pulses / sec). The mean dominant frequency is 3275 ± 51.14 Hz (3143.8–3316.1 Hz). Raorchestes dibangensis sp. nov. have comparatively longer call rise time than its sister species R. kempiae (call rise time 1–50 ms in R. dibangensis sp. nov. vs. call rise time 1 ms R. kempiae). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes dibangensis sp. nov. is sister to R. kempiae (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3). These two species have genetic divergence of 2.6–3.3 % in the 16 S gene. The genetic divergence with its congeners included in this study are 4.6–9.3 % in the 16 S, 9.0–19.6 % in the cyt b and 5.0–15.6 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name of the river “Dibang” in Arunachal Pradesh. The type locality of this species lies in the Dibang valley.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Dibang Valley bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Currently this species is known from the type locality (Fig. 19 B). On 7 August 2022, two calling individuals were recorded from a degraded forest patch, along the bank of Simari River, on the opposite side of Abango Village (Fig. 33 B). The individuals were calling from a leaf approximately one metre above ground around 18: 00 hrs. The habitat at the recorded site was degraded vegetation with climbers and large trees. The type locality is approximately one kilometre southwest of Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/74724658FC445BD9B1BD8A71A10C8F84	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
4BBF2F8A6B825B498160D97E8F7C832A.text	4BBF2F8A6B825B498160D97E8F7C832A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes eaglenestensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes eaglenestensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 39; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>Adult male (WII-ADA 1619) collected by BB, KB and DSG on 7 July 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.40599&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.06641" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.40599/lat 27.06641)">Bompu camp</a> (27.06641°N, 92.40599°E, elevation 1970 m a. s. l.), Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Eight adult males (WII-ADA 1612 – WII-ADA 1618, WII-ADA 1626) collected from the same locality and same date as the holotype by BB, KB and DSG .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Three adult males (WII-ADA 1556 – WII-ADA 1558) collected by BB and KB on 30 June 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.46007&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.17112" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.46007/lat 27.17112)">Glow Bari</a> (27.17112°N, 92.46007°E, elevation 2160 m a. s. l.), approximately 5 km north of Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh ; two adult females (WII-ADA 2513 and WII-ADA 2514) and one adult male (WII-ADA 2518) collected by KB on 23 August 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.4005&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.07193" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.4005/lat 27.07193)">Bompu camp</a> (27.07193°N, 92.4005°E, elevation 2000 m a. s. l.), Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 18.8–23.6 mm in adult males and SVL 21.9–22.8 mm in adult females; head length equal to width or slightly less than width in males (HL / HW = 0.93–1.01) and head longer than wide in females (HL / HW = 1.07); vomerine teeth absent; snout rounded to sub-oval, its length slightly less than or equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.85–1.0); nuptial pad present on first finger; blunt tubercles on top of head, upper eyelid, dorsum and dorsal surface of limb; pair of olive brown, concave stripes on dorsum; a broad brown crossbar on forearm; three crossbars on thigh and tibia.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype is well preserved except for an incision on underside of right thigh. Snout-vent length 22.1 mm; head slightly wider than long; depression on dorsal aspect of snout between internasal region and snout tip; snout rounded in dorsal view and nearly acute in lateral view, slightly protruding beyond lower jaw, blunt tubercular projection on snout tip; its length less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.9); canthus rostralis rounded, obliqued; loreal region concave; nostril oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented; nostrils equally positioned between eye and snout tip; eye moderate in size, length less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.41); tympanum round, distinct, nearly one third of the eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.29); supratympanic fold distinct; internasal distance less than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.85) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.7); choanae oval; vomerine teeth absent; tongue posteriorly notched and posterior lobe on right side shorter than lobe on left side; pair of slit like openings present on lower jaw; trunk dorso-ventrally flattened, slender, half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.51).</p><p>Forelimbs slender, forearm shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.72); relative length fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; finger with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove on disc present; disc of the fingers II – IV wider than tympanic diameter; webbing absent; subarticular tubercles rounded and enlarged except the proximal subarticular tubercle on third and fourth finger which smaller and indistinct; subarticular tubercles on fingers I: II: III: IV = 1: 1: 2: 2; palmar tubercles not visible; finger without lateral dermal fringe; fine granular nuptial pad present on base of first finger covering inner lateral and dorsal surface, supernumerary tubercles absent.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender, thigh length half of the snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.5); relative length toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; tibia length equal to thigh length and longer than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.84); toe with rounded disc; disc width equal to those of fingers; circum-marginal groove present; subarticular tubercles rounded, proximal subarticular tubercles on toe III – V smaller and indistinct; indistinct inner metatarsal tubercle present; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; supernumerary tubercles absent; no dermal fringe along toe V; webbing slight, reaching below second subarticular tubercle of fourth toe.</p><p>Smooth skin on dorsal aspect of snout, upper eyelids and head; three tubercles in a longitudinal straight line on middle of head; indistinct tubercles on upper eyelid; few prominent tubercles on mandibular region behind angle of jaw; tubercles scattered dorsal to supratympanic folds, on dorsum and spreading to flank; tubercles absent on posterior part of dorsum; forelimb and hindlimb smooth dorsally; tubercles on limb not visible as in life condition; throat, chest, ventral aspect of forelimb and tibia smooth; abdomen granular, indistinct; granules on thigh barely visible.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal surface of head, dorsum and limbs pale reddish brown; upper eyelids pale grey; lateral aspect of head pale-greyish with reddish tinge; iris dark brown, speckled with golden, heavily speckled dorsally; inverted triangular patch on dorsal surface of head covering inter-upper eyelid space and posterior part of head; a broad “ X ” shaped, olive-brown coloured pattern on dorsum; indistinct cross bar on forearms; similar bars on dorsal surface of hand and outer two fingers; three broad crossbars on thigh and tibia; similar bars on dorsal surface of foot and outer three toes; disc on inner two fingers and inner three toes yellow, rest of the discs reddish with brown mottling; on ventrum, head, abdomen and limbs flesh-coloured with brown mottling; enlarged white blotches on chest and abdomen; lateral side of thigh pale-reddish.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal surface of snout and lateral aspect of head pale brown; slightly dark brown stripe on loreal region; upper eyelids dark grey; large dark brown patch on head; dark brown spots on upper jaw, below eyes to mandibular region; posterior part of head to anterior part of dorsum pale yellowish brown, posteriorly dorsum slightly darker; a “ X ” shaped dark brown mark on dorsum, its anterior ends starts from posterior corner of upper eyelid, posterior ends broader and directed towards groin; forelimbs pale yellowish brown, a broad brown cross bar on forearm; irregular sized, brown patches on top of hands and two outer fingers; hindlimb pale yellowish brown; three broad crossbars on each thigh and tibia; similar bars on tarsus and foot and outer three toes; an enlarged dark brown patch on vent area; throat, chest, abdomen, ventral aspect forelimb and hindlimb pale cream coloured with brown mottling.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>In males head length equals to width or slightly smaller than width vs. head longer than head width in female; a subgular vocal sac present in males; a pair of internal vocal sac openings present on lower jaw and a nuptial pad present in males. Snout shape varies among the individuals from rounded to sub-oval; in some individuals, a white bar on head connecting the upper eyelids was observed; irregular shaped and sized yellow spots present on head, back and limbs present in some individuals. Morphometric variations are provided in Table S 12.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes eaglenestensis sp. nov. differs from R. annandalii by snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than or equal to eye length); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by absence of extra bone on humerus (vs. an extra bone present on humerus); it differs from R. boulengeri sp. nov., R. mawsynramensis sp. nov., and R. orientalis sp. nov. by presence of distinct tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by absence of enlarged dark and light patches on groin (vs. spot partially encircled by yellow tinge on groin); it differs from R. dibangensis sp. nov. by presence of distinct bunt tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum), presence of three broad crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. two indistinct crossbars on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. dulongensis by presence of nuptial pad on first finger (vs. nuptial pad absent); it differs from R. garo by absence of dark brown patches on groin and thigh (vs. present), dorsum with blunt tubercles (vs. dorsum with spinules); it differs from R. hekouensis, R. hillisi and R. malipoensis by larger body size, SVL 18.8–23.6 mm in adult males (vs. 16.1–17.5 mm in R. hekouensis, 15.9–17.7 mm in R. hillisi and 14.6–17.7 mm in R. malipoensis); it differs from R. huanglianshan, R. menglaensis, and R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 18.8–23.6 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm), and by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. khonoma sp. nov. by presence of three crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single crossbar on thigh and tibia), presence of distinct “ X ” mark or concave stripes on dorsum (vs. stripes on dorsum barely visible), presence of tubercles pronounced on head and dorsum (vs. tubercles on head and dorsum comparatively small and more sparsely distributed), and absence of brown and white patch on groin (vs. brown and white patches on groin present); it differs from R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. by internarial distance being greater than upper eyelid width (vs. internarial distance equal to upper eyelid width); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 18.8–23.6 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. longchuanensis, R. yadongensis by inter upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. menglaensis by snout length being equal to or smaller than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); it differs from R. mindat by absence of black or white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), absence of white patches on the lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. monolithus sp. nov. by the distinct “ X ” mark or concave stripes on dorsum (vs. stripes on dorsum barely visible), tubercles pronounced on head and dorsum (vs. tubercles on head and dorsum comparatively small and more sparsely distributed), and absence of brown and white patch on groin (vs. light brown and white patches on groin present); it differs from R. nasuta sp. nov. by rounded or sub-oval shaped snout (vs. snout acute); it differs from R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by presence of three crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single cross bar on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. parvulus by presence of three crossbars on thighs (vs. single cross bar on thigh); it differs from R. rezakhani by absence of dark pattern on groin (vs. a short brown streak present on groin); it differs from R. shillongensis by presence of three broad crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single broad crossbar on thigh and tibia). A detailed morphological comparison with its congeneric species is provided in Table 1. Morphological characters of R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. and R. kempiae are similar but they have minor overlap in morphospace (Fig. 6 C). Raorchestes kempiae is restricted to south of Brahmaputra Valley while R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. is restricted to north of Brahmaputra Valley.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. were recorded in Glowbari, near Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary on 30 June 2022 at 20: 10 hrs and at an ambient temperature of 21.4 ° C; in Bompu, Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary on 7 July 2022 at 20: 00 hrs and at ambient temperature of 21.1 ° C. The call description is based on 60 calls including two individuals (WII-ADA 1558 and WII-ADA 1619). The calls are single type, non-pulsatile, emitted in groups (2–4 calls per group) in regular intervals (Fig. 40). The mean call duration is 16.3 ± 1.74 ms (9–20 ms) with call rise time of 1 ms and call fall time of 15.45 ± 1.7 ms (12–18 ms). The mean inter-call interval is 236.56 ± 8.89 ms (224–270 ms). The mean dominant frequency is 3029.73 ± 61.33 Hz (2971.6–3100.8 Hz). A detailed comparison of advertisement calls with those of congeners is summarised in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationships and genetic divergence.</p><p>Phylogenetically R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. was recovered as a basal lineage to a large clade containing R. hillisi group, R. kempiae group, R. rezakhani group, and R. garo group in ML analysis with weak support (UFB &lt;50) and in BI analysis it nested with hillisi group with weak support (PP &lt;0.5; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. with the other members of the genus varies between 2.9–8.0 % in the 16 S, 9.1–19.1 % in the cyt b and 7.3–15.4 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name of the “ Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary ” in the State of Arunachal Pradesh where the type specimens were collected.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Eaglenest Bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes eaglenestensis sp. nov. is currently known only from the Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacent areas such as Glow Bari within an elevation range of 1950–2200 m a. s. l. (Figs 25 B, 33 F) We recorded the individuals on hill slopes along forest trails; in the months of June and July. Calling males were observed on ferns, bamboo and shrubs at a height of 0.5–2 m above ground. Other amphibian species recorded at this locality include Nasutixalus sp., Xenophrys sp. Amolops wangyali Mahony et al., 2022, Amolops sp., Rhacophorus burmanus (Andersson, 1939), Leptobrachium bompu, Duttaphrynus himalayanus (Günther, 1864), Nanorana liebigii (Günther, 1860) and Nanorana sp. Athreya (2006) reported several morphs of unidentified Raorchestes sp. (as Philautus sp.) from Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary and suggested that it had at least four different calls. Athreya (2006) did not provide details of the locations and acoustic parameters for comparison. However, some of the photographs of Philautus sp. provided in Athreya (2006) falls within the morphological variation of R. eaglenestensis sp. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4BBF2F8A6B825B498160D97E8F7C832A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
178302DD011258F087C2B01D2304C7EC.text	178302DD011258F087C2B01D2304C7EC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes garo (Boulenger 1919)	<div><p>Raorchestes garo (Boulenger, 1919)</p><p>Figures 15, 16, 17; Tables 1, 2, S 6, S 7, S 12</p><p>Synonymy and chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus garo Boulenger, 1919: 207 .</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) garo — Ahl (1931): 70.</p><p>Philautus garo — Bourret (1942): 450 –451; Inger (1985): 528; Ahmed et al. (2009): 15.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) garo — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 41.</p><p>Philautus namdaphaensis Sarkar and Sanyal, 1985: 287–289 .</p><p>Raorchestes manipurensis Mathew &amp; Sen, 2009: 43, 44, plate XVI.</p><p>Philautus namdaphaensis — Ahmed et al. (2009): 16, 147.</p><p>Raorchestes cangyuanensis Wu et al., 2019: 558–561 .</p><p>Raorchestes kempiae — Naveen et al. (2024): 362, 365–367.</p><p>Raorchestes garo — Naveen et al. (2024): 362.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Boulenger (1919) described “ Ixalus ” garo based on a single specimen (Fig. 15 A – D) collected by Stanley Wells Kemp from “ above Tura ”, Garo Hills. It was subsequently placed in other rhacophorid genera including Rhacophorus Kuhl &amp; van Hasselt, 1822 and Philautus (Ahl 1931; Bourret 1942; Inger 1985; Bossuyt and Dubois 2001). This species has been reported from Assam (Choudhury et al. 2001), Nagaland (Ao et al. 2003) and Shillong in Meghalaya (Mathew and Sen 2009; Kharkongor et al. 2016). However, it has never been reported from its type locality (above Tura in Garo Hills, Meghalaya) since it was first described. Recently, Naveen et al. (2024) reported this species from Daribokgre Community Reserve in the East Garo Hills District of Meghalaya, claiming that their collected specimen is a “ topotype ” (see discussion below). During our field survey on 27 May 2022, we encountered an individual of the bush frog (Fig. 16 A – H) at the type locality Tura Peak (25.50302°N, 90.23853°E, elevation 1030 m a. sl.), Meghalaya. These individuals resemble the characters mentioned in the original description of R. garo by Boulenger (1919) as follows: 1) dark-brown hourglass shaped mark covering head from interorbital space and back, 2) loreal and temporal region dark-brown, 3) dark-brown crossbars on limbs and 4) distinct tympanum, 5) canthus rostralis distinct. Although the original description stated the snout shape is truncated, it is damaged in the holotype (squeezed, see Fig. 15). Our examination of the newly collected material found that the snout shape is rounded or sub-ovoid.</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Holotype: ZSI 19187, subadult (sex could not be determined); collected by S. W. Kemp above Tura, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya, India .</p><p>Newly collected material.</p><p>Topotypes: five adult males (WII-ADA 1493 –1496, WII-ADA 1499) collected by BB, VJ, and AD on 27 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=90.23853&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.50302" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 90.23853/lat 25.50302)">Tura Peak Reserved Forest</a> (25.50302°N, 90.23853°E, elevation 1030 m a. s. l.), West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya . Referred materials: one adult male (WII-ADA 1479) collected by BB, VJ, and AD on 20 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=90.32373&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.48973" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 90.32373/lat 25.48973)">Daribokgre</a> (25.48973°N, 90.32373°E, elevation 1140 m a. s. l.), West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya ; two adult males (WII-ADA 858, WII-ADA 859) collected by BB and AD on 1 August 2021 from near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.76947&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.8994" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.76947/lat 25.8994)">Kiphire Divisional Forest Complex</a> (25.89940°N, 94.76947°E, elevation 1300 m a. s. l.), Kiphire District, Nagaland ; one adult male (WII-ADA 861) collected by BB and AD on 2 August 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.87319&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.83128" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.87319/lat 25.83128)">Aramasangram</a>, (25.83128°N, 94.87319°E, elevation 1480 m a. s. l.), Kiphire District, Nagaland ; seven adult males (WII-ADA 601 – WII-ADA 605, WII-ADA 607, WII-ADA 608) collected by BB on 18 April 2019 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.77305&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=24.97502" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.77305/lat 24.97502)">Lakhicherra</a> (24.97502°N, 92.77305°E, elevation 50 m a. sl.), Cachar District, Assam ; two adult males (WII-ADA 609, WII-ADA 610) collected by BB on 20 April 2019 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.79206&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=24.97613" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.79206/lat 24.97613)">Subhang</a> (24.97613°N, 92.79206°E, elevation 170 m a. s. l.), Cachar District, Assam ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1035 and WII-ADA 1036) collected by BB, NGP, and AD on 9 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.77307&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=22.48696" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.77307/lat 22.48696)">Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary</a> (22.48696°N, 92.77307°E, elevation 180 m a. s. l.), Lawngtlai District, Mizoram ; one adult female (WII-ADA 1142) collected by BB, NGP, and AD on 16 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.45147&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=23.694" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.45147/lat 23.694)">Teirei</a> (23.694°N, 92.45147°E, elevation 270 m a. s. l.), Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mamit District, Mizoram ; one adult male (WII-ADA 1645) collected by BB on 25 July 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=93.66256&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=24.59375" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 93.66256/lat 24.59375)">Leimatak</a> (24.59375°N, 93.66256°E, elevation 480 m a. sl.), Churachandpur District, Manipur ; two adult males (WII-ADA 1648 and WII-ADA 1649) collected by BB on 26 July 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=93.71986&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=24.6071" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 93.71986/lat 24.6071)">Charoikhullen</a> (24.6071°N, 93.71986°E, elevation 1180 m a. s. l.), Churachandpur District, Manipur ; four adult males (WII-ADA 3211, WII-ADA 3213, WII-ADA 3217, and WII-ADA 3219) collected by RNV and SD on 9 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.39913&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.52453" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.39913/lat 27.52453)">Haldibari</a> (27.52453°N, 96.39913°E, elevation 500 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small to medium sized Raorchestes, SVL 19.9–26.9 mm in adult males; head length equal to its width or slightly wider than long (HL / HW = 0.9–1.01); snout shape rounded to sub-ovoid in dorsal view, snout length slightly less than or equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.81–1.03); snout length greater than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (0.96–1.28); nostrils closer to snout tip than eye or equidistant between the two; internarial distance smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.71–0.94) and greater or equal to upper eyelid width (UE/ IN = 0.73–1.0), inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length (0.74–0.94); spinules or tubercles on dorsum; brown patches on groin and thigh; three dark bands on thigh and tibia.</p><p>Redescription of holotype (ZSIC 19187; Fig. 15 A – D).</p><p>Specimen completely dehydrated; snout squeezed; lower jaw broken at right side; fourth finger disc on left side damaged; right hind limb is dislodged from body; a puncture on anterior part of abdomen. Small sized frog (SVL = 12.3 mm); head length equal to width; eyes moderate, less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.38); interorbital space equal to eye length and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IUE = 0.43); tympanum distinct, round; tongue posteriorly notched; supratympanic fold visible; forelimbs slender, forearm length smaller than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.81); each finger with rounded discs; circum-marginal groove present on discs; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded; palmar tubercles indistinct; hindlimbs slender, thigh length more than half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.57) and slightly longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.97); each toes with rounded disc; discs with circum-marginal groove, as wide as those on fingers; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded; inner metatarsal tubercle present and outer metatarsal tubercle absent; dorsal aspect of head and dorsum smooth; dorsal surface of limbs smooth; flank smooth; throat, chest and ventral side of limbs smooth; abdomen granular.</p><p>Colouration of holotype (ZSIC 19187) in preservative.</p><p>Head dorsally brown and paler laterally; dorsum brown and paler towards the flank; enlarged, slightly darker hourglass shaped mark visible on dorsum starting at interorbital space, posterior ends much darker near groin; limbs brown dorsally; pale brown ventrally; brown specks on throat, chest, and anterior part of abdomen and lower arms.</p><p>Expanded description based on the newly collected topotype (WII-ADA 1495: Fig. 16 A – H).</p><p>A medium sized Raorchestes, SVL 25.3 mm; head wider than long (HL / HW = 0.93); snout rounded in dorsal view, slightly protruding beyond lower jaw in ventral view; snout length slightly smaller than eye length (SL / EL = 0.92) and equal to inter-upper eyelid width; a slight depression on internarial space; nostrils oval, obliqued, closer to snout tip than eyes (NS / EN = 0.88); narial region protruding; canthus rostralis distinct, obliqued; loreal region concave; eyes protruding, moderate in size (EL / HL = 0.38), greater than inter-upper eyelid width (IUE / EL = 0.89); internarial distance equals to upper eyelid width; tympanum round, distinct, nearly one fourth of eye length; supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; trunk less than half snout-vent length (TRL/ SVL = 0.48).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; forearm shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.86); third finger longest; fingers with rounded discs; circum-marginal groove present on discs; disc on finger II, III and IV greater than tympanic diameter; palmar tubercles indistinct; subarticular tubercles distinct, round; proximal subarticular tubercle on finger III and IV smaller than distal subarticular tubercles; fine granular nuptial pad on first finger; webbing absent.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.52) and slightly greater than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.98); fourth toe longest; circum-marginal groove present on toe discs; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded; proximal subarticular tubercle on fourth toe indistinct and small; supernumerary tubercles absent; toe disc width equal to that of fingers; inner metatarsal tubercle present, its length equal to disc width of second toe; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; webbing small, reaching second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head smooth with indistinct tubercles on upper eyelids; side of head smooth, with few tubercles behind angle of jaw; spinules starting behind upper eyelids and above supratympanic folds runs along dorsolateral side of trunk and scatter on middle of trunk, posterior part of dorsum smooth; flank granular; forelimbs and hindlimbs smooth dorsally; head on ventral side smooth; chest, lower arms, abdomen and thighs granular; tibia smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head yellowish brown from snout to anterior one third of upper eyelids with irregular brown spots; dorsum yellowish brown with dark brown spots; an hourglass shaped brown mark starting from interorbital space covering posterior two third of upper eyelids to anterior to vent, posteriorly diffused; dark brown spots along the edges of hourglass shaped mark; loreal region and area anterior to nasals brown, area below eyes, lips, tympanic region and mandibular region pale brown with slightly dark brown specks and spots; indistinct brown streak below supratympanic fold starting from posterior corner of eyes to rear of mandible; lower arm of forelimbs yellowish brown dorsally and forearm greyish brown dorsally; a brown crossbar on forearms; hands greyish brown with brown specks; disc of the first and second fingers pale yellow; thighs and tibia yellowish brown dorsally; greyish brown with faint reddish tinge towards outer lateral side of tibia and tarsus; indistinct crossbars on tibia; crossbars on thighs in the form of interconnected spots; large dark brown patch on outer lateral side of thighs and inner lateral side of tibia; irregular shaped dark brown enlarged spots on groin and a slightly paler elongated patch ventral to it; faint brown patch on inner lateral side of thighs; a few dark brown spots above vent; throat, chest, abdomen, ventral aspect of forelimbs, and base of thighs flesh coloured; brown mottling and creamy-white spots on anterior part of lower jaw and irregularly shaped small brown patches along its edge; gular region slightly pale yellow; brown specks on anterior part of abdomen, ventral aspect of forelimbs, and palm, heavily speckled on forearms; ventral aspect of foot, tibia, and to distal end of thighs heavily speckled with brown.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal markings on head, dorsum and flank same as when alive; dorsum of snout pale cream coloured up to interorbital space including anterior part of upper eyelids, a brown patch in the middle; side of head dark brown; dorsum towards flank pale-cream coloured with dark brown spots; the dark brown hourglass shaped mark covering head, and dorsum visible as in life; lower arms cream coloured and forearms dark brown; thighs and tibia cream coloured; outer dorsolateral side of tibia dark brown; tarsus and foot dark brown; distinct dark brown crossbars on thigh and tibia; dark brown marbling on ventral side more distinct than in life, dense marbling on chin, along lower jaw, forearms, chest, tibia, tarsus and foot.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Adult males have external vocal sac, internal vocal slits on lower jaw, and nuptial pad on first finger. Details of variation in morphometric characters among individuals are given in Table S 12. In addition, marking patterns on head, dorsum, groin and thigh vary among individuals of the species (Figs 16, 17). Dorsal colour varies as pale yellowish brown, pale reddish brown and greyish brown. Hourglass shaped marking dark grey or dark brown (WII-ADA 1495). This marking is broken in some individuals (WII-ADA 607; Figs 16 V, 17 B) or may be replaced by a pair of broad concave stripes (WII-ADA 1035), or completely absent (WII-ADA 603; Figs 16 W, 17 F). Some individuals have a white bar on forehead covering the anterior part of the upper eyelids (WII-ADA 608; Figs 16 I, J, 17 A); groin and thighs may have irregular dark-brown patches or dark-brown patch with bright irregular sized and shaped yellow spots; pale yellow mid-dorsal line may be present and a similar line on hindlimbs originating from the mid-dorsal line above vent and running dorsally along thighs and tibia and ventro-laterally on tarsus (WII-ADA 1499; Fig. 16 N, O, U); dark brown spots may be present or absent on flank and limbs; one individual from Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary have patches of yellow flecks on head, back, hind limbs and lower arms were pale-yellow on top (WII-ADA 1035; Figs 16 X, 17 G); intensity on the spinules and tubercles on head, back and limbs varies among individuals as dense to scattered.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes garo differs from R. annandalii, R. dulongensis, R. hekouensis, R. hillisi, R. huanglianshan, R. jadoh, R. leiktho, R. malipoensis, R. mindat and R. parvulus by larger body size, SVL 19.9–26.9 mm in adult males (vs. SVL in adult males, 17.3–19.6 mm in R. annandalii, 15.0–19.0 mm in R. dulongensis, 16.1–17.5 mm in R. hekouensis, 15.9–17.7 mm in R. hillisi, 17.0– 19.6 mm in R. huanglianshan, 13.6–14.0 mm in R. jadoh, 15.7–15.8 mm in R. leiktho, 14.6–17.7 mm in R. malipoensis, 16.7–18.3 mm in R. mindat, 17.0– 18.6 mm in R. parvulus); it differs from R. annandalii, R. cinerascens nov. comb., R. parvulus, and R. shillongensis by the absence of concave stripes on dorsum (vs. present); it differs from R. andersoni by the presence of spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum) and three dark bands on thigh and tibia (vs. single band on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. kempiae by distinct canthus rostralis (vs. indistinct canthus rostralis), enlarged dark brown patches with or without light patches present on groin and lateral aspect of thigh (vs. a small brown streak present on groin and no dark patches on lateral aspect of thigh), a white bar on inter-upper eyelid space may be present or absent (vs. a distinct or indistinct dark bar may be present or absent), hourglass pattern may be present covering head and dorsum or absent (vs. hourglass pattern absent, only “) (“ mark may be present on dorsum); it differs from R. hillisi, R. huanglianshan and R. menglaensis by its snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); differs from R. jakoid by presence of enlarged dark brown patches with or without light patches on groin and lateral aspect of thigh (vs. absent); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. menglaensis by its snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); it from R. rezakhani by presence of spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum), concave stripes on dorsum absent (vs. present), enlarged brown patches without or with yellow spots on groin present (vs. short brown streak on groin); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by its snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length), inter-upper eyelid width smaller than or equal to snout length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than snout length); it differs from R. yadongensis by snout length being greater than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length), inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length). Detailed morphological comparison with other congeners included in this study is given in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. garo were recorded at Tura Peak, Meghalaya on 27 May 2022 at an ambient temperature of 28.2 ° C and at Lakhicherra, Assam on 18 April 2019 at an ambient temperature of 28.8 ° C between 18: 30 hrs and 19: 30 hrs. The call description is based on 42 calls from two individuals (WII-ADA 1495 and WII-ADA 601). The calls are single type, non-pulsatile (Fig. 18), initially emitted as a single call without a group, and gradually emitted in groups (4.72 ± 2.22 calls per call group; 2–13 calls / call group). The mean call duration is 28.57 ± 2.74 ms (20–32 ms) with a call rise time of 1 ms and call fall time of 27.55 ± 2.71 ms (19–31 ms). The interval between calls is 154.31 ± 7.02 ms (144–170 ms) when emitted in groups. The mean dominant frequency of the call is 2860.84 ± 49.55 Hz (2799.3–2971.6 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of other congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes garo is sister to R. leiktho (UFB 99 and PP 1; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of R. garo with other congeners included in this study are 4.2–9.2 % in the 16 S, 13.7–21.2 % in the cyt b and 9.5–16.4 % in the COI gene (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>This species is distributed in northeast India from western part of Meghalaya to the eastern part of Arunachal Pradesh in the Namdapha Tiger Reserve. This species is also distributed in the Barail Hills of Assam and Nagaland, in Manipur, and in Mizoram. It is mostly associated with lowland evergreen forests (Fig. 19 A). This species was so far known from 50–1480 m a. s. l. across hills on the southern slopes of Brahmaputra Valley, India. Al-Razi et al. (2020 a) reported this species as R. longchuanensis from Satchari National Park in Bangladesh. Wu et al. (2019) reported this species as R. cangyuanensis from Cangyuan, China. Lalronunga et al. (2021) reported from Mizoram as R. cangyuanensis . Choudhury et al. (2001) reported this species from Garbhanga Reserve Forest and Kulsi Reserve Forest in Assam, and Ao et al. (2003) reported it from Dzulake, Nagaland which needs further examination to confirm the records.</p><p>Calling males were recorded during April – June from perches 1–2 metres above the ground and from roadside forest areas dominated by bamboo thickets (Fig. 20 A, B). We also recorded the species calling from the leaves of a small tree about five metres above the ground and from a bamboo thicket at a height of six metres above the ground in Charoikhullen, Manipur. We observed a single female individual of this species on roadside vegetation in Teirei, Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram in September 2021.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Naveen et al. (2024) reported rediscovery of “ R. garo ” based on five specimens (SACON VA 809, 163, 305, 306, 308) collected from an unnamed locality with geographical coordinate given as “ 25.51°N, 90.38°E, 895 m ” in Garo Hills, Meghalaya and one specimen (SACON VA 129) from Daribokgre Community Reserve (25.47297°N, 90.3148°E, 1200 m), that they claimed as a “ topotype ”. However, the 16 S gene sequence data in Naveen et al. (2024) comes from a specimen (SACON VA 809) collected approximately 15 km east of Tura. Morphological description of the alleged “ topotype ” (SACON VA 809) do not match the original description in terms of dorsal colour pattern. The original description of R. garo mentions an hourglass pattern on dorsum, but this was absent in SACON VA 809. Although Naveen et al. (2024) mentioned that two of the specimens such as VA 305 and VA 308 have hourglass patterns, they did not generate molecular data for these two specimens. The holotype (ZSIC 19187) of R. garo was originally collected by S. W. Kemp from “ above Tura ” which is the ridge / peak immediately above Tura (see Paiva 1919). We therefore argue that without justification, Naveen et al. (2024) considered SACON VA 809 as a topotype of R. garo, and provided a misleading phylogenetic status of R. garo .</p><p>The DNA sequence (16 S) of the “ R. garo ” topotypical specimen (SACON VA 809) submitted by Naveen et al. (2024) did not cluster with our topotypical samples of R. garo (WII-ADA 1493, WII-ADA 1494, WII-ADA 1499) collected from Tura Peak (= above Tura) (25.50302°N; 90.23853°E; elevation 1030 m a. s. l.; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of the true topotypical samples of R. garo and the specimen of “ R. garo ” of Naveen et al. (2024) is 6.5–7.0 % in 16 S gene (Table S 7 A – C). Naveen et al. (2024) stated that R. garo is phylogenetically allied to R. shillongensis . However, our phylogenetic analyses indicate R. shillongensis (topotype; WII-ADA 1460) as distinct from R. garo (topotype; WII-ADA 1493, WII-ADA 1494, WII-ADA 1499; Figs 2, 3). Our phylogenetic analyses are strongly supported by acoustic characteristics of the two species (see under respective description and comparison). This suggests that SACON VA 809 reported by Naveen et al. (2024) is a misidentification of R. garo and it represents an undescribed lineage of Raorchestes . Thus, we consider SACON VA 809 as an invalid topotype of R. garo based on accurate type locality and the phylogenetic results of this study.</p><p>“ Philautus namdaphaensis ” was originally described by Sarkar and Sanyal (1985) from Farmbase Camp (at 350 m a. s. l.), Namdapha National Park, Arunachal Pradesh based on three adult males collected by S. Biswas. Later, Sengupta et al. (2000) reported this species from Garbhanga Reserve Forest, Assam, and Mathew and Sen (2009), and Sen et al. (2013) reported it from Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, Meghalaya. On 9 May 2023 we collected two specimens of bush frogs from Haldibari (27.52453°N; 96.39913°E; elevation 500 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh (Fig. 15 U) on the north bank of the Noa-Dihing River. These two specimens conform to the original description of “ Philautus namdaphaensis ” based on the following characters: 1) mid dorsal line from snout to vent, 2) limbs with crossbars and a line originating at vent reaching to heel through dorsal aspect of thigh and tibia, 3) white bar on interorbital space, 4) dark brown blotches on groin and lateral aspects of thighs.</p><p>“ Raorchestes manipurensis ” was described by Mathew and Sen (2009) from Leimatak, Manipur based on a single specimen. So far, this species is only known from the type locality. On 25 July 2022 we collected a topotypical specimen (WII-ADA 1645; Fig. 17 H) from Leimatak (24.59375°N; 93.66256°E; elevation 480 m a. sl.) that conforms to the original description. This individual matches the original description by the following set of characters: 1) head wider than length, 2) distinct canthus rostralis, 3) vomerine teeth absent, 4) a faint hourglass shaped patch covering head from inter-upper eyelid space and back (dark in holotype), posterior ends of this patch directing towards groin; 5) brown and pale white patches on flank near groin.</p><p>Our phylogenetic analyses involving topotypical samples of “ P. namdaphaensis ” and “ R. manipurensis ” resulted with them nested with the topotypical samples of R. garo (Figs 2, 3). The topotypical samples of R. garo have genetic divergences of 0.0–0.6 % with topotypical samples of “ P. namdaphaensis ” and 0.4–1.1 % with the topotypical sample of “ R. manipurensis ” in the 16 S gene (Table S 7 A – C). Morphological examinations of the topotypes of the three species ( R. garo, “ P. namdaphaensis ” and “ R. manipurensis ”) and examinations of the type series of “ P. namdaphaensis ” did not reveal any strong differentiating characters to separate these three species.</p><p>Morphological and molecular studies of the newly collected material from different localities in northeast India suggests R. garo is a polymorphic species (see under redescription section above). We have recorded individuals of R. garo from Tura peak that resemble the typical morphotype of “ P. namdaphaensis ” (Fig. 16 A – H). Mathew and Sen (2008) also reported “ P. namdaphaensis ” from Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, Meghalaya probably based on this character. The colour and pattern of “ R. manipurensis ” provided in the original description and the photograph of the holotype by Mathew and Sen (2009) resemble the typical morphotype of R. garo from the type locality. Therefore, these are unreliable and cannot be used as diagnostic characters. Based on molecular data and morphological characters, we propose to treat “ Philautus namdaphaensis ” and “ R. manipurensis ” as junior subjective synonyms of R. garo .</p><p>“ Raorchestes cangyuanensis ” was described from Cangyuan, China (Wu et al. 2019). Subsequently, Lalronunga et al. (2021) reported this species from Hmuifang, Mizoram and referred to a previous record of R. longchuanensis from Satchari National Park, Bangladesh (Al-Razi et al. 2020 a) as “ R. cangyuanensis ”. Rahman et al. (2022) reported the species from northeast Bangladesh.</p><p>Based on the results of their phylogenetic study, Naveen et al. (2024) suggested “ R. cangyuanensis ” as a junior subjective synonym of R. kempiae . However, in our current phylogenetic analyses, “ R. cangyuanensis ” is nested with the topotypical samples of R. garo (Fig. 3) collected in this study (see comments under R. kempiae). The genetic divergence between R. garo collected for this study and “ R. cangyuanensis ” samples is 0.0–0.9 % in the 16 S gene (Table S 7 A – C). Thus, we consider “ R. cangyuanensis ” as a junior subjective synonym of R. garo and state that the previous records of “ R. cangyuanensis ” from Mizoram should be considered as R. garo .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/178302DD011258F087C2B01D2304C7EC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
C1520610D5BA5EACB97294565D1279D0.text	C1520610D5BA5EACB97294565D1279D0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes kempiae (Boulenger 1919)	<div><p>Raorchestes kempiae (Boulenger, 1919)</p><p>Figures 21, 22; Tables 1, 2, S 6, S 12</p><p>Synonymy and chresonymy.</p><p>Ixalus kempiae Boulenger, 1919: 208 .</p><p>Rhacophorus (Philautus) kempiae — Ahl (1931): 53, 69.</p><p>Philautus kempiae — Bourret (1942): 450 –451; Inger (1985): 91; Ahmed et al. 2009: 16.</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) kempiae — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 41.</p><p>Raorchestes asakgrensis Naveen et al., 2024: 362, 365–370.</p><p>Raorchestes kempiae — Naveen et al. (2024): 365 –367.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Boulenger (1919) described Raorchestes kempiae based on a single specimen collected by A. Kemp from “ above Tura ”, Garo Hills. The type locality refers to the ridge / peak immediately above Tura (see Paiva 1919). It is possible that this specimen was collected in 1917, which is evident from Paiva (1919) and Brunetti (1918) that A. Kemp was part of their expedition. However, there was no allocated voucher number available for the type in the original description. Chanda (1994) mentioned a possible location of the type specimen as the “ British Museum, (Natural History), London, U. K. ” which was followed by Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) and repeated in Frost (2025). Chanda et al. (2000) did not provide the presence of the type specimen of “ Ixalus kempiae ” or “ Philautus kempiae ” in the collection of the National Zoological Collection of Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Kolkata (Calcutta). Recently Naveen et al. (2024) provided a photograph of a specimen in ZSI as the “ holotype ” (ZSI 18859) of R. kempiae . As there was no published literature that mentions the presence of a holotype with the voucher number “ ZSI 18859 ” prior to Naveen et al. (2024), we were unaware of this specimen during our examination of type specimens of Raorchestes / Philautus housed in ZSI. It was lost and found recently in the ZSI collections (https://zsicollections.in/specimen/ZSI0000002582). We later examined this specimen.</p><p>On 27 May 2022, we encountered a few individuals of bush frogs (Fig. 21) in Tura Peak (25.502825°N; 90.23921°E; elevation 1060 m a. s. l.), West Garo Hills District of Meghalaya syntopic with R. garo but having a distinctive call pattern. These individuals resemble the original description of Boulenger (1919) by the following morphological characters: 1) dark bar on interorbital space, 2) crossbars on limbs, vertical bars on upper jaw, tubercles on dorsal surface of head and dorsum, 3) barely visible tympanum (although mentioned as “ tympanum hidden ” in original description), 4) indistinct canthus rostralis, and 5) brown marbling on throat and abdomen. Following exceptions were observed in the newly collected materials: 1) snout shape rounded or sub-oval in dorsal view (rounded in holotype), 2) nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to snout tip than eye (nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip in holotype), 3) concave stripes on dorsum diffused or not visible. For taxonomic stability, we provided an expanded description and determined the phylogenetic position based on specimens collected from the type locality. Thus, based on morphological similarity with the original description of R. kempiae, we refer to this population from “ above Tura ” as topotypic material of the species.</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Holotype. ZSI 18859 (Fide: Naveen et al. (2024)), collected by A. Kemp from “ above Tura ” .</p><p>Newly collected material.</p><p>Topotype: three adult males (WII-ADA 1497, WII-ADA 1498 and WII-ADA 1500) collected by BB, AD and VJ on 27 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=90.23921&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.502825" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 90.23921/lat 25.502825)">Tura peak</a> (25.502825°N, 90.23921°E, elevation 1060 m a. s. l.), West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya . Referred materials: two adult males (WII-ADA 1951, WII-ADA 1952) and one adult female (WII-ADA 1953) collected by BB, AD and VD on 1 July 2016 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=91.80384&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.90282" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 91.80384/lat 25.90282)">Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary</a> (25.90282°N, 91.80384°E, elevation 370 m a. s. l.), Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya ; one adult male (WII-ADA 933) collected by BB and AD on 14 August 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=93.62619&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.541758" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 93.62619/lat 25.541758)">Athibung</a> (25.541758°N, 93.626190°E, elevation 770 m a. s. l.), Peren District, Nagaland ; three adult males (WII-ADA 1464 – WII-ADA 1466) collected by BB, AD and VJ on 24 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=90.17733&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.51596" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 90.17733/lat 25.51596)">Tura Forest IB campus</a> (25.51596°N, 90.17733°E, elevation 230 m a. s. l.), West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya ; three adult males (WII-ADA 1476 – WII-ADA 1478) and one female (WII-ADA 1480) collected by BB, AD and VJ on 24 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=90.32374&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.48974" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 90.32374/lat 25.48974)">Daribokgre</a> (25.48974°N, 90.32374°E, elevation 1140 m a. s. l.), West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Medium sized Raorchestes, SVL 17.8–22.9 mm in adult males and SVL 23.0– 23.3 mm in adult females; head width equal to or greater than length (HL / HW = 0.91–1.01); snout rounded to sub-oval in dorsal view; snout longer than inter-upper eyelid width; canthus rostralis indistinct; numerous tubercles on dorsal surface of head, dorsum, and limbs; numerous spinules on dorsum; pale brown dorsally; pair faint concave brown stripes (“) (”) on dorsum; faint crossbars on limbs; short brown streak present on groin.</p><p>Redescription of holotype (ZSI 18859).</p><p>Holotype is in bad condition and completely dehydrated (Fig. 21). Lower jaw broken; forelimbs broken at elbow; outer two fingers of the right hand damaged; hindlimbs broken at tibio-tarsal articulation; left foot broken at the base; except first toe, all other toes damaged. Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 16.5 mm; head slightly wider than its length (HL / HW = 0.93); snout rounded in dorsal view and lateral view; snout length equal to eye length; nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip; canthus rostralis indistinct; loreal slightly concave; eyes moderate sized (EL / HL = 0.46); internarial distance smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.88) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.62); tympanum and supratympanic fold invisible; vomerine teeth absent; tongue notch at posterior end; trunk nearly half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.48); tibia slightly longer than thigh (TL / TBL = 0.93); subarticular tubercles on fingers and toes distinct, rounded; inner metatarsal tubercle present; circum-marginal groove present on finger and toe disc.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head and dorsum shagreened; flat tubercles visible on upper eyelid visible; skin on dorsal aspect of forelimb and hindlimb smooth; skin on throat smooth; belly and ventral side of thigh granular; tibia smooth.</p><p>Colouration of holotype (ZSI 18859) in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head, dorsum and limbs brown; upper eyelids pale greyish brown; slightly dark broad patch below eye present; pair of slightly dark concave stripes on dorsum barely visible; a broad and very faint cross bar visible on thigh and tibia; throat, belly and ventral aspect of limbs brown, paler than dorsal colour.</p><p>Expanded description of the newly collected topotype (WII-ADA 1497: Fig. 22 A – H).</p><p>Specimen well preserved except for an incision on the ventral aspect of the right thigh. Snout-vent length 22 mm; head as long as wide; snout sub oval in dorsal view, nearly vertical in lateral view, slightly protruding beyond lower jaw in ventral aspect; snout length slightly smaller than eye length (SL / EL = 0.94); snout depressed dorsally at internarial region; narial region pronounced; nostrils oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented; nostril closer to snout tip than eye; internarial distance slightly smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.86) and greater than upper eyelid width (UE/ IN = 0.90); canthus rostralis indistinct, oblique; loreal region concave; eye protruding, moderate in size, less than half of eye length (EL / HL = 0.41); interorbital space flat; tympanum barely visible, round, upper part concealed by supratympanic fold; supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent, choanae round; tongue posteriorly notched; pair of internal vocal sac opening on lower jaw towards angle of jaw; habitus dorso-ventrally flattened, length less than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.46).</p><p>Forearm shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.95); relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; each finger with rounded discs; circum-marginal groove present on finger discs; discs on third and fourth finger wider than tympanic diameter; palmar tubercles present; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded; proximal subarticular tubercles on third and fourth fingers smaller than distal ones; fine granular nuptial pad on first finger; no webbing on fingers.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length slightly longer than half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.52); tibia length nearly equal to thigh length (TBL / TL = 0.98); relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; rounded disc on toes; discs slightly smaller than that of fingers; circum-marginal groove present; subarticular tubercles rounded; proximal subarticular tubercle on fourth and fifth toes indistinct compared to that of toe III, IV and V; a distinct inner metatarsal tubercle present, its length smaller than fourth and fifth toe disc widths; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head shagreen with irregular sized tubercles; upper eyelids shagreen with indistinct tubercles; prominent tubercles on mandibular region behind the angle of jaw; indistinct tubercles on lateral side of head below loreal region; numerous spinules on dorsum, denser towards dorsolateral side, posteriorly density of spinules decrease and skin nearly smooth in preserved condition; prominent bluntly conical tubercles visible above supratympanic folds in life; indistinct blunt tubercles scattered on middle of dorsum; on dorsal aspect of forelimbs smooth but tubercles visible in life; thighs smooth on top indistinct tubercles on top of the tibia (distinct in life); tubercles on tarsus indistinct; scattered spinules on dorsal part of flank, ventral part of flank smooth; on ventrum, chin smooth; gular skin granular; chest smooth; abdomen coarsely granular; granules on ventral aspect of thighs barely visible unlike in life; tibia and tarsus smooth on ventral aspect; flat granular tubercles sparsely present on ventral aspect of the foot.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect and lateral side of head, dorsum, and dorsal aspect of limbs brown with slightly darker brown spots; dark brown bar on inter-upper eyelid space; pair of diffused concave dark brown stripes on dorsum, posterior ends of it extended toward groin; broad dark brown crossbar on each tibia and thigh; cross bar barely visible on forearms; on ventral side, head, abdomen and limbs flesh-coloured with brown mottling that is absent on posterior part of abdomen; pale creamy white blotches on granules of abdomen, these blotches decrease posteriorly; similar flecks on ventral aspect of thigh, tibia, and tarsus; disc on fingers and toes yellowish on ventral side, becoming brighter on inner two fingers and inner three toes.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head and dorsum greyish brown; upper eyelids dark grey; grey patch at the middle of posterior part of head; slightly darker streaks present on upper jaw below eyes; dorsal colour on dorsal aspect of forelimbs and hindlimbs slightly paler than that of dorsum except thighs, which is pale yellowish brown; enlarged dark brown patch on vent area; dark brown concave stripes on dorsum visible; dark brown crossbar on dorsal aspect of forearm distinct; similar patches on hand and outer two fingers; crossbar on thigh faint which is distinct on tibia; similar patches on tibia, foot and toes; ventral side of head, trunk, limbs creamy-white with brown mottling; mottling denser along lower jaw, gradually decreasing towards abdomen and completely absent on posterior part of abdomen; brown mottling dense on outer ventrolateral side of forearm, tarsus, and towards knee; mottling absent on inner ventrolateral side of forearm and middle of tibia.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Males have a pair of internal vocal sac openings on the lower jaw, an external subgular vocal sac, and a nuptial pad on the first finger. Supratympanic fold may be distinct or indistinct; concave stripes on dorsum, dark bar on interorbital space, and crossbars on limbs may be diffused or not visible in some individuals; a mid-dorsal line on dorsum starting from snout extending to above vent and a similar line on hind limb radiating from the mid-dorsal line above vent extending to heel present in WII-ADA 1478 and WII-ADA 933; slightly darker brown streak may be present on groin (WII-ADA 933, WII-ADA 1478) or this may be continuous with posterior ends of concave stripes on dorsum (WII-ADA 1497). According to Boulenger (1919) the tympanum is hidden in the type. However, our newly collected material reveals that the tympanum is barely visible in most individuals but hidden in others (WII-ADA 1466, WII-ADA 1497, WII-ADA 1951 and WII-ADA 1952). Details of morphometric variation are given in Table S 12.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes kempiae differs from R. annandalii in having numerous tubercles and spinules on the dorsum (vs. dorsum smooth); it differs from R. andersoni by presence of a faint short brown streak on groin (vs. enlarge black irregular spot with two yellow spots); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by its snout being longer than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length equal to inter-upper eyelid width); differs from R. dulongensis, R. hillisi, and R. menglaensis by its head length being less than or equal to width (vs. head longer than width); it differs from R. garo by presence of a faint short brown streak on groin (vs. enlarged dark brown patches with or without yellow or pale white spots present on groin), canthus rostralis indistinct (vs. canthus rostralis distinct); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second fingers); it differs from R. huanglianshan and R. tytthus nov. comb. by its snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.8–22.9 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm in adult males); it differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid by its snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size adult males, SVL 17.8–22.9 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. longchuanensis and R. yadongensis by its inter upper eyelid width being smaller than eye length (vs. inter upper eyelid width greater than eye length); differs from R. malipoensis by its snout being longer than inter upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. menglaensis by its head length being less than or equal to its width (vs. head longer than its width); it differs from R. mindat by presence of short streak on the groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches on groin); it differs from R. parvulus by presence of a faint short brown streak (vs. dark brown marbling enclosing a whitish blotch present on groin); it differs from R. rezakhani by presence of spinules intermixed with tubercle on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum). A detailed morphological comparison with other congeners included in this study is provided in Table 1.</p><p>Boulenger (1919) noted that R. garo has truncated snout, whereas R. kempiae has a rounded snout, distinguishing the two species despite the limited descriptions. However, our examination of the holotype of R. garo revealed that its snout is damaged (squeezed; see Fig. 15). Further assessment of newly collected specimens of both species in this study showed that their snouts are actually similar in shape (rounded to sub-ovoid in dorsal view). Therefore, we conclude that snout shape is not a diagnostic character for distinguishing these two species. Similarly, a light-coloured line on mid-dorsum and dorsal aspect of thigh and tibia may be present in some individuals of both R. kempiae and R. garo (Figs 16 N, O, U and 22 I, L).</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. kempiae were recorded from three localities: Tura Peak on 27 May 2022 at an ambient temperature of 28.3 ° C; in the Forest Rest House Campus, Tura on 24 May 2022 at an ambient temperature of 28.0 ° C and in Daribokgre on 25 May, 2022 at an ambient temperature of 28.0 ° C. All calls were recorded between 18: 30 hrs and 19: 30 hrs. the description of the calls is based on analyses of 40 calls from three different individuals (WII-ADA 1464, WII-ADA 1476 and WII-ADA 1497). The calls of R. kempiae are single type, pulsatile and emitted mostly at regular intervals and not in groups (Fig. 18). The mean call duration is 149.29 ± 43.92 ms (67–200 ms) with 3.43 ± 0.59 pulses per call (2–4 pulses per call) and at a pulse rate of 19.21 ± 2.92 pulses / sec (18.52–21.74 pulses / sec). The call rise time is 1 ms and the fall time is 146 ± 46.88 ms (64–199 ms). The pulses are not closely packed; the mean pulse duration is 21.52 ± 8.09 ms (9–37 ms) and the mean pulse period is 54.55 ± 5.06 ms (45–63 ms). The mean inter-call interval is 833.97 ± 298.61 ms (398–1695 ms). The mean dominant frequency is 3306.41 ± 101.26 Hz (3057.7–3488.4 Hz). A detailed comparison of acoustic characters with that of its congeners is given in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes kempiae is sister to an undescribed lineage from eastern Arunachal Pradesh (UFB 100 and PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3) with genetic divergences of 2.6–3.3 % in the 16 S, 9.0–10.4 % in the cyt b and 5.0–5.8 % in the COI genes. The genetic divergences of R. kempiae with other congeners included in this study is 4.4–9.4 % in the 16 S, 9.0–20.4 % in the cyt b and 5.0–16.4 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>From our current sampling it appears that R. kempiae has a patchy distribution encompassing Tura peak, Nokrek Biosphere Reserve in Garo Hills and Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary of Meghalaya State and Athibung in Nagaland State within an elevation range of 230–1140 m a. s. l. (Fig. 19 B). Mathew and Sen (2009) reported this species from Sohra, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. Naveen et al. (2024) reported this species from Nongkhyllem as “ R. asakgrensis ”. However, we recover the population from Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary as R. kempiae sensu stricto (see remark below).</p><p>We recorded R. kempiae on shrubs at a perch height of approximately one metre, inside semi-evergreen forest as well as near settlements (Fig. 20 A, B). We observed calling individuals of R. kempiae and R. garo in the same habitat type at Tura peak and Daribokgre.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Naveen et al. (2024) provided a phylogenetic status of “ R. kempiae ” based on a specimen (SACON VA 806) collected from Mikadogre Community Reserve (25.433660°N, 90.398981°E,), South Garo Hills District, Meghalaya at an elevation of 174 m. This collection locality is approximately 18 km southeast of the original type locality of “ above Tura ” which is located at an elevation of 1000–1200 m a. s. l (see Paiva 1919). We argue that Naveen et al. (2024) overlooked the original description by Boulenger (1919) and did not provide a justification for their treatment of the material from Mikadogre as topotypes of R. kempiae .</p><p>In our phylogenetic analyses, the “ R. kempiae ” of Naveen et al. (2024) did not cluster with the topotypical R. kempiae collected from Tura peak, instead it is nested within the topotypical samples of R. garo (Figs 2, 3) we collected from the same locality. Thus, our robust phylogenetic analyses suggest that the “ R. kempiae ” of Naveen et al. (2024) should be referred as R. garo . The photograph of an uncollected male with white bar on head provided on page 366 of Naveen et al. (2024) as “ R. kempiae ” falls within the morphological variation in R. garo across its range (see morphological variation section under R. garo and Figs 16, 17). In the present study, we found that the topotypical morph of R. kempiae corresponds to the original publication of Boulenger (1919) in having a blackish bar on the inter-upper eyelid space which is not found in R. garo (see variation in R. garo, Figs 16, 17). Although the type locality of R. kempiae and R. garo are the same and the two species are found in sympatry, they can be clearly distinguished based on their acoustic characteristics (Fig. 18). Furthermore, in our PCA the type specimens of R. garo and R. kempiae clustered with its respective topotypes collected in this study (Fig. 6 E).</p><p>Mistaken identity of R. kempiae by Naveen et al. (2024) was subsequently repeated in Naveen et al. (in press) and Warjri et al. (2025). In Naveen et al. (in press) another “ topotype ” of R. kempiae was reported to be collected near Tura (25.522648°N, 90.185480°E) at an elevation of 210 m a. s. l. Interestingly, Naveen et al. (in press) did not include their previous sequences of “ R. kempiae ” provided in Naveen et al. (2024) without any explanation. Additionally, Naveen et al. (in press) provided three specimens (RSNFM 13–15) under a single GenBank accession number (PV 061647) in the phylogenetic figure (“ Figure 1 ”) and “ Table 1 ”. Furthermore, the locations of these specimens in the text and their reference in the phylogenetic tree do not correspond. However, in our phylogenetic analyses all these sequences of the claimed “ topotype ” of R. kempiae and sequences from Mizoram previously referred as “ R. cangyuanensis ” were clustered with topotype of R. garo sensu stricto .</p><p>Naveen et al. (in press) synonymised R. manipurensis based on specimens (MZMU 2179 and MZMU 2029) collected from Ralruwng (Larong) ca. 50 km southeast of the actual type locality, which they claimed to be the topotype. Similarly, they synonymised “ P. namdaphaensis ” based on a specimen (V/ APRC /A-317) collected from Gibbons Land, Namdapha Tiger Reserve which is located on the southern slope of the Noa-Dihing river. Another specimen (V/ APRC /A-563) collected from Magoring village in the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh on the northern slope of the Brahmaputra River referred to as “ near topotype ” of “ P. namdaphaensis ” without any justification or molecular evidence. In contrast, Naveen et al. (in press) used “ P. namdaphaensis ” sample (ON 493540) available in GenBank with the voucher number MZMU-V 1277 but did not use either of the two specimens in their phylogenetic analysis.</p><p>However, in our study, sequences of “ R. manipurensis ” and “ P. namdaphaensis ” of Naveen et al. (in press) and actual topotype of these two species collected in this study were clustered with topotype of R. garo sensu stricto . Thus, we suggest “ R. manipurensis ” and “ P. namdaphaensis ” are junior synonym of R. garo and not a synonym of R. kempiae .</p><p>Naveen et al. (2024) described a new species, “ Raorchestes asakgrensis ” from Eman Asakgre Community Reserve (25.36788°N; 90.54344°E; 174 m) of Meghalaya State. In our phylogenetic analyses, the specimen of “ R. asakgrensis ” (SACON VA 805) is nested with R. kempiae (but not the “ R. kempiae ” of Naveen et al. (2024)) (Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of “ R. asakgrensis ” and specimens of R. kempiae collected from Tura Peak is 0.7–1.7 % in the 16 S gene (Table S 7 A – C). Thus, we consider “ R. asakgrensis ” as a junior subjective synonym of R. kempiae . We consider this taxonomic chaos created by Naveen et al. (2024) is an artefact of i) sampling gaps involving topotypic material of R. garo and R. kempiae, ii) not assigning materials according to the original morphological description of Boulenger (1919), and iii) providing single DNA sequence data each from the materials collected far away from the original type locality.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C1520610D5BA5EACB97294565D1279D0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
F5B90FA168695EF5B61432A7E6433781.text	F5B90FA168695EF5B61432A7E6433781.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes khonoma Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes khonoma sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 38; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 897) collected by BB and AD on 8 August 2021 from 2.7 km west of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=93.99801&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.64145" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 93.99801/lat 25.64145)">Khonoma village</a> (25.64145°N, 93.99801°E, elevation 2040 m a. s. l.), Kohima District, Nagaland, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Three adult males (WII-ADA 894 –896) collected from the same locality as holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 16.9–22.0 mm in adult males; head width equal to or slightly wider than length (HL / HW = 0.94–1.0); snout rounded, its length equal to or slightly less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.93–1.0); snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (0.94–1.04); nostril equidistant to snout tip and eye; inter-upper eyelid width equal to eye length; internarial distance greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.75–0.91); dorsal colour pale yellowish brown with golden tinge; slightly darker brown and white patches on groin and inner lateral aspect of thigh; single broad, brown crossbar on thigh and tibia.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Adult male with vocal sac, SVL 22 mm; head length equals to width; snout rounded in both dorsal and lateral views, its length slightly less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.94) and inter-upper eyelid width (SL / IUE = 0.94); snout sharply sloped anteriorly from internarial region; loreal region slightly concave; canthus rostralis rounded and oblique; interorbital space flat; nostrils oval and obliquely oriented, equidistant between snout tip and eye; eye moderate in size, protruding (EL / HL = 3.4); pineal ocellus absent; tympanum indistinct, rounded; supratympanic fold distinct; internarial distance smaller than inter upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.71) and equal to upper eyelid width; tongue posteriorly broad and bilobed; vomerine teeth absent; choanae rounded; pair of slit like openings on lower jaw; symphysial knob on lower jaw; maxillary teeth present; translucent external subgular vocal sac present.</p><p>Habitus slender (AG / SVL = 0.5), dorsoventrally flattened; forelimbs slender, forearm length nearly equal to hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.97); third finger longest, relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; all digits with rounded discs; largest disc on third and fourth finger, disc width of the finger IV greater than tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove present on each disc present; palmar tubercles barely visible on left hand; subarticular tubercles large and round, proximal ones on third and fourth finger small and indistinct; subarticular tubercles on finger = 1: 1: 2: 2; on flat granules present on palm, a large fine granular nuptial pad on first fingers.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh slightly longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.93) and half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.5); tibia longer than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.86); relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;V &lt;III &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc, as wide as on fingers; circum-marginal groove present on each toe; inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer one absent; subarticular tubercles distinct, round, proximal subarticular tubercles on outer three toes smaller; subarticular tubercles on toes = 1: 1: 2: 3: 2; webbing slight, not reaching the second subarticular tubercle of fourth finger.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head smooth to shagreen on dorsum; few small tubercles scattered on upper eyelid; few tubercles above supratympanic fold; tubercles dorsolateral aspect of dorsum and on tibia sparsely present; tubercles posterior to angle jaw barely visible; forelimb smooth; gular region, chest granular but not as distinct on abdomen; abdomen granular; flank towards ventrolateral aspect granular; ventral aspect of thigh granular but of tibia smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsally head, back and limbs pale-yellowish brown with golden tinge; a very faint bar on inter-upper eyelid space; faint crossbars on thigh and tibia; ventrally, anterior part of head pale greyish brown, posteriorly pale yellowish brown with dense white mottling on and sparse brown mottling; abdomen whitish with brown mottling, few black irregular spots on anterior part of the abdomen; forelimb ventrally pale yellowish with brown mottling and brown spots on forearms; thighs ventrally pale yellow brown with brown mottling and irregular white spots; large creamy white patches on tibia; large brown patch on groin and slightly smaller white patch on either side of it; another white patch on inner lateral aspect of thigh towards base.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsally head and back grey, upper eyelid slightly darker, an indistinct slightly dark bar between upper eyelids; loreal region darker, two indistinct dark streaks on upper jaw radiating from the eye; forelimbs and hindlimbs dorsally greyish brown, slightly darker brown cross bar on forearm, thigh, tibia and tarsus; flank pale greyish brown; on ventral aspect, head cream coloured with brown mottling, dense on anterior part of lower jaw; abdomen cream coloured with small indistinct white spots and brown mottling, irregular small brown patches on abdomen and towards flank; forelimb ventrally with denser brown mottling; hindlimb cream coloured with dense brown mottling, brown crossbars on thigh and tibia visible, pale-white spots on thigh and tibia; no marking on outer lateral aspect of thigh and around vent.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Detailed morphological variations are provided in Table S 12. In addition, black spots on the abdomen are absent in the paratypes; a pair of indistinct concave and slightly dark stripes on the dorsum visible on WII-ADA 896 in preserved condition.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes khonoma sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni and R. rezakhani by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length); it differs from R. annandalii by snout length being equal to or less than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by absence of bony projection on humerus (vs. bony projection on humerus present), inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length); it differs from R. boulengeri sp. nov. by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length), by absence of spinules on dorsum, few blunt scattered tubercles present (vs. dense spinules on dorsum), and by absence of concave stripes on dorsum, may be barely visible in preserved condition (vs. distinct pair of dark brown concave stripes present on dorsum); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by presence of a single broad brown crossbar on thigh and tibia (vs. three crossbars on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. dibangensis sp. nov. and R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length), by nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. dulongensis by head length being equal to or less than head width (vs. head longer than wide), by nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to tip of snout); it differs from R. garo by absence of spinules on dorsum (vs. spinules present on dorsum); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second fingers), presence of few scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. numerous tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. hillisi and R. menglaensis by head length being less than or equal to head width (vs. head longer than wide), snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. huanglianshan by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length), nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 16.9–22.0 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0), and inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), nostril being equidistant between snout tip and eye (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. kempiae by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width smaller than eye length), by snout length being smaller than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length), internarial distance being greater than upper eyelid width (vs. internarial distance equal to upper eyelid width); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 16.9–22.0 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm), nostrils being equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostrils closer to snout tip), presence of scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. numerous spinules on dorsum), brown and white patches present on groin (vs. a short brown bar present on the groin); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); differs from R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. by absence of spinules on head and dorsum, few blunt scattered tubercles present (vs. dense spinules on top of head and dorsum), by absence of concave stripes on dorsum, may be barely visible in preserved condition (vs. distinct pair of dark brown concave stripes present on dorsum); it differs from R. mindat by presence of brown and white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), by presence of scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum); it differs from R. nasuta sp. nov. by head length being less than or equal to its width (vs. head longer than wide), rounded snout (vs. snout acute), inter-upper eyelid width being greater than or equal to snout length (vs. snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width), presence of slightly dark brown and white patch on groin and thigh (vs. bright yellow patches on groin and thigh); it differs from R. orientalis sp. nov. by presence a few blunt scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. spinules on dorsum), a single broad cross bar visible on thigh and tibia (vs. three or four narrow crossbars on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. parvulus by thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than or equal to tibia length); it differs from R. shillongensis by absence of “) (“ mark on dorsum (vs. a dark brown “) (“ mark present on dorsum); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length); it differs from R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length), by position of nostrils equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostrils closer to snout tip than eye). Morphologically R. khonoma sp. nov. close to R. monolithus sp. nov. Detailed morphological comparison with other congeneric species is provided in Table 1.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes khonoma sp. nov. is sister to the clade which includes R. dulongensis, R. hillisi and R. yadongensis with weak support (UFB 71, PP &lt;50; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of R. khonoma sp. nov. with the congeners included in this study are 3.1–6.7 % in the 16 S, 11.2–17.0 % in the cyt b and 7.8–14.3 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name of the village “Khonoma” in Nagaland State where the type series was collected.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Khonoma bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes khonoma sp. nov. is currently known from its type locality Khonoma and Dzuleke village in the Kohima District of Nagaland from an elevation of 2000–2040 m a. s. l. (Fig. 19 B). This species has also been recorded from low elevation areas at Khonoma Nature Conservation and Tragopan Sanctuary (KNCTS). Individuals of the species were most commonly found along the subtropical forest margins and hilly terrace croplands (Fig. 33 E). Gravid females were photographed in June and calling males were recorded from May to September. We observed males calling on shrubs at a perch height of approximatelyone meter above ground level. Many individuals were observed calling from Eupatorium thickets. The area at the type locality was mostly covered by jhum and terrace cultivation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F5B90FA168695EF5B61432A7E6433781	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
CA5FBCB2F3FB5A0D912A759CCDE21C72.text	CA5FBCB2F3FB5A0D912A759CCDE21C72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes lawngtlaiensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes lawngtlaiensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 32; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>WII-ADA 947, an adult male collected by AD, BB and NGP on 6 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.75653&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=22.48498" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.75653/lat 22.48498)">Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary</a> (22.48498°N, 92.75653°E, elevation 210 m a. s. l.), Lawngtlai District, Mizoram, India .</p><p>Paratype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 946) collected by AD, BB and NGP on 6 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.75678&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=22.48906" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.75678/lat 22.48906)">Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary</a> (22.48906°N, 92.75678°E, elevation 210 m a. s. l.), Lawngtlai District, Mizoram .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A small sized Raorchestes, SVL = 18.1–19.7 mm in males, female unknown; snout rounded, slightly less than eye length; nostril closer to snout tip than eye; head slightly wider than long or equal proportions; inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length; vomerine teeth absent; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; dorsal aspect pale yellowish brown; “) (“ shaped broad dark brown marking on dorsum, posterior ends of this marking bordered by irregular white spots; an oblique dark brown stripe bordered with white spots on flank; dark crossbars bordered with white spots on forelimb and on hindlimb; irregular small white spots on dorsal aspect of head; dorsum and limb; tympanic region dark brown; a dark brown streak ventral to eye bordered with white streak; groin, axilla, hind arm, lateral side of thigh, finger and toe discs yellow; irregular white flecks on chest and abdomen; forelimb and hindlimb dark brown; gular region yellowish brown.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Adult male, SVL 18.1 mm; head wider than long (HL / HW = 0.95); snout rounded with a blunt tubercular projection at tip, truncated in lateral view, snout length less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.83); nostril oval, equidistant between eyes and snout tip; inter-upper eyelid width greater than inter narial distance (IN / IUE = 0.76); internarial distance equal to upper eyelid width; eye length nearly half of head length (EL / HL = 0.46); canthal ridge distinct, oblique; loreal slightly concave; tympanum rounded, distinct; tympanic diameter one fifth of eye length; supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue notched medially at posterior end and with sparsely distributed flat granules.</p><p>Forelimbs slender, forearm shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.86); third finger longest, relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; finger with rounded disc, disc with circum-marginal groove; disc on second, third and fourth finger wider than horizontal tympanic diameter; subarticular tubercles round and distinct except proximal ones on third and fourth fingers; palmar tubercles indistinct; nuptial pad present on first finger.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender, thigh length longer than shank length (TBL / TL = 0.92) and foot length (FOL / TL = 0.85); shank longer than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.92); fourth finger longest toes, relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc, disc with circum-marginal groove, disc width of fourth toe slightly less than that of third toe; subarticular tubercles round and distinct except proximal ones on fourth and fifth toes; inner metatarsal tubercle present, longer than horizontal tympanic diameter, outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head smooth with scattered spinules; distinct spinules on upper eyelid; few granular tubercles behind angle of jaw; numerous spinules on dorsum, above supratympanic fold and flank; limb smooth dorsally; throat, chest, abdomen and ventral aspect of thigh granular; tibia and tarsus smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head and dorsum pale yellowish brown; slightly dark brown patch on snout and posterior part of head; tubercles on snout, upper eyelid and posterior part of head white; lateral aspect of head pale yellowish brown; narial region dark brown; alternative dark brown and white bands on upper jaw; white speckles on angle of jaw and mandibular region; tympanic region dark brown; few irregular sized white spots on dorsum; a pair of concave dark brown stripes on dorsum, posteriorly prominent and edged with white speckles; another similar short stripe on flank; white flecks on axilla; irregular white spots on forelimb; finger discs yellow; white spots of irregular size and shape on hindlimb; an indistinct broad crossbar on thigh and tibia; groin and lateral aspect of thigh pale yellow; ventral aspect of head yellowish with dense brown and white marbling, few small white patches along lower jaw; irregular white flecks on chest, abdomen, forelimb and hind limb; finger and disc pale yellow; yellow tinge on toe, first toe on left side yellow.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal and ventral colouration similar with that of colouration in life except that white spots visible in life are not visible in preserved condition; brown reticulation on pale-cream coloured background on chest and abdomen.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. annandalii by internarial distance being equal to upper eyelid width (vs. internarial distance greater than upper eyelid width), snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length equal to or greater than eye length); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by absence of bony projection on humerus (vs. bony projection on humerus present); it differs from R. boulengeri, R. kempiae, R. orientalis sp. nov., and R. shillongensis sp. nov. by internarial distance being equal to upper eyelid width (vs. internarial distance being greater than upper eyelid width); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by presence of a single broad crossbar on thigh and tibia (vs. three crossbars on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. dulongensis by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length equal to eye length); it differs from R. garo by smaller body size, SVL 18.1–19.7 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 19.9–26.9 in adult males); it differs from R. hekouensis, R. hillisi and R. malipoensis by larger body size, SVL 18.1–19.7 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 16.1–17.5 mm in R. hekouensis, 15.9–17.7 mm in R. hillisi and 14.6–17.7 in R. malipoensis); it differs from R. hillisi by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. huanglianshan by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 18.1–19.7 mm (vs. 13.6–14.0 mm), and inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 18.1–19.7 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length); it differs from R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. by presence of moderately dense spinules on dorsum (vs. comparatively denser spinules on dorsum), presence of dark brown stripe edged with white spots on flank (vs. absent); it differs from R. menglaensis by snout length being smaller than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length), head length being equal to or slightly smaller than its width (vs. head longer than its width); it differs from R. mindat by presence of dark brown band bordered with white spots on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), by absence of white patches on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on the lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by internarial distance being equal to upper eyelid width (vs. internarial distance greater than upper eyelid width), presence of dark brown stripe edged with white spots on groin (vs. no pattern on groin); it differs from R. parvulus by thigh being longer than tibia (vs. thigh shorter than or equal to tibia length); it differs from R. rezakhani by presence of dark brown stripe edged with white spots on flank (vs. no brown stripe on flank); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length), by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length equal to eye length). A detailed morphological comparison is given in Table 1.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. is sister to R. narpuhensis sp. nov. (Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence with other congeners included in this study is 2.3 – 9.3 % in the 16 S, 13.9 – 21.0 % in the cyt b and 13.9 – 21.0 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name “ Lawngtlai ” District in Mizoram State where the type locality of this species lies.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Lawngtlai bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. is currently known from its type locality in Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary, Lawngtlai, Mizoram (Fig. 19 A). The holotype was found calling on a leaf approximately at one metre height above ground along a forest trail at around 23: 00 hrs. The paratype was recorded while it was calling from a bamboo branch approximately 1.5 m above ground at around 20: 15 hrs at the edge of a small stream of approximately two meters in width (Fig. 33 A).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CA5FBCB2F3FB5A0D912A759CCDE21C72	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
EC5485FC36065838A752219687DCB922.text	EC5485FC36065838A752219687DCB922.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes magnus Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes magnus sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 42; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1667) collected by BB on 4 August 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.83799&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.22049" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.83799/lat 28.22049)">Tiwarigaon</a> (28.22049°N, 95.83799°E, elevation 800 m a. s. l.), Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Two adult males (WII-ADA 1666 and WII-ADA 1668) collected along with the holotype from same locality .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>One adult female (WII-ADA 1748) and two subadult males (WII-ADA 1739 and WII-ADA 1749) collected by BB on 21 August 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.943&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.6327" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.943/lat 28.6327)">Punli</a> (28.6327°N, 95.9430°E, elevation 920 m a. s. l.), Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one subadult (WII-ADA 1190) collected by BB on 26 October 2021 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=95.03106&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.53543" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 95.03106/lat 28.53543)">Jengging</a> (28.53543°N, 95.03106°E, elevation 940 m a. s. l.), Mouling National Park, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one subadult (WII-ADA 1202) collected by BB on 27 October 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.97951&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.65631" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.97951/lat 28.65631)">Ramsing</a> (28.65631°N, 94.97951°E, elevation 620 m a. s. l.), Mouling National Park, Upper Siang, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult female (WII-ADA 402) and one adult male (WII-ADA 448) collected by AD on 16 October 2018 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.85392&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.47821" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.85392/lat 28.47821)">Mouling National Park</a> (28.47821°N, 94.85392°E, elevation 1520 m a. s. l.), Upper Siang, Arunachal Pradesh ; one juvenile (WII-ADA 3035) collected by BB and AD on 3 September 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.44585&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.69583" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.44585/lat 27.69583)">Glaw lake</a> (27.69583°N, 96.44585°E, elevation 1200 m a. s. l.), Kamlang Tiger Reserve, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3435) collected by AD, RNV and JDG on 19 July 2023 near Glaw lake, Kamlang Tiger Reserve, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3424) collected by AD, RNV and JDG on 17 July 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.4346&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.72294" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.4346/lat 27.72294)">Kalai</a> (27.72294°N, 96.4346°E, elevation 1110 m a. s. l.), Kamlang Tiger Reserve, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Medium sized Raorchestes, SVL 22.5–27.4 mm in adult males and SVL 25.5–28.4 mm in adult females; Vomerine teeth absent; head length slightly less than or equal to width (HL / HW = 0.96–1.03); snout length slightly smaller than eye length (SL / EL = 0.86–0.97); snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width (IUE / SL = 1.03–1.24); nostrils closer to snout tip; internarial distance smaller than inter upper-eyelid width; eye length greater than inter-upper eyelid width (0.77–0.91); numerous spinules on back; bluntly conical tubercles on upper eyelids and limbs; a pair of broad dark concave stripes on back; broad dark crossbars on limbs; dorsally greyish-brown in life; a distinct or faint white bar on interorbital space; three broad crossbars on thigh and tibia.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype is in good preserved condition except for an incision under right thigh. Adult male with vocal sacs, 24.3 mm in SVL; head moderate in size (HL / SVL = 0.39), slightly wider than long (HL / HW = 0.98); snout rounded in dorsal view, slightly protruding beyond lower jaw; slight depression on internarial region; outline between snout tip and nostrils concave; narial region slightly protruding; canthus rostralis distinct and rounded, vertical; loreal concave; nostril oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented, closer to snout tip than eye (NS / EN = 0.76); internasal distance equal to upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 1.0) and smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.87); eyes moderate in size (EL / HL = 0.4), ele length greater than snout length (SL / EL = 0.89), protruding in life; tympanum distinct, rounded and one third of the eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.3); supratympanic fold distinct; choanae rounded; no vomerine teeth; tongue posteriorly wide and notched; pair of slit like openings present on lower jaw; trunk slender, half of snout-vent length (TRL/ SVL = 0.49).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; forearm length less than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.78); palmar tubercles barely visible; relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; finger with rounded disc; disc on third and fourth finger wider than tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove present each on disc; subarticular tubercles enlarged, rounded except the proximal ones on third and fourth fingers, which are smaller and indistinct; fine granular nuptial pad present on base of first fingers; rudimentary web present between third and fourth fingers.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length slightly greater than half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.53) and slightly greater than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.96); tibia length greater than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.83); relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;IV &lt;V; toe with rounded disc; disc width equal to those of fingers; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; subarticular tubercles enlarged and rounded, proximal subarticular tubercles on fourth and fifth toes smaller than distal ones; inner metatarsal tubercle present and outer one absent; supernumerary tubercles absent; webbing moderate, reaching distal to second subarticular tubercle on fourth finger.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout, inter-upper eyelid space and upper eyelid shagreened; three tubercular projections on top of the head in a straight line, one anterior to inter-upper eyelid space, one on inter-upper eyelid space and one posterior to it; tubercles on upper eyelid barely visible; enlarged tubercles posterior to angle of jaw, one is prominent; indistinct tubercles above supratympanic fold; dense spinules on middle of dorsum and towards dorsolateral aspect, few spinules scattered on anterior part of dorsum, posterior part of dorsum smooth; flank granular, ventro-laterally distinct; forelimbs smooth on dorsal aspect; thighs smooth on dorsal aspect; tibia with few indistinct scattered tubercles; blunt tubercular projections along ventro-lateral side of tarsus; two tubercles below vent, one on each side; on ventrum, throat, chest and abdomen granular; lower arms granular; thighs granular towards its base; tibia smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head, dorsum and limbs on top pale brown; markings on head, dorsum and crossbars on limbs faint, not distinct as in preserved condition; irregular shaped and sized dark brown spots on flank, near groin, on supratympanic fold, tibia and discs of outer two digits; enlarged dark brown patch present on groin; enlarged dark brown patches on lateral aspect of the thigh; disc of inner two fingers and inner three toes pale yellow; on ventral aspect, head, chest, abdomen, and limb flesh coloured; irregular brown patches on thigh and tibia.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Snout on dorsal aspect brown; upper eyelid dark grey; pale cream coloured bar on inter-upper eyelid space and an inverted triangular brown marking posterior to it; a small brown patch behind the upper eyelid; loreal region dark brown; brown streak ventral to eye; brown stripe along lower border of supratympanic fold; back pale greyish brown with an enlarged slightly dark brown patch which anteriorly connected with head marking and posteriorly bifurcated, posterior ends reaching anterior to groin; forelimbs pale cream coloured with brown mottling; broad dark brown band on dorsal aspect of forearm and another one on base of the hand; brown patch on both third and fourth finger; hindlimbs pale cream coloured with brown mottling; distal end of thigh and proximal end of tibia heavily mottled; a brown patch on inner lateral aspect of thigh near groin; single broad dark brown bar on thigh, tibia, tarsus and base of the foot; irregular brown patches on fourth and fifth toes and webbing between them; dark brown patch around the vent; on ventrum, head, trunk, limbs pale cream coloured with irregular brown mottling; brown and light patches on ventral aspect of thigh and tibia.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Males have a pair of internal vocal sac openings on the lower jaw, an external subgular vocal sac and a nuptial pad on the first finger. Other morphometric variations among individuals are provided in Table S 12. Dorsal colouration among the individuals varies in life as greyish brown, brown or pale yellowish brown; dorsal concave stripes may be distinct or faint; number of dark brown or black spots on flank, abdomen, and thighs varies among individuals.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes magnus sp. nov. differs from its congeners by large body size in adult males, SVL 22.5–27.4 mm (vs. SVL 17.3–19.6 mm in R. annandalii, 16.7–21.0 mm in R. barakensis sp. nov., 17.5–19.1 mm in R. boulengeri sp. nov., 19.6–21.8 mm in R. dibangensis sp. nov., 15.0–19.0 mm in R. dulongensis, 16.1–17.5 mm in R. hekouensis, 15.9–17.7 mm in R. hillisi, 17.0– 19.6 mm in R. huanglianshan, 13.6–14.0 mm in R. jadoh, 18.4–21.6 mm in R. jakoid, 18.1–19.7 mm in R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov., 15.7–15.8 mm in R. leiktho, 14.6–17.7 mm in R. malipoensis, 16.0– 18.7 mm in R. mawsynramensis sp. nov., 16.6–21.6 mm in R. menglaensis, 16.7–18.3 mm in R. mindat, 17.9–20.6 mm in R. monolithus sp. nov., 17.0– 19.9 mm in R. nasuta sp. nov., 18.0– 21.1 mm in R. narpuhensis sp. nov., 14.6–20.8 mm in R. orientalis sp. nov., 17.0– 18.6 mm in R. parvulus, 18.85–20.90 mm in R. rezakhani, 13.9–20.4 mm in R. shillongensis); further it differs from R. andersoni by presence of three broad dark crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. single crossbar on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. annandalii by presence of enlarged black or dark brown patch on groin (vs. no marking present on groin); it differs from R. dulongensis by snout length being smaller than eye length (vs. snout length equal to eye length); it differs from R. eaglenestensis sp. nov. by presence of enlarged black or dark brown patch on groin (vs. no marking present on groin); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. hillisi and R. huanglianshan by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. kempiae by presence of enlarged black or dark brown patch on the groin (vs. short brown stripe present on groin); it differs from R. khonoma sp. nov. by snout length being greater than inter-upper eyelid length (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width), and eye length being greater than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. eye length equal to inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by snout length being greater than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. menglaensis by head length being equal to or less than width (vs. head longer than width); it differs from R. yadongensis by eye length being greater than snout length and inter upper eyelid width (vs. eye length equal to snout length and inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by snout length being greater than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length equal to inter upper eyelid width); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being less than eye length (vs. snout longer than eye length). A detailed morphological comparison with its congeners is given in Table 1. Morphologically R. magnus sp. nov. is close to R. arunachalensis sp. nov. and R. garo .</p><p>Phylogenetic position and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes magnus sp. nov. is sister to R. arunachalensis sp. nov. (UFB 99, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of R. magnus sp. nov. with other congeners included in this study is 2.8–8.4 % in the 16 S, 12.5–18.4 % in the cyt b and 7.5–14.1 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is derived from the Latin word “Magna” meaning large, as this species is the largest (maximum SVL 28.4 mm) of all Raorchestes species found in northeast India.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Large bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Currently Raorchestes magnus sp. nov. has been recorded from Mouling National Park, Kamlang Tiger Reserve and Dibang Valley in Arunachal Pradesh (Fig. 25 B). Individuals of this species were observed on leaves up to one metre above ground on roadsides near Punli in Dibang valley in August 2022. Calling individuals were observed on leaves about three metres above ground in Tiwarigaon during the same month. Juveniles were along forest trails streams in October 2021; individuals were recorded on leaves near Glaw Lake and in Kalai camp, Kamlang Tiger Reserve in September 2022 and July 2023. Other amphibian species recorded in the same habitat as R. magnus sp. nov. are Xenophrys ancrae, Nasutixalus sp. Amolops cf. adicola, Amolops beibengensis Jiang et al., 2020, Rhacophorus tuberculatus (Anderson, 1871), Zhangixalus smaragdinus (Blyth, 1852), Theloderma moloch (Annandale, 1912) in Dibang Valley and Amolops gerbillus (Annandale, 1912), Ingerana borealis, Xenophrys sp. in Mouling National Park.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EC5485FC36065838A752219687DCB922	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
5B10970B955C560AA043249A7CE04F5D.text	5B10970B955C560AA043249A7CE04F5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes mawsynramensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes mawsynramensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 26; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1531) collected by BB on 1 June 2022 near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=91.53468&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.26144" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 91.53468/lat 25.26144)">Mawrapat</a> (25.26144°N, 91.53468°E, elevation 1140 m a. s. l.), East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Six adult males (WII-ADA 1533 – WII-ADA 1538), and an adult female (WII-ADA 1530). Collection details are the same as for the holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 16–18.7 mm in adult male, SVL in adult female at least 20.0 mm; head length equal to slightly less than width (HL / HW = 0.92–1.0); vomerine teeth absent; snout rounded on dorsal view; snout length equal to or slightly less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.87–1.0); nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip; dense spinules on dorsal aspect of head, dorsum and limb, intermixed with scattered bluntly conical tubercles; dorsally pale brown to dark brown; dark brown “) - (“ mark on dorsum; indistinct or distinct dark brown crossbars on forelimb and hindlimb; yellow bar on inter-upper eyelid space may be present; tips of bluntly conical tubercles white; irregular sized white flecks on flank, lateral aspect of head, and on abdomen; supratympanic fold and lower arm pale yellow.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype in good condition except for an incision on ventral side of right thigh; SVL 17.8 mm, dorsoventrally flattened; head slightly wider than long (HL / HW = 0.92); snout rounded in dorsal view and nearly truncated in lateral view, slightly protruding in ventral view; snout length slightly less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.88); canthus rostralis distinct, rounded and nearly vertical; loreal region concave; tympanum indistinct, rounded, less than one third of eye length (HTYD / ED = 0.28); supratympanic fold distinct; internarial distance smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (INS/ IUE = 0.9) and slightly greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IUE = 0.89); nostril oval, obliquely oriented, equidistant between eye and snout tip, narial region slightly protruding, internarial space slightly concave on dorsal aspect; inter-upper eyelid space flat; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue notched posteriorly; trunk dorsoventrally flattened, less than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.47).</p><p>Forelimbs slender, forearm shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.75); digits with rounded disc, circum-marginal groove present on each disc; metacarpal tubercles indistinct; disc widths of third and fourth finger greater than tympanic diameter; distinct, large and finely granular nuptial pad present on first finger, covering ventrolateral and dorsolateral aspect; subarticular tubercles round, proximal ones on third and fourth fingers smaller and indistinct than distal ones and indistinct, SAT = 1: 1: 2: 2; webbing among fingers absent; relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III.</p><p>Hind limbs slender; thigh length half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.49), slightly greater than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.95), and greater than foot length (FOL / TL = 0.77); heels slightly overlapping when tibia folded perpendicular to body axis; relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;II &lt;V &lt;IV; toes with rounded disc, width of toe disc equal to those on finger, fourth toe disc largest, disc on fourth and fifth toes wider than tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; narrow inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer one absent; subarticular tubercles round, proximal ones on TIII-TV indistinct; supernumerary tubercles absent; webbing among the toes slight, between TI and TII rudimentary, webbing not reaching second subarticular tubercle of fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head shagreen, spinules not visible as in life condition; indistinct tubercles on inter-upper eyelid space and on upper eyelid; bluntly conical tubercles on head and upper eyelid distinctly visible in life; few distinct tubercles behind angle of jaw; dorsum shagreen with dense spinules, posteriorly spinules not as dense as anterior part; spinules more distinct dorsal to supratympanic fold and dorsum; flank with dense spinules; forelimb and hindlimb smooth in preserved condition, but spinules and blunt tubercles distinctly visible in life; indistinct flat tubercles present around vent; throat and chest smooth; abdomen and ventral aspect of thigh granular; tibia smooth; flat tubercle along outer dorsoventral aspect of tarsus; small granules scattered on dorsal surface of tongue.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head and dorsum dark brown; lateral aspect of head whitish with tiny brown speckle, irregular white patches and tiny dots on upper and lower jaw; tip of tubercles and spinules white; supratympanic fold orange yellow; flank whitish with pale brown tinge and brown speckle; lower arm orange yellow; upper arm pale brown with two indistinct and slightly dark brown crossbars; finger disc with dense brown speckle, orange yellow patch on some of finger discs; thigh dorsally pale brown with slightly dark brown speckle on it, knee slightly darker; lateral aspect of thigh pale brown, towards vent whitish with brown speckle, enlarge dark brown patch around vent; tibia pale brown with indistinct slightly darker crossbar and whitish speckle; tibia and foot pale brown with darker brown and white speckles; toe disc with dense brown speckle; tip of tubercles on hindlimb white; tubercles along tarsus white; throat, abdomen and ventral aspect of limb whitish with brown mottling; small white spots irregularly placed on gular region; white spots of irregular size on abdomen, ventrolateral aspect of flank, upper arm, thigh, and tarsus.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Head dorsally pale brown, upper eyelid dark grey; inverted triangular dark grey mark on parietal region; loreal region slightly darker, lateral aspect of head pale yellowish with brown speckle; dorsum greyish brown, paler towards lateral side; a slightly dark brown “) - (“ mark on dorsum of which anterior ends starts from upper eyelid and posterior ends extends to groin; in life condition this marking was not visible; forelimb and hindlimb pale yellowish with brown mottling; indistinct brown crossbars visible on forearm, thigh, and tibia; ventrally uniform pale-yellowish with brown mottling.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Snout-vent length of the collected males (N = 7) smaller than that of the single female. In males, a pair of internal slits present on the lower jaw; an external large subgular vocal sac present in male; enlarged nuptial pad present on the first finger of males. Live colouration varies among individuals, paratype (WII-ADA 1531) had an orange-yellow bar on inter-upper eyelid space followed by a pair of short orange yellow stripe which are joint posteriorly; in WII-ADA 1530 reddish brown hourglass shaped mark on dark brown present on dorsum. In addition to these variation, intensity of dorsal spinules and tubercles varies among individuals, WII-ADA 1530 and WII-ADA 1537 has comparatively fewer scattered spinules on dorsum unlike other individuals; marking on dorsum and crossbars on limbs faint in WII-ADA 1537 and WII-ADA 1538; crossbars on limbs of WII-ADA 1536 narrow and more distinct than that of other individuals; dorsal skin on head nearly smooth in WII-ADA 1530, WII-ADA 1536 and WII-ADA 1538; other morphometric variations are given in Table S 12.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes mawsynramensis sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni, R. leiktho and R. malipoensis by the position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. annandalii by presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. skin on dorsum smooth); it differs from R. garo by smaller body size, SVL 16.0– 18.7 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 19.9–26.9 mm in adult males); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. and R. rezakhani by presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. dulongensis by head length being equal to or less than width (vs. head longer than wide), position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second fingers); it differs from R. hillisi and R. huanglianshan by snout length less than eye length (vs. snout length snout length greater than eye length), position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 16.0– 18.7 mm (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm); it differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. kempiae by presence of dark brown “) - (“ mark on dorsum (vs. concave stripes on dorsum absent or faint); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. menglaensis by snout length being smaller than eye length (vs. snout length snout length longer than eye length), head length being equal to or less than width (vs. head longer than wide); it differs from R. mindat by presence of dark patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), absence of white patches on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. parvulus by presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered spinules on dorsum); it differs from R. orientalis sp. nov. by presence of comparatively dense spinules on head and dorsum (vs. comparatively less spinules on head and dorsum), distinct enlarged tubercles absent on dorsal aspect of head absent (vs. enlarged bluntly conical tubercles on dorsal aspect of head present), three crossbars on thigh and tibia (vs. two to four crossbars on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. shillongensis presence of spinules on dorsum (vs. small blunt tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length. Morphological comparisons of R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. with our newly described species in this study are provided in respective sections and in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. were recorded at its type locality on 1 June 2022 between 18: 30–19: 15 hrs at an ambient temperature of 24.4 ° C – 26.0 ° C. The call description is based on 40 calls including those from two individuals (WII-ADA 1531 and WII-ADA 1534). The calls are single type, non-pulsatile, emitted as a single call at regular intervals, not in groups (Fig. 24). The mean call duration is 16.2 ± 1.99 ms (13–20 ms) with a rise time of 1 ms and a fall time of 15.48 ± 2.09 ms (12–19 ms). The mean interval between calls is 1418.5 ± 264.94 ms (1127–2133 ms). The dominant frequency is 4403.55 ± 74.74 Hz (4263.6–4608.1 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of other congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes mawsynramensis sp. nov. is sister to R. boulengeri sp. nov. (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3) with genetic divergence of 2.5–2.9 % in the 16 S, 3.9–4.4 % in the cyt b and 3.6–3.9 % in the COI genes. The genetic divergences with other congeners included in this study are 3.2–9.8 % in the 16 S, 9.3–18.2 % in the cyt b and 3.6–15.6 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>This specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name “ Mawsynram ” in Meghalaya State which is the wettest place on earth.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Mawsynram bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes mawsynramensis sp. nov. is known only from the type locality around Mawrapat, approximately 5 km southwest of Mawsynram, Meghalaya (Fig. 25 A). Calling males were found about 1–1.5 m above ground on a slope in the forest; the area was covered by mostly bamboo species and a few palm trees, ferns and shrubs with thick leaf litters; there was a small stream at this site and a road through the forest connecting Mawrapat and Mawsynram (Fig. 20 E). We found the single female individual among leaf litter. Other sympatric anuran species found at this locality include Rhacophorus bipunctatus Ahl, 1927, Kurixalus sp. Xenophrys sp. and Amolops sp.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5B10970B955C560AA043249A7CE04F5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
4F5AF218929C5F5B9402FD88ED6C8A0D.text	4F5AF218929C5F5B9402FD88ED6C8A0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes mindat Kohler 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes mindat Köhler et al., 2025</p><p>Figure 43; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Materials examined.</p><p>Three adult males (WII-ADA 883, WII-ADA 885, WII-ADA 887) collected by BB and AD on 5 August 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.97698&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.80594" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.97698/lat 25.80594)">Fakim</a> (25.80594°N, 94.97698°E, elevation 1940 m a. s. l.), Kiphire District, Nagaland, India .</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Raorchestes mindat was recently described by Köhler et al. (2025) from Myanmar. With the following morphological exception, our three specimens from Nagaland we referred to R. mindat with support of molecular data (Figs 2, 3). In the original description, tibia length is greater than thigh length (vs. tibia length smaller than thigh length in our collected specimens); tongue rounded, not notched (vs. tongue posteriorly notched in our specimens). Additionally, life colouration of the species was not provided in the original description as it was based on 20 years old specimens (Köhler et al. 2025). Below we provided morphological description, life colouration, and variations of the species based on newly collected specimens.</p><p>Description of a freshy collected male (WII-ADA 885).</p><p>An adult male (Fig. 43 A – E) with vocal sac, SVL 17.9 mm; head slightly wider than its length (HL / HW = 0.92); snout rounded in dorsal view and sub ovoid in ventral view, truncated in lateral view, slightly projected beyond the lower jaw, a bluntly conical projection on snout tip; snout length nearly equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.92) and equal to inter-upper eyelid width; nostril oval in shape, oblique and laterally positioned, equidistant from snout tip and eyes; internarial distance smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.79) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.84); inter upper eyelid space slightly convex; canthus rostralis smooth, slightly oblique; loreal region concave; tympanum round, indistinct, less than one third of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.28); eye moderate in size, less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.41).</p><p>Forelimbs slender, forearm length equal to hand length, nearly one third of snout-vent length (FAL / SVL = 0.27); third finger longest, relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; fingers with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; disc on third finger widest and greater than the tympanic diameter (HTYD / FID = 0.78); webbing absent between fingers; subarticular tubercles distinct, proximal one on finger III and IV smaller in size than that of upper one; supernumerary tubercles absent; palmar tubercles indistinct.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.94) and foot (FOL / TL = 0.8); tibia longer than foot (FOL / TBL = 0.85); fourth toe longest, relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV, toes with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; disc on fourth toe wider than tympanic diameter and slightly smaller than that of finger III; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded, proximal one on toe IV very small; supernumerary tubercles absent; inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head and dorsum smooth; distinct and bluntly conical tubercles on upper eyelid, posterior part of head, posterior to upper eyelid and anterior part of dorsum; lateral aspect of head smooth, few rounded tubercles behind angle of jaw; supratympanic folds distinct; dorsum with dense spinules, spreading towards flank; forelimbs and hindlimbs smooth with indistinct tubercular projections; on ventrum, head smooth, abdomen, ventral aspect of lower arm, and thigh distinctly granular; numerous flat granules on palm and ventral aspect of foot.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsally head, dorsum and limb dark brown, flank slightly paler; enlarged black patch between two white patches present on groin, covering posterior half of the flank; similar black and white patches of irregular size and shape present on lateral and ventral aspects of thigh, tibia, and lateral aspect of tarsus; one broad black or dark brown crossbar present on dorsal side of each forearm, thigh and tibia; irregular small pale bluish white spots on upper jaw present; ventrally dark brown; small irregular pale-bluish white spots present on gular region, forearm and hind arm, chest, abdomen and ventral side of tarsus; digital disc yellowish on dorsal aspect.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head and dorsum similar to that of life colouration; dorsal aspect of limbs slightly paler brown than in life; ventral aspect pale brown, all white and black markings visible as when it was alive.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Details of morphometric variations are provided in Table S 12. Shape and size of the black and white patches on groin and hindlimbs varies among individuals; intensity of the small white spots on the ventral aspect of body and on chin varies among individuals of this species.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship.</p><p>Raorchestes mindat is sister to a group containing R. huanglianshan and R. menglaensis with weak support in ML analysis (Fig. 2). In BI analysis, R. mindat recovered as a sister to R. annandalii with weak support (Fig. 3). The genetic divergence of R. mindat with its congeners included in this study are 2.4–7.4 % in the 16 S, 11.7–17.7 % in the cyt b genes (Table S 7 A – B).</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes mindat was known only from the type locality, between Hline Thoat village and Gyin Dwe village, Ovatmataung National Park of Mindat District, Myanmar. The present study reports this species from India for the first time (Fig. 19 B) and it extends the northeast distribution boundary of the species by 548 km from the type locality in Myanmar. We recorded calling males in a degraded agricultural farm on the edge of Fakim Wildlife Sanctuary (Fig. 44 A). Calling individuals were found on the hill slopes of an abandoned jhum field between 18: 00–19: 00 hrs on leaves of Eupatorium sp., one metre above ground. The area was mostly covered in maize and soybean as well as invasive plants such as Eupatorium sp. and Parthenium sp., on a slope with an incline of approximately 60 degrees.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4F5AF218929C5F5B9402FD88ED6C8A0D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
6C3A66CF676C571FB3A6B13F576A93DA.text	6C3A66CF676C571FB3A6B13F576A93DA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes monolithus Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes monolithus sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 37; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>WII-ADA 1634, an adult male collected by BB on 21 July 2022, from 1.5 km northeast of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.00156&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.50014" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.00156/lat 25.50014)">Pumdunlong village</a> (25.50014°N, 94.00156°E, elevation 1496 m a. s. l.), Senapati District, Manipur, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Five adult males (WII-ADA 1632, WII-ADA 1633, WII-ADA 1635 – WII-ADA 1637) collected along with the holotype from the same locality .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 17.9–20.6 mm in male; female unknown; head wider than long (HL / HW = 0.89–0.97); snout rounded, its length equal to or slightly less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.89–1.0); snout length equal to inter-upper eyelid width; tympanum indistinct; nostril equally positioned between eye and snout tip; internarial distance greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.67–0.89); a broad light brown and anteriorly diffused patch present on groin and a large whitish patch ventral to it; single crossbar on tibia and thigh.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Adult male with vocal sac, 20 mm in SVL; head length nearly equal to width (HL / HW = 0.97); snout rounded in dorsal view and lateral view, slightly protruding lower jaw in ventral view, snout length less than half of head length (SL / HL = 0.38) and equal to eye length (SL / EL = 1); nostril oval, laterally positioned, nearly equidistant between eye and snout tip (NS / EN = 0.92); internasal distance less than inter-upper eyelid distance (INS/ IUE = 0.84) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW /INS = 0.76); inter upper eyelid distance greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IUE = 0.64); eye length less than half of the head length (EL / HL = 0.38); loreal region slightly concave, canthal ridge rounded; tongue cordiform; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; pair of internal slit like openings on lower jaw; symphysial knob present on lower jaw; tympanum round, touches supratympanic fold, tympanic diameter one third of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.32); supratympanic fold distinct; external large subgular vocal sac present; trunk length nearly half of SVL (AG / SVL = 0.44).</p><p>Forelimb slender; forearm slightly shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.91); third finger longest, relative length of fingers = I &lt;II = IV &lt;III; finger with rounded disc, disc width of finger III and IV greater than tympanic diameter; discs with circum-marginal groove; subarticular tubercles large and rounded, lower subarticular tubercles on finger III and IV indistinct; palmar tubercle indistinct; fine granular nuptial pad on first finger; webbing between fingers absent.</p><p>Hindlimb slender; thigh longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.89); thigh length nearly half of SVL (TL / SVL = 0.47); tibia length less than half of SVL (TBL / SVL = 0.42) and nearly equal to foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.94); fourth toe longest, relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;V &lt;III &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc, disc width of toe IV widest and wider than tympanic diameter; disc with circum-marginal groove; subarticular tubercles round, proximal subarticular tubercles on the outer three toes indistinct; supernumerary tubercles absent; inner metatarsal tubercle elongated, outer metatarsal tubercle absent; webbing slight, not reaching second subarticular tubercle of the fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head smooth, upper eyelid and below inter-upper eyelid space shagreened; tubercles on upper eyelid and posterior part of the head barely visible; two tubercles posterior to angle of jaw on each side; few tubercles scattered on dorsum and dorsal aspect of limbs, tubercles on anterior dorsum prominent than that of posterior dorsum; flank with distinct tubercles scattered; flank ventro-laterally granular; throat and chest nearly smooth, granules barely visible; abdomen granular; ventral aspect of thigh indistinctly granular; tibia smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head and dorsum pale yellowish brown, becoming paler towards flank when compared to dorsal side; irregular white spots on both upper and lower jaws; supratympanic fold pale yellow; lower arm pale yellow; faint crossbar on forearm; similar crossbar on thigh and tibia; faint brown stripe on groin, anteriorly diffused and directing antero-dorsally; enlarged pale white patch below the brown stripe on groin; pale white patch on thigh near groin; faint white patches on axilla; disc on finger and toe yellow; chin and gular region pale yellowish; irregular white mottling on abdomen and ventral aspect of thigh.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsally pale brown; upper eyelid dark grey; greyish brown patch on posterior part of head; loreal region slightly darker; slightly dark brown irregular patches on dorsum above forelimb insertion, middle and posterior part of dorsum; dorsal aspect forelimb and hindlimb slightly paler than dorsum; brown cross bar on forearm and base of the hand; similar single crossbar on each tibia; cross bar on thigh faint; base of feet and toe with faint crossbars; on ventral aspect of head, trunk and limbs cream coloured with brown speckling.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Detailed morphological variations are provided in Table S 12; dorsal brown patches vary among type series; tubercles on head, upper eyelid and dorsum much pronounced, crossbars on limbs prominent, and dorsal colour darker in WII-ADA 1635 than holotype and other paratypes; WII-ADA 1633 has distinct tubercles on head and upper eyelid.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes monolithus sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by position of nostril equidistant from eye and snout tip (vs. nostril much closer to snout tip than eye), absence of yellowish band on inter-upper eyelid space (vs. a pale yellow band between eyes followed by two more bands at least in some individuals); it differs from R. annandalii by snout length being equal to inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by absence of bony projection on humerus (vs. a bony projection present on humerus protruding ventrally), scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum); it differs from R. boulengeri sp. nov. by absence of “) (” on dorsum (vs. present), by presence of spinules on head, upper eyelids and dorsum sparsely (vs. spinules comparatively dense); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by presence of single crossbar on thigh and tibia (vs. three crossbars on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. dibangensis sp. nov. by head being wider than its length (vs. head length equal to its width), by inter-upper eyelid being width equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length), nostril being equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. dulongensis by presence of nuptial pad on first finger of males (vs. nuptial pad absent), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct), “) (“ marking on dorsum absent (vs. a dark “) (“ marking on dorsum present); it differs from R. garo by dorsal colour pattern, absence of dark patch on dorsum, absence of white bar on inter-upper eyelid space, and absence of mid dorsal line (vs. dorsal colour in R. garo variable, enlarged dark patch on dorsum may be present, mid dorsal line may be present, white bar on interorbital space may be present), by presence of a brown patch and pale white patch below it on groin (vs. dark brown enlarged patch with whitish or yellowish patches on groin), and by absence of dark patch on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. dark brown patch with or without yellow spots present on lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. hekouensis and R. malipoensis by its larger body size in males, SVL 17.9–20.6 mm (vs. SVL 16.1–17.5 mm in males of R. hekouensis and SVL 14.6–17.7 mm in males of R. malipoensis), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct), and “ X ” shaped mark absent on dorsum (vs. distinct “ X ” shaped marking on dorsum); it differs from R. hillisi by larger body size in males, SVL 17.9–20.6 mm (vs. SVL 15.9–17.7 mm in males), by head being wider than long (vs. head longer than wide), by snout length being equal to or slightly less than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct), absence of dark stripes on dorsum (vs. a dark “) (“ shaped marking on dorsum); it differs from R. huanglianshan by snout length equal to or slightly less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct), absence of dark marking on inter-upper eyelid space (vs. a brown triangular marking on inter-upper eyelid space), and by absence of “ X ” mark on dorsum (vs. a dark “ X ” mark on dorsum); it differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid by snout length equal to inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width), by nostril being equidistant between snout tip and eye (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye), and thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. kempiae by snout length being equal to inter upper eyelid width (vs. snout length greater than inter-upper eyelid width), inter-upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter upper eyelid width smaller than eye length); it differs from R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. by inter upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter upper eyelid width greater than eye length), internarial distance being greater than upper eyelid width (vs. internarial distance equal to upper eyelid width); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.9–20.6 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. longchuanensis by smaller body size in males, SVL 17.9–20.6 mm (vs. SVL 21.4–23.9 mm in males), by inter upper eyelid width being equal to eye length (vs. inter upper eyelid width greater than eye length), tympanum indistinct (vs. distinct); it differs R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. by dorsal skin smooth with few scattered spinules on it (vs. dense spinules on dorsum), absence of “) - (“ on dorsum (vs. present), marking absent on inter-upper eyelid space absent (vs. present); it differs from R. menglaensis by head being wider than long (vs. head longer than wide), snout length being equal to or slightly less than eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length),, no “ X ” shaped marking on dorsum (vs. a “ X ” marking on dorsum present), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct); it differs from R. mindat by absence of black and white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), by absence of white patches on lateral aspect of thighs (vs. enlarged white patches on lateral aspect of thighs); it differs from R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by presence of brown patch with white crown shaped patch below it on groin (vs. groin yellowish without dark or light patches), and by position of nostril equidistant from eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. nasuta sp. nov. by rounded snout (vs. acute snout), by head being wider than long (vs. head longer than its width), and snout length being equal to inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length being greater than inter upper eyelid width); it differs from R. orientalis sp. nov. by scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum), darker stripes on dorsum barely visible or absent (vs. concave dorsal stripes distinct); it differs from R. parvulus by absence of inter-upper eyelid bar and stripes on dorsum (vs. bar or triangular mark between upper eyelids and “) (“ mark on dorsum present), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct); it differs from R. rezhakhani by absence of concave stripes on dorsum (vs. a “) (“ or “) - (“ mark on dorsum), by presence of single crossband on thigh and tibia (vs. three crossbands on thigh and tibia); it differs from R. shillongensis by absence of stripe or blotch on dorsum (vs. dorsal colour variable, distinct or indistinct “) (“ mark or dark hourglass shaped mark may be present); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by position of nostril equidistant from eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye), by snout length being equal to eye length (vs. snout length longer than eye length), absence of “) (“ marking on dorsum (vs. a “) (“ mark on dorsum); it differs from R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being slightly less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length), absence of triangular mark between upper eyelids (vs. distinct dark triangular marking between upper eyelids), tympanum indistinct (vs. tympanum distinct). Detailed morphological comparison with other congeneric species included in this study is provided in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. monolithus sp. nov. were recorded in Pumdunlong, Manipur on 21 July 2022 at 18: 50 hrs at an ambient temperature of 21.6 ° C. The call description is based on 70 calls from two individuals (WII-ADA 1634 and WII-ADA 1635). The calls are single type, non-pulsatile (Fig. 31) and are emitted in groups (5–13 calls per call group). In each call group, the amplitude peaks after the initial 1–3 calls. The mean call duration is 22.01 ± 16.07 ms (12–29 ms) with a call rise time of 1 ms and call fall time of 18.52 ± 4.62 (11–28 ms). The intercall interval is 164.78 ± 25.14 ms (118–285 ms). The mean dominant frequency is 3470.51 ± 59.77 Hz (3316.1–3531.4 Hz). A detailed comparison of advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes monolithus sp. nov. is sister to R. shillongensis and R. jadoh with strong nodal support (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence with other congeners included in this study is 3.9–8.6 % in the 16 S, 11.8–18.2 % in the cyt b and 6.5–13.8 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>This species is named after the “monoliths” located in Willong Khullen village in Manipur State, 4 km southwest from the type locality of this species.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Willong-Khullen bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes monolithus sp. nov. is known only from its type locality and around Willong Khullen Village in Manipur (Fig. 19 B). Calling individuals were recorded between 18: 00–20: 00 hrs on shrubs and small woody vegetation at perch heights of ~ 2 m. Calling aggregations were recorded in secondary forests at various degradation state (Fig. 33 D). We observed breeding aggregation of Hyla annectans (Jerdon, 1870) in the same habitat in temporary water puddles.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6C3A66CF676C571FB3A6B13F576A93DA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
C688F9A1A6815F26ACC2FA60B82115CB.text	C688F9A1A6815F26ACC2FA60B82115CB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes narpuhensis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes narpuhensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 30; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>WII-ADA 1509, an adult male collected by BB, VJ and AD on 29 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.37215&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.11062" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.37215/lat 25.11062)">Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary</a> (25.11062°N, 92.37215°E, elevation 70 m a. s. l.), Sonapur, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Four adult males (WII-ADA 1510, WII-ADA 1518, WII-ADA 1519, WII-ADA 1521) and one adult female (WII-ADA 1517). Collection details are the same as the holotype; two adult males (WII-ADA 1525 – WII-ADA 1526) collected by BB and AD on 30 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.37159&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.10995" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.37159/lat 25.10995)">Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary</a> (25.10995°N, 92.37159°E, elevation 80 m a. s. l.), East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Seven adult males (WII-ADA 1939, WII-ADA 1940, WII-ADA 1994, WII-ADA 1995, WII-ADA 1997, WII-ADA 1998, WII-ADA 2000) collected by BB on 19 July 2016 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=91.89818&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.20469" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 91.89818/lat 25.20469)">Riwai village</a> (25.20469°N, 91.89818°E, elevation 520 m a. s. l.), East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 18.0– 21.1 mm in adult males and adult female at least 23.1 mm; head length equal to or slightly greater than width; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; spinules on dorsal aspect of head, upper eyelid, dorsum, flank and limb; groin, axilla, and lateral side of thigh pale yellowish; slightly dark “) (“ marking on the dorsum; slightly dark brown and broad crossbar on forearm, thigh, and tibia; dark streak below eye.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype is in good condition, an incision on underside of right thigh; adult male with vocal sac, SVL 21.2 mm; head length and width equal; snout sub-ovoid in dorsal view and protruding in lateral view, slightly protruding in ventral view, slightly concave on internarial region; snout length slightly longer than eye length (EL / SL = 0.94); nostril small, oval in shape, oblique and laterally positioned, closer to snout tip than eye (NS / EN = 0.81); narial region protruding; internarial distance less than inter-upper eyelid space (IN / IUE = 0.81) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.77); tympanum rounded, indistinct, one fifth of the eye length; canthus rostralis distinct, rounded and oblique; loreal region concave; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; pair of internal slit like openings on lower jaw; an external subgular vocal sac present.</p><p>Forelimbs slender, forearm shorter than hand length (FAL / HAL = 0.91); relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; finger with rounded disc, disc on finger III is largest, disc width of the finger II, III and IV greater than tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; palmar tubercles barely visible; subarticular tubercles large and round; number of subarticular tubercles on fingers I: II: III: IV = 1: 1: 2: 2.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length greater than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.91) and foot length (FOL / TL = 0.75); tibia length greater than foot length (FOL / TBL = 0.82); relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; disc width of fourth toe slightly smaller than that of third finger; elliptical shaped inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer one absent; subarticular tubercles distinct, rounded, I: II: III: IV: V = 1: 1: 2: 3: 2.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of snout smooth in middle and shagreen towards side; inter-upper eyelid space smooth, upper eyelid shagreen with blunt indistinct tubercles; indistinct dermal ridge with tubercular projection from snout to inter-upper eyelid space; supratympanic fold distinct; loreal region shagreen; few blunt tubercles behind angle of jaw; dorsum smooth, scattered spinules on dorsolateral aspect and towards flank starting above supratympanic fold; posterior part of the dorsum smooth; flank ventro-laterally granular; limbs smooth dorsally, spinules not visible in preserved condition; ventrally throat and chest smooth; lower arms granular on ventral aspect; abdomen granular; thigh granular at base; shank smooth ventrally; large indistinct flat tubercular projection on palm; webbing on hand absent; finely granular nuptial pad present on first finger; webbing on feet slight, reaching below second subarticular tubercle of fourth toe.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Head, dorsum and limb pale brown on dorsal aspect, towards flank paler; upper eyelids slightly dark brown; inverted triangular dark brown mark on head, starting on inter-upper eyelid space; dark brown stripe on loreal region to snout tip; supratympanic fold dark brown; indistinct dark brown streak ventral to eye; base of the forelimb and inner lateral aspect of lower arm pale yellow; an indistinct brown cross bar on forearm; disc of the inner two fingers yellow and on outer two brown; pair of dark brown concave stripes on dorsum, anterior and posterior ends diffused; crossbars on thigh, tibia and tarsus indistinct; some of the tubercles on upper eyelid, dorsolateral aspect of dorsum, flank, forearm, thigh, tibia and tarsus white; irregular white spots on upper lip; ventral aspect of head, abdomen and limbs flesh coloured with irregular brown flecks; axilla, groin and inner lateral aspect of thigh pale yellow.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Dorsally head and dorsum pale brown; slightly dark brown “) (“ mark on dorsum starting behind upper eyelids to in front of groin; slightly dark brown mark on head starting on inter-upper eyelid space to posterior part of head; upper eyelid dark brown; loreal region slightly dark brown; supratympanic fold dark brown; forelimb and hindlimb light yellowish with dense brown mottling; tibia slightly darker than thigh; single, broad, indistinct, slightly dark brown crossbar on forearm, thigh, and tibia; surrounding of vent is brown; ventrally cream coloured, anterior part of throat and towards side heavily mottled with brown; scattered brown mottling on chest and abdomen; limbs, palms and feet heavily mottled with brown; pale white blotches on abdomen.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Details of morphometric variations are given in Table S 12. Dorsal “) (” marking varied among specimens, distinct to nearly diffused; snout tip of the female paratype (WII-ADA 1517) and male paratypes (WII-ADA 1521, WII-ADA 1525) more pronounced with blunt tubercular projection; indistinct mid dorsal line and similar longitudinal line present on thigh and tibia of WII-ADA 1519.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes narpuhensis sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by the absence of black patch on groin (vs. black patch with two yellow spots); differs from R. annandalii by nostril position closer to snout tip than eye (vs. nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip or closer to eye than snout tip); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by absence of bony projection on humerus (vs. present), scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by absence of black patch on groin (vs. a dark spot partially encircled with silvery yellow tinge); it differs from R. dulongensis by absence of black patches and creamy white spots on groin and lateral aspect of thigh (vs. present), nuptial pad present on first finger of males (vs. nuptial pad absent); it differs from R. garo by presence of scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. moderate to heavy spinules on dorsum), no marking on groin and lateral aspect of thigh (vs. dark brown patches on groin and lateral aspect of thigh or dark-brown patch with enlarged yellow spots on thigh); differs from R. hekouensis by larger body size, SVL 18.0– 21.1 mm in adult males (vs. SVL 16.1–17.5 mm in adult males), nuptial pad present only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. hillisi by larger body size, SVL 18.7–21.2 mm in adult males and SVL at least up to 23.1 mm in adult female (vs. SVL 14.5–17.7 mm in adult males and 17.5 in adult female), head length equal to width or slightly wider than long (vs. head longer than wide), dark brown patch on groin absent (vs. present); it differs from R. huanglianshan by dark brown patch on groin absent (vs. present), snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 18.0– 21.1 mm (vs. 13.6–14.0 mm), and inter-upper eyelid width being less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than or equal to eye length), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. kempiae by dorsal skin, scattered tubercles present dorsum (vs. dorsal skin of dorsum with spinules and blunt tubercles), absence of marking on groin (vs. short brown strip present on groin); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inner-upper eyelid being smaller than eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid greater than eye length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 18–21.1 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm); it differs from R. malipoensis by its large body size, SVL 18.7–21.2 mm in adult males and SVL at least up to 23.1 mm in adult female (vs. SVL 14.6–17.7 mm in adult males and 18.3–19.3 in adult females), black patches on groin and lateral aspect of thigh absent (vs. present); it differs from R. menglaensis by head length being equal to width or slightly wider than long (vs. head longer than wide), dark brown or black blotch on groin absent (vs. present); it differs from R. mindat by absence of dark or white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), no white patches on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. boulengeri sp. nov. and R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. in having relative smooth skin with scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsal aspect of head, dorsum, and limbs), being nostril closer to snout tip than eyes (vs. nostril equidistant from eyes and snout tip in R. boulengeri sp. nov. and R. mawsynramensis sp. nov.); differs from R. orientalis sp. nov. by presence of scattered tubercles on dorsum (vs. dense spinules on dorsum), presence of broad dark brown crossbar on thigh and tibia (vs. three crossbars on thigh and tibia), presence of pair of concave stripes on dorsum (vs. a “) - (“ mark on dorsum); it differs from R. parvulus snout sub ovoid to nearly acute (vs. snout rounded), absence of marking on groin (vs. dark brown marbling enclosing a whitish blotch on groin); it differs from R. rezakhani by presence of single broad crossbar on each thigh and tibia (vs. at least three narrow dark brown crossbars on each thigh and tibia), absence of brown patch on groin (vs. a short brown streak present on groin); it differs from R. shillongensis by absence of marking on groin (vs. dark brown patch with white crown shaped mark or diffused brown patch on groin); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being equal to or less than eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), absence of spot or marking on groin (vs. a large white spot on groin); it differs from R. yadongensis by absence of white patches on chest and abdomen (vs. present). A detailed morphological comparison is provided in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. narpuhensis sp. nov. were recorded in Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghalaya on 29 May 2022 between 19: 00–21: 00 hrs at an ambient temperature of 27.5 ° C. The call description is based on 40 calls from two individuals (WII-ADA 1509 and WII-ADA 1510). Calls are of a single type, non-pulsatile, emitted at regular intervals and not in groups (Fig. 31). The mean call duration is 18.7 ± 4.02 ms (13–25 ms) with a rise time of 1 ms and a fall time of 17.68 ± 3.83 ms (12–24 ms). The mean call interval between calls is 670.17 ± 85.57 ms (544–823 ms). The dominant frequency is 3954.57 ± 165.48 Hz (3574.5–4134.4 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship.</p><p>Raorchestes narpuhensis sp. nov. is sister to R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3) with genetic divergence of 2.3–2.7 % in the 16 S, 8.1–8.2 % in the cyt b and 8.7–8.9 % in the COI genes. The closest aerial distance between type localities of these two species is 293 km. Raorchestes narpuhensis sp. nov. has genetic divergence of 5.1–10.0 % in the 16 S, 13.7–20.8 % in the cyt b and 8.7–15.7 % in the COI genes with the other members of the genus (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the name “ Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary ” in Meghalaya State where the type series were collected.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Narpuh bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Currently Roarchestes narpuhensis sp. nov. is known from its type locality in and around Narpuh Wildlife Sanctuary, and in Riwai of Meghalaya (Fig. 19 A). We encountered calling males and a single female at ~ 1–2 m above ground perching on shrubs and on small bamboo leaves, Zingiber sp. on hill slopes (Fig. 20 H). Other sympatric species found with the new species were Chirixalus sp. and Polypedates cf. himalayensis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C688F9A1A6815F26ACC2FA60B82115CB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
5CF7CA253BBD5C4CBDA752E72B9DCB2A.text	5CF7CA253BBD5C4CBDA752E72B9DCB2A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes nasuta Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes nasuta sp. nov.</p><p>Figure 34; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 3388) collected by RNV on 12 June 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.4888&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.53903" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.4888/lat 27.53903)">Ranijheel</a> (27.53903°N, 96.4888°E, elevation 910 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Two adult males (WII-ADA 3398 and WII-ADA 3399) collected by RNV on 13 June 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.4763&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.53872" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.4763/lat 27.53872)">Bulbulia</a> (27.53872N, 96.4763E, elevation 880 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Referred Material.</p><p>Two adult males (WII-ADA 3216 and WII-ADA 3218) collected by RNV and SD on 10 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.44037&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.5381" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.44037/lat 27.5381)">Hornbill</a> (27.53810°N, 96.44037°E, elevation 660 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A small sized Raorchestes, SVL 17.0– 19.9 mm in adult males, female unknown; head longer than wide; snout acute with dermal projection on snout tip; snout length equal to eye length; inter-upper eyelid width less than or equal to eye length (IUE / EL = 0.88–0.96); nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip; horn like dermal projection on edge of upper eyelid; an hour-glass shaped dark brown mark starting on inter-upper eyelid space and extending to dorsum; bright yellow patches on groin and thigh; finger and toe disc yellow.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>Holotype well preserved except for an incision on the ventral side of right thigh. Adult male, SVL 17.9 mm; head longer than wide (HW / HL = 0.9); snout acute in dorsal and lateral view as a dermal projection present on snout tip, protruding beyond lower jaw in ventral view; snout length equal to eye length and slightly greater than inter-upper eyelid width (IUE / SL = 0.85); symphysial knob present on lower jaw; narial region protruding; nostril oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented, equidistant between eye and snout tip; slightly concave on dorsal aspect of snout; canthus rostralis rounded, vertical; loreal concave; eye moderate in size (EL / HL = 0.37); internarial distance nearly equal to inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.91) and greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.86); tympanum indistinct, round, one third of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.31); supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue posteriorly deeply notched and the two lobes are acute; pair of internal vocal sac openings on lower jaw; habitus less than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.46).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; forearm nearly equal to hand length (FAL / HL = 0.96); relative length of fingers = FI &lt;FII &lt;FIV &lt;FIII; rounded disc on finger, disc on finger III and IV wider than tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove on each disc; rudimentary webbing present between fingers; palmar tubercles indistinct; subarticular tubercles round, lower subarticular tubercle on finger III and IV small and indistinct; enlarged, fine granular nuptial pad on first finger.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh longer than tibia (TBL / TL = 0.89) and half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.5); relative length of toes = TI &lt;TII &lt;TIII &lt;TV &lt;TIV; rounded disc on toe, smaller than those of fingers; circum-marginal groove present each disc; subarticular tubercles distinct in live condition, proximal subarticular on fourth and fifth toes indistinct; inner metatarsal tubercle present, its length equal to width of discs of toes II – V; very thin dermal fringe along fifth toe; webbing moderate, reaching beyond second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head smooth (shagreen in live condition); indistinct tubercles on upper eyelid, a horn like tubercle on edge of each upper eyelid; tubercles on angle of jaw; skin on dorsum (shagreen in live condition) with spinules, scattered on middle and dense towards dorsolateral aspect; a weak mid-dorsal dermal ridge visible in live condition starting from snout and becoming diffused posteriorly; flank smooth; dorsal aspect of forelimb and hindlimb smooth; throat and chest smooth; abdomen and thigh granular; tibia and tarsus smooth.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of snout and top of head, dorsum brown; an hourglass shaped dark brown marking starting at inter-upper eyelid space and covering posterior half of upper eyelid extending to dorsum, becoming diffused posteriorly; a diffused dark brown broad stripe along supratympanic fold; another similar stripe on loreal region reaching snout tip; irregular pale cream coloured white spots on upper jaw; two yellow spots on groin on each side and inner lateral aspect of thigh; on outer lateral aspect of thigh yellow patches barely visible; a broad cross bar on each thigh and tibia barely visible; disc on digits yellow; ventral aspect of head, chest, abdomen and thigh brown, paler than dorsal aspect; dense dark brown mottling on chin, throat with few white flecks on anterior part of the jaw; brown mottling on ventral aspect of forelimb chest, abdomen and thigh not dense; irregular white flecks on forearm, thigh, tarsus and foot; granules on anterior to middle of the abdomen with white flecks; brown mottling on foot dense;</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Colouration darker than in life; marking on head and dorsum visible; mandibular region dark brown; dorsal aspect of distal half of forearm and hand dark brown; knee dark brown; crossbars on thigh and tibia distinctly visible; one broad cross bar on each thigh and two on each tibia; disc on digits pale cream coloured with brown mottling; dark brown patch around vent; chin and throat brown; chest, abdomen and ventral aspect of thigh pale cream coloured with brown flecks; forearm, tibia, tarsus, and feet brown; yellow spots on groin and thigh and white flecks on abdomen not visible.</p><p>Morphological variation.</p><p>Detailed morphometric variations are given in Table S 12. Additionally, yellow spots on groin and thighs vary among individuals (Fig. 34). For example, WII-ADA 3216 has yellow patches on base of lower arm, ventral aspect of thigh and tibia; distinct enlarged yellow patches on outer lateral aspect of thigh; yellow patches on groin much enlarged unlike holotype; a tubercle on inter-upper eyelid space. Dorsal marking on head and dorsum in WII-ADA 3216 distinct in preserved condition and barely visible in WII-ADA 3218, WII-ADA 3398 and WII-ADA 3399. Brown mottling on the ventral side in paratypes is not as dense as in holotype.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes nasuta sp. nov. differs from its congeners by its acute snout shape; further it differs from R. andersoni by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. annandalii, R. boulengeri sp. nov., and R. kempiae by presence of enlarged yellow patches on groin and thigh (vs. absent); it differs from R. barakensis sp. nov. by head being longer than wide (vs. head length less than or equal to width), enlarged yellow patches present on groin (vs. enlarged brown patch present on groin), by presence of dark brown hourglass shaped pattern on dorsum (vs. pair of concave dark brown stripes present on dorsum); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by snout length being equal to eye length and longer than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than eye length and equal than inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. dulongensis by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye), enlarged yellow spots present on groin and thigh (vs. absent); it differs from R. garo by presence of enlarged yellow patches on groin and thigh (vs. dark brown patches with or without yellow spots present); it differs from R. hekouensis by head being longer than wide (vs. head wider than long), snout being longer than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width), nuptial pad present only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. hillisi and R. menglaensis by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye), snout length being equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. huanglianshan by head being longer than wide (vs. head length less than or equal to width), by snout length being equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.0–19.9 (vs. SVL 13.6–14.0 mm); itr differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid snout acute (vs. snout rounded), by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye), and enlarged yellow patches present on groin and thigh (vs. absent); it differs from R. lawngtlaiensis sp. nov. by head being longer than wide (vs. head length equal to or smaller than width), by snout length being equal to eye length (vs. snout length less than eye length); it differs from R. leiktho by larger body size in adult males, SVL 17.0– 19.9 mm (vs. SVL 15.7–15.8 mm), an hourglass shaped pattern present on dorsum (vs. absent); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by head being longer than wide (vs. head wider than long), by snout being longer than inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width); it differs from R. mawsynramensis sp. nov. and R. shillongensis by head being longer than wide (vs. head length less than or equal to width), enlarged yellow patches present on groin and thigh (vs. absent); it differs from R. mindat by presence of yellow patches on groin and thigh (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin and thigh), an hourglass shaped pattern present on dorsum (vs. absent); it differs from R. narpuhensis sp. nov. by head being longer than wide (vs. head length less than or equal to width), by position of nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip (vs. nostril closer to snout tip than eye); it differs from R. parvulus by thigh being longer than tibia (vs. thigh length smaller than or equal to tibia length); it differs from R. rezakhani by snout length being equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), by head being longer than wide (vs. head wider than long); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by head being longer than wide (vs. head length equal to width), snout length being equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. yadongensis by head being longer than wide (vs. head wider than long), inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length). A detailed morphological comparison is provided in Table 1.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes nasuta sp. nov. is sister to an undescribed species from Tibet and Adi hills, Arunachal Pradesh (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3). These two lineages have a shallow genetic divergence of 1.5–2.0 % in the 16 S gene. The genetic divergence of R. nasuta sp. nov. with other congeners included in this study are 3.1–8.9 % in the 16 S, 9.1–19.2 % in the cyt b and 3.2–14.8 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is derived from the Latin word nose “Nasuta”, in reference to the prominent acute snout of this species.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Pointy-nosed bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes nasuta sp. nov. is currently distributed within Namdapha Tiger Reserve in Ranijheel, Bulbulia and Hornbill on the northern bank of the Noa-Dihing River, Arunachal Pradesh, India between 600–1000 m a. s. l. elevation (Fig. 20 A). Calling aggregation of the species was recorded between 18: 00–22: 00 hrs on vegetation along streams and forest trails.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5CF7CA253BBD5C4CBDA752E72B9DCB2A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
E5FCD3A421C552AFB9E2CCBDC54D69DF.text	E5FCD3A421C552AFB9E2CCBDC54D69DF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes orientalis Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes orientalis sp. nov.</p><p>Figures 23, 24, 25; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1309) collected by BB and AD on 10 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.38949&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.49662" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.38949/lat 27.49662)">Deban</a> (27.49662°N, 96.38949°E, elevation 380 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Paratypes.</p><p>Two adult males (WII-ADA 3202 and WII-ADA 3204) collected by R. N. Venkatesh and S. Dutta on 30 April 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.39313&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.49178" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.39313/lat 27.49178)">Deban</a> (27.49178°N, 96.39313°E, elevation 580 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India .</p><p>Referred material.</p><p>Five adult males (WII-ADA 1339, WII-ADA 1341 – WII-ADA 1344) collected by BB, AD and JV on 13 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.331474&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.48585" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.331474/lat 27.48585)">Motijheel trail</a> (27.48585°N, 96.331475°E, elevation 680 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve ; one adult male (WII-ADA 1387) and one adult female (WII-ADA 1389) collected by BB, AD and VJ on 20 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.33484&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.48998" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.33484/lat 27.48998)">Motijheel trail</a> (27.48998°N, 96.33484°E, elevation 530 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve ; one adult male (WII-ADA 1367) collected by BB, AD and VJ on 14 May 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.4279&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.4595" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.4279/lat 27.4595)">Kamala Valley</a> (27.4595°N, 96.4279°E, elevation 650 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve ; two adult males (WII-ADA 3266 and WII-ADA 3267) collected by AD, RNV and SD on 29 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.42758&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.46148" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.42758/lat 27.46148)">Kamala Valley</a> (27.46148°N, 96.42758°E; elevation 650 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve ; two adult males (WII-ADA 3243 and WII-ADA 3244) and one adult female (WII-ADA 3235) collected by AD, RNV and SD on 24 May 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.90208&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.29512" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.90208/lat 27.29512)">Gandhigram</a> (27.29512°N, 96.90208°E; elevation 1090 m a. s. l.), Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh ; one adult male (WII-ADA 3400) collected by RNV on 13 June 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.4888&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.53902" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.4888/lat 27.53902)">Ranijheel</a> (27.53902°N, 96.4888°E, elevation 910 m a. s. l.), Namdapha Tiger Reserve ; two adult males (WII-ADA 3422 and WII-ADA 3423) collected by AD, RNV and JDG on 17 July 2023 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=96.4346&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=27.72294" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 96.4346/lat 27.72294)">Kalai</a> (27.72294°N, 96.4346°E, elevation 1110 m a. s. l.), Kamlang Tiger Reserve, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh ; four adult males (WII-ADA 1628 – WII-ADA 1631) collected by BB on 19 July 2022 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=94.29186&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=25.49257" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 94.29186/lat 25.49257)">Liyai Khunou</a> (25.49257°N, 94.29186°E, elevation 2150 m a. s. l.), Senapati District, Manipur .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes (Fig. 23), SVL 14.6–20.8 mm in adult males and SVL 19.8–21.9 mm in adult females; snout rounded to oval in dorsal view; snout length slightly less than or equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.92–1.04); nostrils closer to snout than eye or equidistant between eye and snout tip; inter-upper eyelid width less than or equal to eye length (IUE / EL = 0.73–1.04); internarial distance greater than or equal to upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.65–0.95); internarial distance less than or equal to inter upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.78–1.05); nuptial pad present only on first finger in males; prominent bluntly conical tubercular projections on upper eyelids and posterior part of head; spinules on dorsum; scattered blunt tubercles on dorsum and hindlimbs; “) - (“ dark brown marking on dorsum; three or four dark-brown crossbars on thigh and tibia; short dark stripe present on groin.</p><p>Description of holotype.</p><p>Holotype is in good condition except for an incision on the ventral side of the right thigh. Adult male with vocal sac, SVL 20.4 mm; head as long as wide; snout rounded in dorsal view, truncated in lateral view, its length equal to eye length and greater than inter-upper eyelid width (IUE / SL = 0.87); narial region slightly protruding; nostrils oval, obliquely oriented, equidistant between eye and snout tip; loreal region concave; canthus rostralis distinct, rounded and oblique; internarial distance greater than upper eyelid width (UEW / IN = 0.79) and slightly smaller than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.92); tympanum indistinct, round, one third of the eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.33); supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue posteriorly notched; pair of internal slit like openings on lower jaw; trunk more than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.55).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; forearm shorter than hand (FAL / HAL = 0.91); third finger longest; relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; finger width rounded disc; disc on third finger slightly wider than tympanic diameter (HTYD / FID = 0.77); palmar tubercles indistinct; subarticular tubercles distinct, round, proximal subarticular tubercle on finger II and IV small; fine granular nuptial pad present on first finger; webbing on fingers absent.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.51); tibia slightly shorter than thigh (TBL / TL = 0.94); fourth toe longest; relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;II &lt;V &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc; disc width of fourth toe equal to that of third finger; subarticular tubercles distinct, round, proximal subarticular tubercle on toe IV and V small and indistinct; inner metatarsal tubercle present, its length equal to disc width of first and second toe; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; webbing slight, not reaching second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout shagreen; inter-upper eyelid space smooth; upper eyelid and loreal region shagreen; bluntly conical tubercles on upper eyelid, posterior part of head not visible in preserved condition unlike in life, pair of enlarged bluntly conical tubercle visible posterior to upper eyelid; one or two tubercles behind angle of jaw; flat granular tubercles present on dorsal surface of tongue; spinules present on dorsum and flank, spinules absent towards vent; forelimb and hindlimb smooth on dorsal aspect, spinules on thigh and tibia not visible unlike in life; head on ventral aspect smooth, gular region indistinctly granular; chest smooth; abdomen, thighs on ventral aspect granular; tibia on ventral aspect granular; two tubercles below vent.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of head, dorsum, limbs pale greyish brown with slightly darker brown flecks; pair of reddish, blunt tubercles posterior to upper eyelid; a reddish tubercle behind angle of jaw; pair of concave indistinct, brown stripes on dorsum; a broad brown crossbar on forearm; two brown crossbars on thigh and tibia and one on tarsus; diffused brown stripe along supratympanic fold; another similar stripe on upper jaw ventral to eye; irregular white spots along upper jaw; on ventral aspect of head, abdomen, and limbs flesh coloured with brown mottling; pale yellow tinge on gular region; brown patch around vent.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Colour pattern similar to life coloration; dorsally pale greyish brown, head slightly darker, limbs and flank paler; on ventrum, abdomen and limbs pale cream coloured with brown mottling.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Males have a pair of internal vocal sac openings, subgular external vocal sac and nuptial pad on the first finger; head longer than wide in females, but in males head wider than long or width equal to length. Dorsal colour varies from pale greyish brown to pale yellowish brown; concave stripes on dorsum may be broken or faint in some individuals; number of crossbars on thigh and tibia varies between 2–4; axilla and groin may be pale yellow in some individuals; disc on inner two fingers may be pale yellow. Detailed morphometric variation between the individuals of this species is given in Table S 12.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes orientalis sp. nov. differs from R. andersoni by short stripe present on groin (vs. large black spot with two yellow spots present on groin); it differs from R. annandalii by skin on dorsum with spinules (vs. skin on dorsum smooth); it differs from R. cinerascens nov. comb. by short stripe present on groin (vs. a spot partially encircled by yellow tinge present on groin), dense spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. dulongensis by presence of nuptial pad on first finger in males (vs. nuptial pad absent); it differs from R. hekouensis by nuptial pad present only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. garo by short stripe present on groin (vs. enlarged dark brown patches with or without white or yellow patches present on groin); it differs from R. hillisi, R. huanglianshan, R. menglaensis, and R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout longer than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length), and thigh length being greater than or equal to tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. kempiae by presence of distinct “) - (“ on dorsum (vs. comparatively faint “) (“ mark on dorsum), 2–4 cross bars on tibia and thigh (vs. three bars on tibia and thigh); it differs from R. leiktho by presence of a pair of concave stripes on dorsum (vs. pair of anteriorly connected stripes on dorsum); it differs from R. longchuanensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. malipoensis by short stripe present on groin (vs. black patches present on groin); it differs from R. mindat by short stripe present on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin); it differs from R. parvulus by short stripe present on the groin (vs. dark brown marbling enclosing a whitish blotch present on groin); it differs from R. rezakhani by presence of dense spinules on dorsum (vs. scattered tubercles on dorsum); it differs from R. shillongensis by short stripe present on groin (vs. dark brown patch with white crown shaped mark present on groin); it differs from R. yadongensis inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length). Morphological comparisons with other new species described in this study are given in respective sections and Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. orientalis sp. nov. were recorded in Deban, Namdapha Tiger Reserve on 10 May, 2022 and in Kamala Valley, Namdapha Tiger Reserve on 16 May 2022 at 19: 25 hrs and 19: 30 hrs at ambient temperatures of 25.8 ° C and 22.7 ° C respectively. The description of calls is based on 60 calls including those of the two individuals (WII-ADA 1309 and WII-ADA 1367). The calls are single type, non-pulsatile, emitted as a single call at start, gradually emitting calls in groups (2–6 calls per group) (Fig. 24). The mean call duration is 24.6 ± 2.79 ms (15–28 ms) with a rise time of 1.13 ± 0.39 ms (1–3 ms) and a fall time of 23.43 ± 2.85 ms (13–27 ms). The mean interval between calls is 220.92 ± 23.13 ms (162–295 ms) when calls emitted in groups. The dominant frequency is 3958.52 ± 202.2 Hz (3617.6–4177.4 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of the congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes orientalis sp. nov. is sister to two other new species with strong node support (UFB 100, PP 1) (Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence with its congeners is 3.2–9.1 % in the 16 S, 9.3–18.7 % in the cyt b and 6.0–14.9 % in the COI genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is derived from the word “oriental” meaning eastern, in reference to its distribution in the easternmost part of India.</p><p>Suggested common name.</p><p>Eastern bush frog.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes orientalis sp. nov. is currently known from Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Kamlang Tiger Reserve and Gandhigram Village in Arunachal Pradesh, and Liyai Khunou in Manipur (Fig. 25 A). Calling males were recorded among understorey of evergreen forest at approximately one metre height above ground (Fig. 20 C, D). In Gandhigram this species was recorded among shrubs near small streams in the forests and near human settlements.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E5FCD3A421C552AFB9E2CCBDC54D69DF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
49627C78BB5A5DCDB59AFEC6B647A728.text	49627C78BB5A5DCDB59AFEC6B647A728.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes rezakhani Al-Razi, Maria & Muzaffar 2020	<div><p>Raorchestes rezakhani Al-Razi, Maria &amp; Muzaffar, 2020</p><p>Figure 29; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>An adult male (WII-ADA 1092) collected by BB, AD and NGP on 15 September 2021 from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=92.45147&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=23.694" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 92.45147/lat 23.694)">Teirei</a> (23.694°N, 92.45147°E, elevation 270 m a. s. l.), Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mamit District, Mizoram, India .</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>The specimen collected during this study conforms to the original type description with the following exceptions. In the original description of the species, Al-Razi et al (2020 b) mentioned nuptial pad absent (vs. in WII-ADA 1092, small and fine granular nuptial pad present on base of first finger); inner metatarsal tubercle absent (vs. in WII-ADA 1092, inner metatarsal tubercle present); a bony projection present on ventral aspect of humerus (not mentioned in original description). Importantly Al-Razi et al. (2020 b) mentioned thigh longer than tibia (“ shank ”) in the holotype description (page number 138); but in the morphological measurement table (table 3; page number 137) this opposite to the holotype description in which thigh shorter than tibia for all their type specimens. In WII-ADA 1092, thigh length is slightly longer than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.97). Morphological description of the collected sample is provided below.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL = 21 mm; head slightly wider than long (HL / HW = 0.95); snout rounded in dorsal view and slightly protruding beyond the lower jaw in ventral view, depressed anteriorly from internarial space; snout length equal to eye length and greater than inter-upper eyelid width (IUE / SL = 0.8); nostrils oval in shape, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented, equidistant between eye and snout tip; canthus rostralis distinct but not sharp; eye protruding, moderate in size (EL / HL = 0.41); internarial distance equal to upper eyelid width and slightly less than inter-upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.92); no vomerine teeth; choanae rounded; tongue notched at posterior end, no papillae on it; tympanum indistinct, its diameter one third of eye length; supratympanic fold weak; habitus dorso-ventrally moderately depressed, its length nearly half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.49).</p><p>Forelimbs slender; finger with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; disc on third finger wider than tympanic diameter (HTYD / FID = 0.77); relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; subarticular tubercles distinct, round; proximal subarticular tubercle on third and fourth fingers smaller than distal ones; palmar tubercles indistinct; rudimentary webbing between third and fourth finger; small and very finely granular nuptial pad present on base of first finger. A bony projection present on the humerus.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.5) and slightly longer than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.97); relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;III &lt;V &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; subarticular tubercles round; inner metatarsal tubercle present and outer one absent; webbing slight, reaching second subarticular tubercle on fourth finger.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of head smooth; distinct tubercles on upper eyelid; few small tubercles behind angle of jaw; small tubercles scattered on dorsum, prominent towards flank; dorsal surface of forelimb smooth; hindlimb smooth on dorsal surface, scattered tubercles on tibia; ventral aspect of lower jaw smooth; chest, abdomen, ventral aspect of base of forelimb, and thigh distinctly granular.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal surface of head, dorsum and limbs pale brown; lateral aspect of head slightly paler than dorsal aspect; “ T ” shaped dark brown marking on inter-upper eyelid space; canthus rostralis including narial region and tympanic region slightly dark brown; irregular size and shape dark brown spots on dorsum; pair of short concave, dark brown patch on anterior part of dorsum; irregular small dark brown spots on flank; moderately broad and short, dark brown stripe on groin, antero-dorsally oriented; one moderately broad dark brown crossbar on forearms, another singular similar patch on each side of crossbar; disc on finger pale yellow with brown mottling; three indistinct, dark brown crossbars on each thigh and tibia; similar patches on tarsus; toe disc pale yellow with brown mottling; on ventrum, head, abdomen and limbs flesh coloured with brown mottling and irregular white flecks; white flecks on anterior part of the abdomen much enlarged and dense.</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Morphological comparisons with congeners included in this study are provided in Table 1 and in respective species description section.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Our newly collected sample (WII-ADA 1092) nested with the R. rezakhani samples from the type locality Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh (UFB 100, PP 1.0; Figs 2, 3). The genetic divergence of our sample from Dampa TR with R. rezakhani from Bangladesh is 0.8–1.7 % in the 16 S gene. Raorchestes rezakhani is sister to R. barakensis sp. nov. and R. jakoid . The genetic divergence with its congeners included in this study are 3.4–7.5 % in the 16 S, 12.3–20.4 % in the cyt b genes (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>This species is known from the type locality Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh (Al-Razi et al. 2020 b; Hakim et al. 2020). In India, Decemson et al. (2021) reported this species from Pathlawilunglentlang near Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram. Siammawii et al. (2024) recorded this species from Lunglei, Mizoram and reported direct development in this species. Siammawii et al. (2024) reported an egg clutch (23 eggs) that was found in a hole of Chinese Albizia ( Albizia chinensis) about 1.5 m above ground. We recorded the single male on the canopy of a small tree approximately four metres above ground, on a roadside slope at 20: 00 hrs. The canopy of the tree was covered with dense Mikania micrantha and the individual was calling from among it.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/49627C78BB5A5DCDB59AFEC6B647A728	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
D110514DA2A559D8A63355F55A4A2EC6.text	D110514DA2A559D8A63355F55A4A2EC6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes shillongensis (Pillai & Chanda 1973)	<div><p>Raorchestes shillongensis (Pillai &amp; Chanda, 1973)</p><p>Figure 36; Tables 1, 2, S 12</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Philautus shillongensis Pillai &amp; Chanda, 1973: 30 .</p><p>Philautus (Philautus) shillongensis — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 54.</p><p>Pseudophilautus shillongensis — Li et al. (2009): 519.</p><p>Philautus shillongensis — Ahmed et al. (2009): 16, 48.</p><p>Raorchestes shillongensis — Biju et al. (2010): 1120 (by implication); Boruah et al. (2018): 3 –15.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Raorchestes shillongensis was originally described by Pillai and Chanda (1973) from Malki forest, Shillong, Meghalaya under the genus Philautus . Based on Biju et al. (2010), it was allocated to the genus Raorchestes by implication. Boruah et al. (2018) redescribed this species and identified its phylogenetic status based on newly collected topotypic material and discussed colour polymorphism in this species. During our sampling we collected three adult males (WII-ADA 1459 – WII-ADA 1461) from Risa Forest (25.55615°N, 91.89389°E, elevation 1670 m a. s. l.), Shillong, East Khasi Hills District and one adult male (WII-ADA 1506) from Jowai (25.45849°N, 92.21247°E, elevation 1410 m a. s. l.), West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya. We re-examined the specimens mentioned in Boruah et al. (2018) (WII 500 – WII 525; present voucher number WII-ADA 1921 – WII-ADA 1930, WII-ADA 1932, WII-ADA 1933, WII-ADA 1936 – WII-ADA 1938, WII-ADA 1951 – WII-ADA 1964).</p><p>Boruah et al. (2018) mentioned head length slightly greater than width, snout longer than eye length, tibia longer than thigh, metatarsal tubercle absents. However, re-examination of the specimens of Boruah et al. (2018) and the newly collected material we found head slightly wider than its length or width equal to its length, tibia shorter than thigh, inner metatarsal tubercle present but indistinct while outer metatarsal tubercle absent. Boruah et al. (2018) provided a description of male specimen (WII 503, present voucher number WII-ADA 1936), however our re-examination found that this specimen is a female. Therefore, we provided a revised diagnosis and expanded description of the species below.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 13.9–20.4 mm in adult males and SVL 15.1–21.0 mm in adult females. Head width equal to or slightly greater than its length (HL / HW = 0.92–1.01); vomerine teeth absent; snout rounded or sub-ovoid, rarely pointed; snout length less than or equal to eye length (SL / EL = 0.93–1.05); inter-upper eyelid width slightly less than or equal to eye length (IUE / EL = 0.81–1.0); nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip or slightly closer to snout tip than eye; nuptial pad present on first finger in males; thigh length greater than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.89–0.94); dorsal skin on head and back moderately to heavily tuberculate; dark “) - (“ mark on dorsum or a hourglass shaped mark; a dark bar on inter-upper eyelid space; dark brown cross bar on limbs.</p><p>Description of a male specimen (WII-ADA 1459).</p><p>Small sized Raorchestes, SVL 18.6 mm; head wider than long; snout rounded in dorsal view and slightly protruding beyond lower jaw in ventral view; snout slightly concave dorsally at internarial space, its length slightly less than eye length (SL / EL = 0.93); canthus rostralis rounded; loreal concave; internarial distance less than inter upper eyelid width (IN / IUE = 0.91) and greater than upper eyelid width (IN /UE = 0.85); inter-upper eyelid width less than eye length (IUE / EL = 0.81); nostril oval, laterally positioned and obliquely oriented; nostril equidistant between eye and snout tip; tympanum indistinct, round, less than one third of eye length (HTYD / EL = 0.3); supratympanic fold distinct; vomerine teeth absent; choanae round; tongue posteriorly notched; eye protruding, moderate in size, length less than half of head length (EL / HL = 0.44); pair of internal vocal sac openings on lower jaw; habitus robust, its length less than half of snout-vent length (AG / SVL = 0.46).</p><p>Forelimbs slender, hand longer than forearm (FAL / HAL = 0.9); relative length of fingers = I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; finger with rounded disc; disc width of the third and fourth fingers equal to tympanic diameter; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; subarticular tubercles distinct, round except the proximal subarticular tubercle on third and fourth fingers, which are smaller in size and indistinct; palmar tubercles not visible; no webbing on hand.</p><p>Hindlimbs slender; thigh length less than half of snout-vent length (TL / SVL = 0.47) and longer than tibia length (TBL / TL = 0.93); relative length of toes = I &lt;II &lt;V &lt;III &lt;IV; toe with rounded disc; disc width equal to those of fingers; circum-marginal groove present on each disc; subarticular tubercles distinct round except proximal ones on fourth and fifth toes; indistinct inner metatarsal tubercle present; outer metatarsal tubercle absent; webbing slight, reaching second subarticular tubercle on fourth toe.</p><p>Skin on dorsal aspect of snout and head smooth; indistinct tubercular projection on snout; upper eyelid shagreen with distinct blunt tubercles, which are not clearly visible in preserved condition; enlarged blunt tubercles on inter-upper eyelid space, behind upper eyelid, temporal and parietal regions, and anterior part of dorsum; similar tubercles but smaller in size, scattered on dorsum, spreading towards dorsolateral side; flat granular tubercles scattered on flank; lateral aspect of head smooth with prominent tubercles on mandibular region behind angle of jaw; tubercles scattered on dorsal aspect of forearm and tibia; on ventrum, lower jaw smooth; gular skin loose; chest smooth; abdomen and thighs granular; tibia smooth; flat granular tubercles sparsely present on ventral aspect of hand and foot.</p><p>Colouration in life.</p><p>Dorsal aspect of snout and head brown with dark brown irregular spots; dark-brown bar on inter-upper eyelid space; loreal region below canthus rostralis and area between nostril and snout tip dark brown; supratympanic fold dark brown; a broad dark brown patch ventral to eye; dorsum brown, paler towards flank; a pair of dark brown concave stripes on dorsum, broken at the middle, posterior ends extending to groin; forelimb and hindlimb brown dorsally; a dark brown crossbar on each forearm, thigh and tibia; finger and toe disc with pale yellow tinge; on ventrum, head, abdomen and limbs flesh-coloured with brown and white mottling; dense brown mottling along the border of lower jaw; enlarged dark brown patch around vent.</p><p>Colouration in preservative.</p><p>Pale greyish brown on dorsal aspect; dark brown markings on head, back and limb visible as in life. On ventrum, head, abdomen and limb pale cream coloured; brown mottling visible on ventral aspect, white mottling not visible unlike life colouration.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism and morphological variation.</p><p>Males have a pair of internal vocal sac openings on the lower jaw; an external subgular vocal sac; and a nuptial pad on the first finger. Morphometric variations are given in Table S 12. Dorsal colouration varies among the individuals which was discussed in Boruah et al. (2018).</p><p>Morphological comparison.</p><p>Raorchestes shillongensis differs from R. andersoni by presence of dark brown patch with white crown shaped mark or only diffused brown patch on groin (vs. large black irregular spot with two yellow spots present on groin); it differs from R. dulongensis by head length being less than or equal to width (vs. head longer than wide); it differs from R. hekouensis by presence of nuptial pad only on first finger (vs. nuptial pad present on first and second finger); it differs from R. hillisi, R. menglaensis by head length being less than or equal to width (vs. head longer than wide); it differs from R. huanglianshan by snout length being smaller than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length); it differs from R. jadoh and R. jakoid by snout length being less than or equal to eye length (vs. snout length greater than eye length) and thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length less than tibia length); it differs from R. leiktho by the presence of a pair of concave stripes on dorsum from above axilla to groin (vs. absent); it differs from R. malipoensis by presence of dark-brown patch with white crown shaped mark or only diffused brown patch on groin (vs. black patches present on groin and inner lateral aspect thigh); it differs from R. mindat by absence of dark or white patches on groin (vs. enlarged black and white patches present on groin), absence of white patches on lateral aspect of thigh (vs. enlarged white patches on the lateral aspect of thigh); it differs from R. longchuanensis and R. yadongensis by inter-upper eyelid width being less than or equal to eye length (vs. inter-upper eyelid width greater than eye length); it differs from R. parvulus by thigh length being greater than tibia length (vs. thigh length smaller than or equal to tibia length); it differs from R. tytthus nov. comb. by snout length being greater than or equal to inter-upper eyelid width (vs. snout length less than inter-upper eyelid width). Morphologically R. shillongensis closely resembles R. annandalii . However, it differs from R. annandalii by concave stripes on dorsum connected medially forming “) - (” shaped marking (vs. concave stripes on dorsum not connected medially). Morphological comparisons of R. shillongensis with our newly described species are provided in their respective sections and in Table 1.</p><p>Acoustics.</p><p>The calls of R. shillongensis were recorded in Risa Forest, Shillong on 23 May 2022 between 19: 00–20: 00 hrs at ambient temperatures of 19.7 ° C – 20.7 ° C. The call description is based on 130 calls including from two individuals (WII-ADA 1459 and WII-ADA 1460). Calls are of a single type, non-pulsatile, and emitted in groups (2–59 calls per group; Fig. 31). The mean call duration is 18.55 ± 3.26 ms (12–22 ms) with a rise time of 1 ms and a fall time of 17.55 ± 3.26 ms (11–21 ms). The mean interval between calls is 241.53 ± 14.45 ms (215–281 ms). The dominant frequency is 3720.28 ± 22.38 Hz (3660.6–3746.8 Hz). A detailed comparison of the advertisement calls with those of other congeners is presented in Table 2.</p><p>Phylogenetic relationship and genetic divergence.</p><p>Raorchestes shillongensis is sister to R. jadoh and an undescribed lineage from Manipur in ML analysis (Fig. 2) while it recovered as sister to R. jadoh in BI analysis with weak nodal support (Fig. 3). The genetic divergence of R. shillongensis from other congeners is 2.8–8.9 % in the 16 S gene, 8.0–18.3 % in the cyt b gene, and 6.5–16.4 % in the COI gene (Table S 7 A – C).</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>Raorchestes shillongensis is distributed within the Shillong Plateau (Fig. 19 B). The geographical distribution and habitats (Fig. 33 C) of this species are discussed by Boruah et al. (2018). We recorded this species from Jowai, West Jaintia Hills in the State of Meghalaya. Wangyal et al. (2020) reported this species from Bhutan which is most likely a misidentification. There is no evidence for the presence of R. shillongensis north of the Brahmaputra Valley. This species is known to lay 8– 17 eggs on the ground under leaf litter, where the eggs undergo direct development (Boruah et al. 2017). Raorchestes shillongensis is known to exhibit territorial behaviour, with males engaging in combat (Boruah and Das 2020).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) doubted the identity of this species as it is morphologically similar to R. annandalii and mentioned that R. shillongensis could be a junior synonym of R. annandalii . However, these two species are phylogenetically distinct and not related to each other (Figs 2, 3). Moreover, R. annandalii is geographically separated from R. shillongensis which is distributed north of the Brahmaputra valley in Sikkim, Darjeeling and Eastern Nepal (Bossuyt and Dubois 2001; Subba et al. 2017; Khatiwada et al. 2021) while R. shillongensis is restricted to Shillong plateau which is south of the Brahmaputra Valley.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D110514DA2A559D8A63355F55A4A2EC6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
6AF64E4E6CDD5920AA2375E684FE270E.text	6AF64E4E6CDD5920AA2375E684FE270E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raorchestes tytthus (Smith 1940) Boruah & Deepak & Das 2025	<div><p>Raorchestes tytthus (Smith, 1940) nov. comb.</p><p>Chresonymy.</p><p>Philautus tytthus Smith, 1940: 475 .</p><p>Philautus tytthus — Bossuyt and Dubois (2001): 52; Zug (2022): 42.</p><p>Comments on taxonomic status.</p><p>Philautus tytthus (Fig. 13) was described by Smith (1940) based on two specimens collected by R. Kaulback from Htingnan, Kachin, northern Myanmar. Since its description, this species has never been reported from the type locality and the phylogenetic status of the species remains unknown. We examined the type series (BMNH 1947.2.5.92 –93) of this species at the Natural History Museum London (NHM). Based on the following combination of morphological characters, and geographical distribution of Philautus sensu stricto, we propose that this species be considered as a member of the genus Raorchestes and no other rhacophorid genus based on the following characters: 1) SVL 20.9–21.2 mm, 2) absence of vomerine ridge or teeth, 3) absence of serrated dermal fringe along forearms and tarsus, 4) absence of light coloured dorsolateral stripes along the dorsum, and 5) absence of calcar. Thus, we transfer Philautus tytthus to Raorchestes tytthus nov. comb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6AF64E4E6CDD5920AA2375E684FE270E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Boruah, Bitupan;Deepak, V.;Das, Abhijit	Boruah, Bitupan, Deepak, V., Das, Abhijit (2025): Revision of bush frogs, Raorchestes and Philautus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the northeast Indian biodiversity hotspot with description of thirteen new species. Vertebrate Zoology 75: 517-625, DOI: 10.3897/vz.75.e148133
