Chirixalus doriae (Boulenger, 1893)

Hakim, Jonathan, Trageser, Scott J., Ghose, Animesh, Rashid, Sheikh Muhammad Abdur & Rahman, Shahriar Caesar, 2020, Amphibians and reptiles from Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh, Check List 16 (5), pp. 1239-1268 : 1247

Chirixalus doriae (Boulenger, 1893)

Figure 5A

Material examined. BANGLADESH • 1 F, 30 mm adult; Sylhet Division, Moulvibazar District, Kamalganj Upazila, LNP, road near Chevron complex; 24°19.88′ N, 091°47.63′E; 23 Jun. 2015; 23:45; photo voucher ZRC ( IMG) 1.153 . • 2 M, 28.3 mm and 28.8 mm adults; Sylhet Division, Moulvibazar District, Kamalganj Upazila, LNP, field behind HEED Guesthouse ; 24° 20.38′N, 091°49.45′E; 10 Jul. 2015; 20:00; photo voucher ZRC ( IMG) 1.152a-b .

Identification. As small tan treefrogs with no distinct dorsolateral stripe and several dark dorsal stripes, our specimens keyed out ambiguously between C. simus (Annandale, 1915) and C. doriae in Wilkinson et al.’s (2003) key. The key’s distinguishing characteristics of snout pointedness, skin smoothness, and presence of glandular fold were inconsistent in our specimens and may not be adequate in delineating these two species, potentially leading to misidentifications (Stephen Ma- hony pers. comm.). Instead, we focused on SVL, which varied from 26–28.8 mm in males and 30–34.2 mm in females, thus aligning the specimens with C. doriae as opposed to the much smaller C. simus ( Deuti et al. 2000; Aowphol et al. 2013; Stephen Mahony pers. comm.). The call consisted of short trills of 130–300 ms with a pulse rate of 23–31 pulses/s at a dominant frequency of 3900– 4100 Hz and a fundamental at 1400–1700 Hz. This call type, length, and dominant frequency closely match what was reported for C. doriae in Thailand in Aowphol et al. (2013), though the pulse rate recorded in LNP was about 50% higher than for Thai specimens, potentially

due to differences in temperature while calling.

Taxonomic notes. Chirixalus doriae had previously been confirmed in LNP (as Chiromantis doriae ) by Hasan et al. (2010). The presence of C. simus in LNP was published by Rahman and Howlader (2011b). However, we now believe that this was the result of a misidentified C. doriae for the reasons mentioned above. There is also a specimen deposited as Chiromantis simus in the JUHG collection, but access to the specimen has been denied. We suspect that it may also be a misidentified C. doriae . Banerjee (2010) found C. simus in Kolkata to have a call frequency of 3300 Hz, 600–800 Hz lower than that of our specimens.

Habitat. During the breeding season C. doriae was found calling near permanent and temporary ponds in mature forest, flooded roadside vegetation in degraded forest and tea plantation, and in paddy fields. However, it was not found to call from streams, even where the streams had dried to form pond-like puddles. Males of this species called from vegetation 20–150 cm high. On 10 July 2015, JH observed several recently formed egg masses covered in foam at a height of 40–50 cm in bushes at the edge of a flooded field.