identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
3AF1D3A016BD537EBCF0B77A2F77C8D9.text	3AF1D3A016BD537EBCF0B77A2F77C8D9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oreolalax lizipingensis Huang & Dai & Hou & Lin & Wang & Yu & Lin & Xie 2026	<div><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 3, 4</p><p>Type material.</p><p>Holotype. CIB 22565 (Fig. 3), • adult male, collected by Feng Xie from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=102.33&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.89" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 102.33/lat 28.89)">Menghuo Castle</a>, Liziping Township, Shimian County, Ya’an City, Sichuan Province (28.89°N, 102.33°E, 2485 m a. s. l.) China on July 22, 2025 .</p><p>Paratypes. • Two adult females collected from the same small stream of Menghuo Castle on June 20, 2025, (CIB 22560, CIB 22561) by Sining Huang, Yuanfei Wang, Haoqi Yu and five adult males and one adult female collected from the same small stream of Menghuo Castle on July 22, 2025, (CIB 22562 -64, CIB 2256670) by Yuanfei Wang, Haoqi Yu, Run Yu and Feng Xie .</p><p>Other specimens.</p><p>• Two tadpoles (CIB 22568, CIB 22569) collected from a small stream of Menghuo Castle (27.46°N, 101.78°E, 3032 m a. s. l.) on October 27, 2022, by Puyang Zheng, Haoqi Yu and Feng Xie . And one tadpole (CIB 22570) collected in the same place on October 27, 2022 by Shining Huang, Yuanfei Wang and Haoqi Yu .</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet “liziping” of the new species refers to the type locality of the species, Liziping National Nature Reserve, Sichuan Province, China. We suggest the common name as “ Liziping toothed toad ”, and the Chinese name as “ Li Zi Ping Chi Chan (栗子坪齿蟾) ”.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. assigned to the genus Oreolalax based on its phylogenetic position and the following characters: pupil vertical; vocal sac absent; dorsal surface exhibiting dark-colored and nearly round tubercles; males possessing a pair of chest glands densely covered with black spines (Fei et al. 2009).</p><p>The new species differs from its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: (1) the body size relatively small, SVL of adult males 40.2 mm (37.6–43.3 mm, n = 5); adult females 47.7 mm (44.2–52.7 mm, n = 3); (2) head length slightly longer than head width; (3) tongue deeply notched posteriorly; (4) supratympanic fold narrow and elongated; (5) tympanum hidden; (6) hand without subarticular and supernumerary tubercles at the base of fingers; (7) inner metacarpal tubercle larger, more prominent than outer; (8) toes with rudimentary interdigital webbing; (9) interorbital region with dark triangular pattern; (10) female belly, flanks and lower surface of limbs with even white spots, absent or inconspicuous in males; (11) dorsum with dark brown and nearly round warts; (12) male with spiny warts along the edge of the jaw, the lower surface of the legs and the abdomen near vent; (13) bicolored iris, light yellow above, creamy silver white bellow; (14) breeding season July to August.</p><p>Holotype description.</p><p>CIB 22565 body size small (SVL 37.9 mm). Head length slightly longer than head width (HL 12.3 mm, HW 12.4 mm). Snout blunt, rounded, longer than eye diameter (SL 6.0 mm, ED 4.0 mm); maxillary teeth developed; vomerine ridges and teeth absent; vocal sac absent; interorbital region flat, nearly equal (IOD 4.2 mm) to internarial distance (IND 4.1 mm), wider than the upper eyelid width (UEW 2.8 mm); canthus rostralis distinct; nostril oval, closer to the eyes than the tip of snout (EN 2.4 mm, NS 3.9 mm); tympanum hidden, narrow supratympanic fold extends from behind the eye and terminates at the distal end of the maxilla; pupil vertical; tongue longer than wide, notched posteriorly.</p><p>Forelimbs thick and short; lower arm thicker than upper arm; fingers I and II short and robust, while fingers III and IV long and thin (FFL 3.8 mm, TFL 6.4 mm); dorsal and lateral surfaces of fingers I and II with small black nuptial spines, while fingers III also present less spines; finger length: I &lt;II &lt;IV &lt;III; tips of fingers rounded; fingers without subarticular tubercles and supernumerary tubercles below their base; inner metacarpal tubercle distinct and elliptical in shape, prominently elevated above the surface of the palm; outer metacarpal tubercle smaller in size and less prominent compared to the inner metacarpal tubercle, tubercles completely separated one from the other. Thigh length nearly equal to tibia length (FeL 17.9 mm, TL 17.2 mm, TL / SVL 44 %); heels overlap partially when thighs positioned at right angles to the body; tibia-tarsal articulation reaches the eyes when leg stretched forward along the body; foot long (LFT 28.7 mm); toes long and thin, relative length of toes: I &lt;II &lt;V = III &lt;IV; toes rudimentary webbed; inner metatarsal tubercle elongated oval, small; outer metatarsal tubercle absent.</p><p>In life, snout and head dorsum relatively smooth, small, flattened warts sparsely scattered, wart surfaces spineless; a dark-brown inverted triangle marking present between the eyes, fading onto dorsum without distinct border between the marking and the dorsal background coloration; with small and rounded white warts along the edge of the upper eyelid and along the edge of the lower jaw, in a ring-like arrangement, with black spines on the surface of the warts. Iris bicolored, light yellow above and creamy silver white below and the entire iris with black reticulation, pupil shape forming a slender vertical rhombus, centrally located. Dorsum and upper flanks brownish yellow with dark tubercles, while the abdomen lighter. Dark brown small rounded spots on the dorsum, the anterior surface of the arms, and the ventral side of the arms. Medium-sized, dark, spinous warts on the dorsum; white roundish markings uniformly across the ventral surfaces of the limbs as well as the front and sides of the abdomen, moderately indistinct on the anterior abdomen; throat pale yellow and no distinct markings; numerous, small, white and spiny warts on the ventral side near vent and the underside of the legs; ventral surfaces of arms, thigh, tibia light yellow with fragmented patterns; a pair of macroglands densely covered with black spines on the sides of the chest; hands and feet exhibiting a relatively paler yellow hue compared to the trunk, with fine, white spots on dorsal surface, and ventral surface almost devoid of spots. (Fig. 3).</p><p>In preservative (75 % ethanol), dorsum uniformly grayish white, with a dark gray triangular patch between eyes; this marking extending onto dorsum in a diffuse manner, lacking distinct boundaries; back and the of limbs with irregular dark spots and dark warts. Abdomen, throat, ventral surfaces of forearms, and shanks white; abdomen with faint light-colored patterns. White warts with black spines covering ventral surfaces of legs, ventral surface of abdomen as well as legs and region adjacent to vent. Inner metatarsal tubercles grey. (Fig. 4)</p><p>Sexual dimorphism.</p><p>Males smaller and darker in coloration compared to females in life and preservative, with white warts distributed along the ventral edge of the lower jaw and black spines present on their surface. During the breeding season, males with a pair of pectoral glands that are densely covered with black spines, inner and upper sides of fingers I and II bear obvious small black nuptial spines while finger III exhibits few spines. Females without such pectoral gland and spines on fingers entirely (Fig. 4).</p><p>Bioacoustics analyses.</p><p>Based on morphological similarities and a closed phylogenetic relationship, we selected O. schmidti from the area of Mount Emei for comparison with Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. of acoustic data. Call variables were normalized to a standardized temperature (12.5 ° C) and a standardized body size (SVL = 37 mm) and subsequent statistical analyses employed these corrected variables (Platz and Forester 1988).</p><p>The results from our statistical analyses comparing the nine properties of advertisement call between the two species are summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 5. The two species share the same calling pattern and can be heard by human ears. They are hoarse and short, both having two phases, consisting of a slightly longer “ gur gle ” with a descending pitch, followed by a brief pause and a shorter “ gur gle ” with an ascending pitch. However, they exhibit significant differences in both the frequency and temporal characters of their calls. Compared with O. schmidti, Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. has fewer pulses and shorter duration in Phase 1, resulting in shorter monophasic calls that sound more compact, with a lower dominant frequency. The most different call properties between the two species were dominant frequency, Phase 1 duration, and call duration. We also found differences between species in the number of pulses in Phase 1 and in Phase 1 pulse rate. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a fewer number of pulses and higher pulse rate in Phase 1. Overall, these results demonstrate that the calls of the two species differ, which provide evidence to isolation before breeding between the species and reinforcing the validity of Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.</p><p>Note: PI: Interphase interval.</p><p>Morphological comparisons.</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other Oreolalax species by the following morphological characteristics, presented in Suppl. material 6.</p><p>Although the new species is morphologically similar to O. schmidti (Table 3), PCA based on the seven allometrically size-corrected morphometric variables (Suppl. material 5) showed that individuals of the new species occupied a distinct region of morphospace and were separated from the two allopatric populations of O. schmidti (Mount Emei, Leshan City; Baoxing, Ya’an City) (Fig. 6). The first two principal components account for approximately 78.52 % (i. e., 62.28 % + 16.24 %) of the variation, differentiate the two species. For PC 1, the largest loadings are observed for HL adj, TL adj and HW adj, and for PC 2, the largest loadings are observed for FAW adj. Detailed PCA results are provided in Suppl. material 4. Measurements, such as HL adj, HW adj, TL adj and LFT adj (Suppl. material 4) show significant differences between Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. and O. schmidti . This analysis further supports the taxonomic status of Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. as a new species and offers a clear morphological foundation for distinguishing Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. from O. schmidti .</p><p>Note: Mean ± SD (Min – Max).</p><p>O. schmidti with triangular patterns “ ▼ ” between the eyes, which extend to the dorsum and form a shape resembling “ \ ▼ / ”, with distinct demarcation line. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with triangular patterns between the eyes but extend to the dorsum form a shape resembling an inversely U-shaped pattern without obvious distinct demarcation line. O. schmidti exhibits light-colored warts while Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with dark warts on the back (Suppl. material 9). Male Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with white warts with black spines extending on the ventral surfaces of the legs, the ventral side of the abdomen, as well as on the legs and abdominal regions adjacent to vent while O. schmidti absent. The egg masses of Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. piled up in a rounded clutch whereas the egg masses of O. schmidti arranged in a ring.</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. differs from O. pingii, by O. pingii head with warts (vs. smooth in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and without dark triangular spot between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.). Males O. pingii smooth skin on the back (vs. males in O. lizipingensis sp. nov. rough with spiny warts) and the female skin densely covered with warts (vs. O. lizipingensis sp. nov. with few spines and the warts and slightly less prominent).</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. differs from O. lichuanensis by O. lichuanensis with a larger male size. Male versus a mean SVL of 58.7 mm, range 52.9–64.8 mm and female versus a mean SVL 59.1 mm, range 57.3–62.2 mm, in O. lichuanensis (Liu et al. 1979) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. lichuanensis without triangular spots between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. differs from O. puxiongensis by O. puxiongensis with more prominent, larger and more numerous warts on the back, with some of the warts forming longitudinal rows (vs. small, fewer and intermittent in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.). The lateral and the ventral surface of the arms have denser white warts (vs. small and fewer in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. differs from other Oreolalax species as follows:</p><p>From O. adelphos in that O. adelphos without triangular spots between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and with obvious black stripes on its legs (vs. vague in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and its back evenly covered with obvious black circular spots (vs. spots vague in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) (Nguyen et al. 2024).</p><p>From O. chuanbeiensis by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. chuanbeiensis male size SVL 53.0 mm, and female size SVL 56.7 mm (Tian 1983) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. chuanbeiensis with ≥ ⅓ webbing between the toes (vs. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. at base).</p><p>From O. granulosus by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. granulosus male size versus a mean SVL 55.1 mm, range 48.1–61.0 mm, and female size versus a mean SVL 58.7 mm, range 57.4–60.0 mm (Fei et al. 1990) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. granulosus obvious webbing between the toes (vs. basal webbing in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>From O. jingdongensis by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. jingdongensis male size versus a mean SVL 54.3 mm, range 49.3–60.3 mm, and female size versus a mean SVL 52.6 mm, range 48.7–56.5 mm (Yang et al. 1983) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. jingdongensis with obvious black stripes on its limbs (vs. absent in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and larger, evenly distributed warts on its back.</p><p>From O. liangbeiensis in that O. liangbeiensis has no triangular spots between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and O. liangbeiensis with obvious webbing between the toes (vs. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. at base) (Liu et al. 1979).</p><p>From O. longmenmontis by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. longmenmontis male size versus a mean SVL 56.8 mm, range 51.2–64.2 mm (Hou et al. 2020) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. longmenmontis without triangular spots between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), with obvious black stripes on its limbs (vs. vague in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and larger, evenly distributed warts on its back.</p><p>From O. major by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. major male size versus a mean SVL 64.5 mm, range 59.2–68.7 mm; female size versus a mean SVL 67.5 mm, range 65.0–70.0 mm (Liu and Hu 1960) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. major with ≥ ⅓ webbing between the toes (vs. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. at base).</p><p>From O. multipunctatus by O. multipunctatus with obvious black stripes on its legs (vs. vague in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and its back with black circular spots evenly (vs. absent in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) (Wu et al. 1993).</p><p>From O. nanjiangensis by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size, O. nanjiangensis male size versus a mean SVL 56.9 mm, range 52.6–60.0 mm; female size versus a mean SVL 57.4 mm, range 53.3–58.2 mm (Fei et al. 1999) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. nanjiangensis without triangular spots between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>From O. omeimontis by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. omeimontis male size versus a mean SVL 53.7 mm, range 49.5–58.4 mm, female size versus a mean SVL 54.1 mm, range 51.2–56.1 mm (Liu and Hu 1960) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. omeimontis with obvious black stripes on its legs (vs. vague in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>From O. popei by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size. O. popei male size versus a mean SVL 65.2 mm, range 60.0–69.0 mm, female size versus a mean SVL 61.9 mm, range 51.5–67.0 mm (Liu 1947) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. major with obvious black stripes on its legs (vs. vague in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>From O. rhodostigmatus by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size, O. rhodostigmatus male size versus a mean SVL 67.0 mm, range versus 57.5–73.5 mm; female size versus a mean SVL 66.5 mm, range 62.4–70.6 mm (Liu et al. 1979) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. jingdongensis with orange-red spots on the flanks (vs. absent in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>From O. rugosus by O. rugosus with ⅓ webbing between the toes (vs. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. at base); O. rugosus without triangular spots between the eyes (vs. triangular spots present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.).</p><p>From O. sterlingae by the ventral body surface of O. sterlingae light purple with white spots and interorbital region without dark triangular pattern (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) (Nguyen et al. 2013).</p><p>From O. weigoldi by O. weigoldi without triangular spots between the eyes (vs. present in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) and O. weigoldi light brown with dark cloudy spots on ventrolateral (vs. absent in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) (Vogt 1924).</p><p>From O. xiangchengensis by Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. with a smaller adult size, O. xiangchengensis male size versus a mean SVL 48.6 mm, range 45.5–50.6 mm, female size versus a mean SVL 57.4 mm, range 54.3–61.4 mm (Fei and Huang 1983) (vs. male versus a mean SVL of 40.2 mm, range 37.6–43.3 mm, and female versus a mean SVL 47.7 mm, range 44.2–52.7 mm in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.), and O. xiangchengensis fully webbed (vs. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. at base).</p><p>From O. yanyuanensis by O. yanyuanensis with ⅓ webbing between the toes (vs. Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. at base), distinct black spots present on flanks, belly middle yellow, scattered fine mottling, abdominal margin more spotted (vs. absent in Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov.) (Hou et al. 2024).</p><p>In conclusion, the combined morphological and phylogenetic evidence provides strong support for recognizing the Oreolalax species discovered in Liziping National Nature Reserve as a new species, Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. The summary table of the distinguishing features of Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. from other Oreolalax is presented in Suppl. material 6.</p><p>Tadpoles.</p><p>Measurements see Suppl. material 4. Character description based on preserved tadpole CIB 22568 at Gosner stage 37 (TOL 59.7 mm). Body elliptical in dorsal view, snout rounded. Back brown and belly creamy yellow; Eyes small, dorsolateral; nostrils near oval; spiracle single, present on the left side, lacking free distal tube; Mouth located below the rostral labial and keratodont row formula: Ⅰ: 5 + 5 / 5 + 5: Ⅰ; in the row of upper lip papillae about 5 papillae missing in the central; the lower lip papillae smaller than the upper lip papillae; small keratodonts present on the auxiliary processes of the oral corners; jaw sheaths serrated. Tail long, muscular, terminus blunt, with brown coloration and a golden “ Y ” pattern extends on its upper part. (Fig. 7).</p><p>Variation.</p><p>Measurements variation of specimens can be seen in Suppl. material 5: table S 5 A and Suppl. material 7 (unit in mm).</p><p>In females. The three females that have been collected (CIB 22560 – CIB 22562) are compared in the following section.</p><p>CIB 22560 with the largest body size (52.7 mm). The dorsal side is relatively lighter in color than CIB 22561 and CIB 22562, and dark spots on the back are more obvious than others. The dorsal surface of the legs exhibits distinct minute white punctate markings and has more numerous markings compared to CIB 22561 and CIB 22562. CIB 22560 has the small white spots and even distribution on the ventral surface (Fig. 4).</p><p>CIB 22561 exhibits a medium body size (46.2 mm). The dorsal coloration is relatively dark, with black patches that are less conspicuous. the dorsal surfaces of the legs have inconspicuous white punctate markings fewer than in CIB 22560 and CIB 22562. In the abdominal region, the number of white spots unevenly distributed, and less in the areas adjacent to vent.</p><p>CIB 22562 has the smallest body size (44.2 mm). The dorsal coloration is relatively dark, with black patches less conspicuous. The dorsal surfaces of the legs have inconspicuous white spots, and the white spots on the ventral surface of the legs are smaller in size and greater in number compared to CIB 22561. The ventral surface features fine and evenly distributed white spots, and its abdomen is yellower than CIB 22560 and CIB 22561.</p><p>In males. The five males that have been collected (CIB 22563 – CIB 22567) are compared in the following section.</p><p>CIB 22563 exhibits the smallest body size (37.6 mm), with relatively dark coloration. The ventral surface appears vent purplish gray compared to that of other individuals, and the warts and pigmentation spots on its body are slightly darker than those observed in other specimens. The back has a relatively small number of warty protuberances, mainly concentrated in the area close to vent. It has obvious pectoral glands with spines, while the number of warts on the abdominal area near vent and on the ventral side of the legs is less than that of other individuals. The marginal spines of the lower jaw are small and not prominent. Prominent white speckles are present near the ventral region of the abdomen.</p><p>CIB 22564 exhibits larger body size (39.0 mm), lighter in color, the ventral color and the warts and color spots on the body are slightly lighter than those of other individuals. There are very few warty spines on the back. This may be attributed to shedding caused by alcohol exposure, advanced age, or the end of the breeding period. The spines on the chest glands have mostly fallen off. The spines on the marginal area of the lower jaw, as well as those on the abdominal area near the vent and the ventral surface of the legs, have also mostly disappeared, yet traces remain.</p><p>CIB 22565 exhibits smaller body size (37.9 mm), with relatively dark coloration, with the most obvious dark-brown triangle between eyes; the number of warts and spines on its body is significantly higher than that of other individuals. It has obvious pectoral glands with spines, while the number of warts on the marginal area of the lower jaw, the abdominal area near the vent and the ventral side of the legs is more than that of other individuals.</p><p>CIB 22566 exhibits a medium body size (43.1 mm), and the ventral surface is whiter compared to other individuals, except for CIB 22564. The warts on the back are dark in color and quite noticeable; black nuptial spines are sparse, and the spines on the pectoral glands have mostly fallen off. The spines on the marginal area of the lower jaw have also mostly disappeared, also the spines on the abdominal area near the vent and those on the ventral surface of the legs are less obvious.</p><p>CIB 22567 exhibits the largest body size (43.3 mm), with slightly light in color, the warts on the back are dark in color, with spiny warts mainly concentrated in the area close to the vent. It has obvious pectoral glands with spines and has obvious spines warts on the marginal area of the lower jaw, the abdominal area near the vent, as well as the ventral side of the legs.</p><p>Body size: CIB 22567&gt; CIB 22564&gt; CIB 22566&gt; CIB 22565&gt; CIB 22563; back color dark to light: CIB 22563&gt; CIB 22565&gt; CIB 22567&gt; CIB 22566&gt; CIB 22566&gt; CIB 22564; the prominence of the spines in the lower jaw, the abdominal area near the vent, the ventral side of the legs: CIB 22565&gt; CIB 22567&gt; CIB 22563&gt; CIB 22566&gt; CIB 22564.</p><p>In tadpoles. All individuals were verified as Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. by molecular identification. The phylogenetic tree is shown in Suppl. material 8, and the measurement standards and molecular data are presented in Suppl. material 5: table S 5 B. Tadpoles are at different stages (Gosner 1960), CIB 22569 at stage 25, CIB 22568 at stage 37, CIB 22570 at stage 41. CIB 22569 and CIB 22568 are slightly darker in color. CIB 22570 has the lightest color. CIB 22569 has no hind limb buds, both CIB 22568 and CIB 22570 have five-toed hind limbs. CIB 22569 tooth row formula: Ⅰ: 4 + 4 / 4 + 4: Ⅰ, CIB 22568 tooth row formula: Ⅰ: 5 + 5 / 5 + 5: Ⅰ, CIB 22570 lost all tooth row.</p><p>Distribution and ecology.</p><p>Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. is currently only known from the type locality Menghuocheng, Liziping National Natural Reserve, Shimian County, Sichuan Province, China, at elevations of approximately 2500 meters. Due to the morphological similarity between Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. and O. schmidti, the specimens of Oreolalax previously identified as O. schmidti in the Mianning and Shimian County (Fei et al. 2009) may in fact represent the newly described species Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. This new species inhabits subtropical mountain forests and was discovered in small mountain stream, the male makes advertisement call like “ gur gle ” under rocks or in cavities between rocks (Fig. 8). The forest ecosystem remains well-preserved, characterized by shallow streams (mean depth &lt;1.0 m) with rapid flow velocities (1.2–2.5 m / s as measured in situ). The streambed is predominantly composed of cobble-sized substrates (5–30 cm in diameter). The breeding season of Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. may occur between July and August, as no adult individuals were collected nor amplexus was observed during April to June and September to October. Only two female individuals with eggs in their abdomens were collected at the end of June, while five male individuals, one female individual with reproductive characteristics, and a fresh pile-shaped gelatinous egg string were collected at the end of July same site with the male Oreolalax lizipingensis sp. nov. collected. This egg clutch was attached to the underside of the stones in the stream, contained 160 eggs, with ovum diameter of 4.2 mm (n = 10); the animal pole of the eggs is light yellow, identical to the color of the egg (Fig. 8 B). Six species of amphibians with sympatric distribution were also discovered in the same area, Atympanophrys shapingensis (Liu, 1950), O. liangbeiensis, Bufo gargarizans Cantor, 1842, Amolops loloensis (Liu, 1950), and Rana chaochiaoensis Liu, 1946 .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3AF1D3A016BD537EBCF0B77A2F77C8D9	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	Huang, Si Ning;Dai, Qin Long;Hou, Yin Meng;Lin, Yi Heng;Wang, Yuan Fei;Yu, Hao Qi;Lin, Xiu Qin;Xie, Feng	Huang, Si Ning, Dai, Qin Long, Hou, Yin Meng, Lin, Yi Heng, Wang, Yuan Fei, Yu, Hao Qi, Lin, Xiu Qin, Xie, Feng (2026): A new Oreolalax (Anura, Megophryidae) from southwest Sichuan, China. Zoosystematics and Evolution 102 (5): 1107-1125, DOI: 10.3897/zse.102.183210
