Hylarana erythraea (Schlegel, 1837)

Mulcahy, Daniel G., Lee, Justin L., Miller, Aryeh H., Chand, Mia, Thura, Myint Kyaw & Zug, George R., 2018, Filling the BINs of life: Report of an amphibian and reptile survey of the Tanintharyi (Tenasserim) Region of Myanmar, with DNA barcode data, ZooKeys 757, pp. 85-152 : 85

Hylarana erythraea (Schlegel, 1837)

Description.

Adult female, 71.8 mm SVL.

Natural history notes.

This gravid female was found in a flooded field.

General Distribution.

Eastern Myanmar and Southeast Asia southward to Borneo.

Molecular Data.

In addition to our single specimen, we sequenced two individuals (USNM 583188 and USNM 583191) from the Yangon region. Our specimen was 2.3% sequence divergence from the Yangon specimens for COI and they were placed in separate BINs, and ranged from 0-0.2% sequence from each other for 16S, and were placed in a 16S clade with other individuals identified as H. erythraea from the Yangon area (KR264118-19; USNM 583188 and USNM 583190), and Tanintharyi (KR264061, KR264066; CAS 229614 and CAS 247465), Myanmar ( Oliver et al. 2015), and Thailand (KR827786, Grosjean et al. 2015b). We note there are several other clades of H. erythraea in our 16S tree, and though they all represent a monophyletic group, there is great molecular divergence among them, indicating another species complex in need of revision. Our specimens were placed sister to a COI barcode for H. erythraea (KR087693), one of the same individuals for which 16S date were available ( Grosjean et al. 2015b), and this clade was sister to another clade of H. erythraea , similar to the 16S results.

Specimens examined.

USNM 586979, USNM 583188-91.

Red List status.

LC.

Additional Hylarana .

When we began the barcode analysis of our Tanintharyi Hylarana , the genus contained more than three dozen species. Hylarana sensu lato was clearly not a monophyletic group, as Oliver et al. (2015) subsequently demonstrated by restricting it to four species ( H. erythraea , H. macrodactyla , H. tytleri , and H. taipehensis ) of which the first three species likely have populations in Myanmar. Because of the larger content of Hylarana s. l., we sequenced several other individuals from elsewhere in Myanmar, including six H. lateralis , two from Yangon (USNM 583187 and MBM-JBS 19852), four from Sagaing (USNM 520401, USNM 523999, USNM 524000, and USNM 537463), two H. macrodactyla from Bago (USNM 583137 and MBM- USNM-FS 35511), one H. macrodactyla from Sagaing (USNM 520469), and one Humerana cf. humeralis (USNM 583171) from Bago. Our H. lateralis were placed in a single COIBIN, and in a 16S clade with specimens identified as Humerana lateralis (see Oliver et al. 2015 for new generic allocations), which is sister to Humerana miopus . Our COI data placed our H. lateralis sister to two H. lateralis , the same specimens as in the 16S tree ( Grosjean et al. 2015b). The H. macrodactyla from Sagaing was placed in its own COIBIN, and the two from Bago were placed in a separate COIBIN, and in a 16S clade with several 'H. cf. taipehensis’ (AB530522-5, AB543603; we note that these identifications are almost certainly incorrect) from Bangladesh ( Hasan et al. 2012a), and a H. cf. tytleri (KM069012) from Tripura, India ( Biju et al. 2014). This clade was sister to a clade of H. macrodactyla from Myanmar and Laos. Our H. macrodactyla specimen (USNM 520469) from Sagaing was placed sister to this H. macrodactyla + H. cf. taipehensis clade in our 16S tree. Our COI data placed our three specimens in a clade with the "H. cf. tytleri" specimen from Tripura, India, though with considerable sequence variation. This latter clade was sister to an H. macrodactyla COI clade. The type locality for H. tytleri is Bangladesh, whereas the type localities for H. taipehensis and H. macrodactyla are Taiwan and Hong Kong, respectively. Oliver et al. (2015) identified four specimens as H. tytleri , all from Myanmar (their materials examined in Appendix A), but mistakenly labelled them in GenBank as H. erythraea ; these specimens are placed in the H. erythraea clade of the 16S tree. Clearly, H. erythraea is another group in need of revision. We tentatively refer to our Bago specimens as H. cf. tytleri because the H. cf. tytleri Tripura, India ( Biju et al. 2014) specimen is the closest geographically to the type locality of H. tytleri and we refer to our Sagaing specimen (USNM 520469) as H. sp. A. Our Humerana humeralis is identical to a specimen (USNM 583170, collected contemporaneously and already in GenBank, KR264113) identified as Humerana sp., and the two were placed sister to other specimens identified as Humerana cf. humeralis (KM069010) and Humerana humeralis (KU589217, KU589223-4); though with considerable genetic differences (6-15% sequence divergence) this clade ranges from Assam, India to Bago, Myanmar and the type locality is Bhamò, Kachin State, Myanmar. The COI data for our specimen are considerably different (>18%) from the Humerana cf. humeralis from Assam, India.