Multilocus phylogeny and a new classification forSoutheast Asian and Melanesian forest frogs(family Ceratobatrachidae)
RAFE M. BROWN1*, CAMERON D. SILER2, STEPHEN J. RICHARDS3,ARVIN C. DIESMOS4 and DAVID C. CANNATELLA5
1Biodiversity Institute and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas,Lawrence, KS 66045-7561, USA2Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and Department of Biology, University ofOklahoma, Norman, OK 73072-7029, USA3Herpetology Department, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia4National Museum of the Philippines, Rizal Park, Padre Burgos Avenue, Ermita 1000, Manila,Philippines5Department of Integrative Biology and Texas Biodiversity Collections, University of Texas at Austin,1 University Station, C0990 Austin, TX 78712, USA
Received 28 May 2014; revised 2 November 2014; accepted for publication 25 November 2014
We present a near comprehensive, densely sampled, multilocus phylogenetic estimate of species relationships withinthe anuran family Ceratobatrachidae, a morphologically and ecologically diverse group of frogs from the island archi-pelagos of Southeast Asia and the South-West Pacific. Ceratobatrachid frogs consist of three clades: a small clade ofenigmatic, primarily high-elevation, semi-aquatic Sundaland species currently assigned to Ingerana (for which weerect a new genus), which is the sister taxon of two large, monophyletic radiations, each situated on islands on eitherside of Wallace’s Line. One radiation is composed of Philippine species of Platymantis and the other contains all taxafrom the eastern Indonesian, New Guinean, Solomon, Bismarck, and Fijian archipelagos. Several additional genera(Batrachylodes, Discodeles, Ceratobatrachus, and Palmatorappia) are nested within Platymantis, and of theseBatrachylodes and Discodeles are nonmonophyletic. To address the widespread paraphyly of the genus Platymantisand several additional nomenclatural issues, we undertook a wholesale nomenclatural reorganization of the family.Given our partially unresolved phylogeny, and in order to impart a conservative, stable taxonomy, involving a minimalnumber of genus-species couplet changes, we propose a conservative classification representing a few compromises.These changes are designed to preserve maximally the presumed original intent of taxonomy (widely used group namesassociated with morphological and ecological diversity of particular species or groups of species) while implementinga hierarchical system that is consistent with the estimate of phylogeny based on new molecular data.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168.doi: 10.1111/zoj.12232
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: admiralty webbed frogs – evolutionary radiation – new genus – New Guineanwrinkled frogs – Philippine forest frogs – phylogenetic taxonomy – Solomon horned frogs – Solomon palm frogs– Solomon sticky-toed frogs – Sundaland mountain frogs – subgenera – taxonomy.
The Cornuferinae have arisen from Rana in different parts ofits range. They represent a very uniform group. Some of thegenera apparently grade into others, making the limits of thesegroups almost impossible to define. (Noble, 1931: 521).
Platymantis probably evolved within the Philippines in the lateTertiary and subsequently dispersed southwards into New Britain,the Solomon Islands, and Fiji by rafting. The direction of thesecondary radiation is a reflection of the demonstrable phylogeneticaffinities of the extant species. (Tyler, 1979: 78–79).
The Philippine fauna includes lineages with clear Papuanaffinities, Platymantis and Oreophryne. The presence of these*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
bs_bs_banner
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168. With 3 figures
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168130
two genera in the Philippines (but not in Palawan) may datefrom either pre-Tertiary or Oligocene. . .when the easternPhilippines-Halmahera arc was closest to New Guinea and theMelanesian Islands. (Inger, 1999: 462).
It is very likely that Platymantis arose from Rana and hasno relationship to Micrixalus. . .Palmatorappia of the Solomonsseems to be a case of parallel evolution in a different stock,namely Cornufer or an allied genus. (Noble, 1931: 522–523).
Rather than think of Platymantis as territory that you needto ‘divide up’ why not just see how much you can achieve to-gether in collaboration? [W. C. Brown (deceased), 1998, per-sonal communication with R. M. B.].
INTRODUCTION
The frog family Ceratobatrachidae (currentlyPlatymantis, Batrachylodes, Discodeles, Ceratobatrachus,Palmatorappia, and portions of the genus Ingerana)is a remarkable assemblage of amphibians distribut-ed throughout the Philippines, Palau, eastern Indo-nesia, New Guinea, the Solomon−Bismarck−Admiraltyarchipelagos, and the islands of Fiji (Brown, 1952;Zweifel, 1960, 1969; Brown & Tyler, 1968; Edgar &Lilley, 1993; Allison, 1996; Brown, 1997; Günther, 1999;Alcala & Brown, 1999; Inger, 1999; Tyler, 1999).Ceratobatrachids are noted for conspicuous character-istics of morphology (Boulenger, 1886, 1887; Brown,1952; Norris, 2002), larval direct development (Alcala,1962; Brown & Alcala, 1982), including unique struc-tures and patterns of embryonic growth (Thibaudeau& Altig, 1999; Narayan et al., 2011), and the abilityto colonize habitats that otherwise conspicuously lackranoid frogs (small, arid islands, dry limestone habi-
tats, and high-elevation mossy rain forests with nostanding water; Menzies, 2006; Pikacha, Morrison &Richards, 2008). This ability to persist and reproducein environments lacking standing fresh water has beenhypothesized to represent a key innovation that hasfacilitated dispersal and colonization across the South-West Pacific, and in the literature this life-history traitis associated with the presence of Platymantis on distantoceanic islands such as Palau (Crombie & Pregill, 1999)and Fiji (Gorham, 1965, 1968; Tyler, 1979; Ryan, 1984;Gibbons, 1985; Kuramoto, 1985, 1997; Ota & Matsui,1995; Narayan, Christi & Morley, 2008; Zug, 2013).
Whatever the combination of developmental, lifehistory, ecological characteristics or history, and cir-cumstances of colonization that led to the diversifica-tion of ceratobatrachid frogs in Southeast Asia and theSouth-West Pacific, the systematic relationships andpatterns of insular distributions of this group are ofinterest to biogeographers (Noble, 1931; Tyler, 1979;Inger, 1999). No other group of amphibians comes closeto exhibiting a similar distribution pattern with near-equivalent species diversity on either side of Wal-lace’s Line (Brown, 1952, 1997; Tyler, 1979, 1999; Inger,1999; Fig. 1). Furthermore, this radiation is unique inhaving such an appreciable portion of its diversity ondistant islands of the South-West Pacific (Allison, 1996;Brown, 1997; Inger, 1999).
Recent interest in species diversity of Philippineceratobatrachids has resulted in a sharp increase in de-scriptions of new species (Brown, Brown & Alcala, 1997a;Brown et al., 1997b, 1999a; Brown, Alcala & Diesmos,1997c, 1999b; Alcala & Brown, 1998, 1999; Brown, 2007;Brown & Gonzalez, 2007; Siler et al., 2007, 2009, 2010)
Figure 1. Distribution of the frog family Ceratobatrachidae. Numbers of species per major region are included inparentheses.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 131
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
and 35–40 new species await description (Brown, 2004,2009; Brown, Diesmos & Alcala, 2008; Brown et al., 2013a).Known Melanesian ceratobatrachid diversity has in-creased as well, with new species described from main-land New Guinea (Günther, 1999, 2006), New Ireland(Brown & Menzies, 1979; Allison & Kraus, 2001), Manus(Richards, Mack & Austin, 2007; Kraus & Allison, 2009;Richards, Oliver & Brown, 2014), New Britain (Foufopoulos& Brown, 2004; Brown, Foufopoulos & Richards, 2006;Brown et al., 2006; Kraus & Allison, 2007, 2009; Brown,Richards & Broadhead, 2013), and the Solomon Islands(Brown & Richards, 2008).
To date, Platymantis (sensu lato) lacks an explicitphylogenetic definition (sensu de Queiroz & Gauthier,1990). Based on limited taxon sampling, Platymantisis clearly paraphyletic with respect to the morpho-logically derived non-Platymantis genera (Bossuyt et al.,2006; Wiens et al., 2009). Because of their consider-able species diversity (approximately 90 species;AmphibiaWeb, 2014), their curious distribution (Noble,1931; Brown, 1952, 1997; Tyler, 1979, 1999), their strik-ing array of morphological variation (Boulenger, 1884,1918a; Günther, 1859; Brown, 1952; Gorham, 1965;Brown et al., 1997a; Norris, 2002), and complex taxo-nomic history (Boulenger, 1918b; Brown, 1952; Dubois,1981, 1987, 1992; Inger, 1996; Frost, 2014), we under-took a phylogenetic analysis of the family, which hasonly been represented in previous systematic studiesby few species and sequences.
This study includes most Platymantis species diver-sity from both sides of Wallace’s Line (i.e. the Philip-pines vs. Solomon−Bismarck−Admiralty archipelagos;Fig. 1), representatives of the other four ceratobatrachidgenera (Ceratobatrachus, Palmatorappia, Batrachylodes,and Discodeles; AmphibiaWeb, 2014; Frost, 2014), afew species of Southeast Asian Ingerana (= Micrixalusof earlier authors; Inger, 1954, 1966; Inger & Tan, 1996a,b; now known to be allied to Ceratobatrachidae: Bossuytet al., 2006), and representative ranid outgroups fromAsia and Papuan faunal regions (Wiens et al., 2009;Blackburn & Wake, 2011). Here we provide aphylogenetic estimate of relationships amongst the frogsof the family Ceratobatrachidae (species of the generaPlatymantis, Palmatorappia, Ceratobatrachus,Discodeles, Batrachylodes, and some members of thegenus Ingerana) with particular attention to themonophyly and validity of the genera Platymantis andCornufer. We also address long-standing nomenclatu-ral problems with respect to generic taxonomy, andprovide a new comprehensive classification scheme tofacilitate future studies.
TAXONOMIC HISTORY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE
The genus Platymantis has one of the most confus-ing histories and lengthy synonymy of any group of
ranoid frogs (Dubois, 1981, 1987, 1992; Ford &Cannatella, 1993; Frost, 2014). The unusual distribu-tion of the Ceratobatrachidae (Fig. 1), coupled with un-certainty about their systematic affinities (Noble, 1931)and a particularly unstable nomenclatural history, hasled to the current state in which relationships in thefamily are poorly understood (Norris, 2002; Brown, 2004;Frost et al., 2006; Köhler et al., 2008; Pyron & Wiens,2011). Biologists have indiscriminately referred a centuryof new species discoveries to the paraphyletic taxonPlatymantis and, to date, no comprehensive efforts tounderstand the group’s diversity or utilize phylogenyto inform classification have been undertaken. Theseactions of convenience have compromised attempts tounderstand the evolutionary relationships of the group(W. C. Brown, pers. comm.) and have prevented theempirical test of hypotheses regarding the biogeogra-phy and phylogenetic affinities of this evolutionary ra-diation (Allison, 1996; W. Brown, 1997; Inger, 1999;R. Brown, 2004; Bossuyt et al., 2006). Below, we sum-marize the taxonomic history of the family to eluci-date the nomenclatural issues that need to be addressedin order to implement a new classification (Dubois, 1981,1987, 1992; Inger, 1996; ICZN, 1999).
The genus Cornufer was named by Tschudi (1838)based on a single specimen from an uncertain local-ity (Zweifel, 1966). In subsequent years approximate-ly 20 species from the Philippines, New Guinea, NewBritain, New Ireland, the Solomons, and the Fijis weredescribed and assigned to Cornufer, Halophila, andHylodes on the basis of osteological and external mor-phological characters (Peters, 1863; Boulenger, 1886,1918a; Taylor, 1920, 1922a, b, 1923, 1925; Schmidt,1932; Parker, 1939, 1940; Brown, 1949, 1952; Gorham,1965). Meanwhile, several similar species were as-signed to the genus Platymantis (Günther, 1859), dif-fering from species of the genus Cornufer primarily onthe basis of narrowly or non-expanded terminal toe discs.Advocates of the validity of both Cornufer (wide discs)and Platymantis (narrow discs) included Boulenger(1918b), Barbour (1923), Van Kampen (1923; who rec-ognized Cornufer and Rana, with the subgenusPlatymantis), Noble (1931), Mertens (1934), Brown &Myers (1949), Brown (1952), and Gorham (1965). Inger(1954) considered the range of morphological vari-ation in the two genera to be a natural continuum ofvariation between the two extreme states of wide vs.narrowly expanded finger and toe discs. He proposedsynonymizing Platymantis with Cornufer, and thus ren-dering species with both wide and narrow terminalfinger and toe discs members of a single genus,Platymantis, a change followed by Alcala (1962) andmost others (but see Gorham, 1965).
Later, when it was determined that the type speciesof Cornufer was in fact a Neotropical frog in the genusEleutherodactylus, Zweifel (1966) proposed to the ICZN
132 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
that the name Cornufer be suppressed (Anonymous,1978); Zweifel (1967) summarized his reasoning andused Platymantis in subsequent publications (Zweifel,1969, 1975). However, the ICZN committee failed torule on Zweifel’s proposal for nearly ten years(Anonymous, 1978), and when it did, ruled againstZweifel’s proposition, which left Cornufer an avail-able name, unknown to the systematics community(Anonymous, 1978; ICZN, 1999). For the following 35years, systematists have referred all Southeast Asianand Melanesian forest frogs to Platymantis, of whichCornufer was considered a subjective synonym ofPlatymantis (Dubois, 1981; Frost, 1985, 2014).
The lengthy literature debate surrounding this taxo-nomic confusion discouraged investigators (notablyZweifel, 1967; Gorham, 1965; both assumed Cornuferwas unavailable) from coining a new generic name forspecies with wide discs to distinguish them from thespecies with narrow discs. This appears to have beenan admirable attempt to avoid further taxonomic in-stability but, as noted by Dubois (1981: 248): ‘. . .thisis a case where purely nomenclatural reasons haveimposed upon systematists a unanimity which purelytaxonomic arguments had not allowed them to reach’(translation from original French by M. Berson, Cali-fornia Academy of Sciences).
MATERIAL AND METHODSTAXON SAMPLING
We conducted fieldwork in the Philippines, easternIndonesia, the Admiralty Islands and Bismarck Archi-pelago of Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands.This sampling was augmented by contributions of tissuesfrom these same areas, plus Palau, Borneo, and Fiji(see Specimens examined and Acknowledgements). Frogswere captured by hand, over-anaesthetized inchlorobutanol (KU IACUC no. 158-01), and dissectedfor liver and muscle; tissues were preserved by im-mersion in liquid nitrogen, 95% ethanol, high-saltdimethyl sulphoxide tissue preservation buffer, orRNAlater (Life Technologies). Specimens were fixedin buffered 10% formalin and stored in 70% ethanol.Voucher specimens are deposited in collections at theNational Museum of the Philippines (PNM), The Cin-cinnati Museum of Natural History (CMNH), Louisi-ana State University Museum of Natural Science(LSUMZ), the Texas Natural History Collections ofthe University of Texas at Austin (TNHC), the UnitedStates National Museum of Natural History (USNM),The Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), theSouth Australian Museum (SAMA) the Western Aus-tralian Museum (WAM), the Bishop Museum (BPBM),and the University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute(KU).
DATA COLLECTION
We extracted total genomic DNA from liver or musclesamples with a Qiagen DNeasy kit or Fujita’s Guani-dine Thyocyanate protocol (Esselstyn et al., 2008). Ingroupsampling included 120 individuals representing the di-versity of the family Ceratobatrachidae, includingmembers of all six currently recognized genera(Batrachylodes, Ceratobatrachus, Discodeles, Ingerana,Palmatorappia, and Platymantis). Fifteen species wereincluded as outgroup taxa, representing a broad spec-trum of anuran diversity amongst the familiesDicroglossidae (Ingerana, Limnonectes, andHoplobatrachus), Microhylidae (Kaloula), and Ranidae(Amolops, Huia, Hylarana, and Rana) (Fig. 2; Appen-dix 1). Data for Ingerana tenasserimensis were down-loaded from GenBank (accession nos: DQ347030,AY322308). Each extraction was amplified for the genesof interest (Table 1) through standard PCR protocols(Palumbi, 1996).
We targeted a ∼2500-bp region of the 12S + tRNAVal
and 16S rRNA mitochondrial gene fragments usingvarious primers adopted or modified from publishedstudies (Goebel, Donnelly & Atz, 1999; Evans et al.,2003; Darst & Cannatella, 2004; Hillis & Wilcox, 2005;Table 1) in eight pairs to amplify segments via PCR;however, not all amplifications were successful. Addi-tionally, we sequenced portions of three nuclear loci:recombinase activating gene 1 (RAG1; ∼750 bp), tyrosinase(Tyr; ∼535-bp portion of exon 1), and proopiomelanocortin(POMC; ∼580 bp), using the primers and protocols ofWiens et al. (2005) and Bossuyt et al. (2006) (Appendix2). The nuclear genes were sampled for a subset of taxafor which mtDNA sequence was obtained.
We purified PCR product with QIAquick Gel Ex-tractions or used ExoSAPit (USB Corp.) with a 20%dilution of stock ExoSAPit, incubated for 30 min at 37 °Cand then 80 °C for 15 min. Cycle sequencing was carriedout with the following cycling conditions for 25 cycles:10 s at 96 °C; 5 s at 50 °C; and 4 min at 60 °C.
Cleaned PCR products were dye-labelled using Big-Dye terminator 3.1 (Applied Biosystems), purified usingSephadex (NC9406038, Amersham Biosciences,Piscataway, NJ), and sequenced on an ABI 3100 or3730xl automated capillary sequencer (AppliedBiosystems Inc.). Raw sequence data were processedusing SEQUENCING ANALYSIS software (AppliedBiosystems). Individual sequence chromatograms wereexamined in SEQUENCHER v. 4.3 (GeneCodes) andindividual single-stranded fragments were assem-bled into contiguous consensus reads, after checkingfor sequencing error, for subsequent analysis.
ALIGNMENT AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS
Initial alignments were produced in MUSCLE (Edgar,2004) and minor manual adjustments were made in
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 133
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
134 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
MacClade v. 4.08 (Maddison & Maddison, 2000). Formitochondrial gene regions, we defined ambiguouslyaligned regions as character sets using MacClade andexcluded regions of uncertain positional homologies fromfurther analyses after determining that doing so yieldedno difference in tree topology and unappreciable changesin nonparametric bootstrap values for parsimonysearches (not shown).
Preliminary analyses exploring the impact of missingdata on inferred outgroup relationships resulted insimilar relationships inferred with and without theinclusion of individual nuclear data partitions. To assesseffects of missing data, preliminary analyses of indi-
vidual genes and combinations of gene partitions wereconducted. We found that relationships recoveredamongst clades N, O, P, and Q (Fig. 2) varied betweenthe nuclear genes and mtDNA only. MrBayes analy-sis of the nuclear genes yielded only the topology(O,(N,P),(Q,R)). The nodes supporting these relation-ships had posterior probabilities (PP) = 1, except forthe clade O + N + P, which was 0.98. By contrast, analy-sis of the mtDNA resulted in (O,((N,P),(Q,R))); for allnodes the PP = 1.0. Thus, the nuclear and mtDNAtrees are strongly incongruent (Supporting Informa-tion Fig. S1). Because of this incongruence the com-bined tree (Fig. 2) lacks support for the relationships
Figure 2. Molecular phylogenetic estimate of major ceratobatrachid relationships based on maximum likelihood analy-sis of two mitochondrial gene partitions (12S–16S) and three nuclear genes (proopiomelanocortin, recombinase activat-ing gene 1, and tyrosinase; 11-partition model: Table 2). Maximum likelihood bootstrap and Bayesian posterior probabilityvalues are included. Boxed letters denoting selected nodes of interest are discussed in the text. Node B is Ceratobatrachidae.As illustrated, the tree is unrooted, and to save space the outgroups (Node A) are shown as if they form a clade, whichthey do not. The root of the tree lies on the branch between Kaloula and all other taxa. Photographs of selected speciesare included (approximately to scale), with current taxonomy summarized at tree tips (compare with revised taxonomy,summarized in Fig. 3). Nodal support: black dots ≥ 0.95 and ≥ 70 maximum likelihood bootstrap support (MLBS); greydots ≥ 0.75, posterior probabilities (PP) ≤ 0.95, and ≥ 50 MLBS ≤ 70. Support values provided (as MLBS/PP) for weaklysupported nodes and nodes with disparate levels of support between analyses.
◀
Table 1. Oligonucleotide primer sequences used in this study
Locus Primer name Sequence: 5′–3′ Citation
tRNAVal–16S MVZ59 ATAGCACTGAAAAYGCTDAGATG Goebel et al. (1999)tRNAVal GGTGTAAGCGAGAGGCTT Darst & Cannatella (2004)12L1 AAAAAGCTTCAAACTGGGATTAGATACCCCACTAT Hillis & Wilcox (2005)16Sa ATGTTTTTGGTAAACAGGCG Hillis & Wilcox (2005)12Sm GGCAAGTCGTAACATGGTAAG Hillis & Wilcox (2005)16Sh GCTAGACCATKATGCAAAAGGTA Hillis & Wilcox (2005)16Sc GTRGGCCTAAAAGCAGCCAC Darst & Cannatella (2004);
Hillis & Wilcox (2005)16Sd CTCCGGTCTGAACTCAGATCACGTAG Darst & Cannatella (2004)
POMC POMC-1 GAATGTATYAAAGMMTGCAAGATGGWCCT Wiens et al. (2005, 2009)POMC-2 TAYTGRCCCTTYTTGTGGGCRTT Wiens et al. 2005, 2009)POMC-3 TCTGCMGARTCWCCYGTGTTTCC Wiens et al. (2005, 2009POMC-4 TGGCATTYTTGAAAAGAGTCAT Wiens et al. (2005, 2009)
RAG1 Amp-RAG1 F AGCTGCAGYCARTACCAYAARATGTA Mauro et al. (2004)RAG1-R GCAAAGTTTCCGTTCATTCTCAT Fu, Weadick & Bi (2007)
Tyr Tyr1A AGGTCCTCTTRAGCAAGGAATG Bossuyt & Milinkovitch (2000);Bossuyt et al. (2006)
Tyr1B AGGTCCTCYTRAGGAAGGAATG Bossuyt & Milinkovitch (2000);Bossuyt et al. (2006)
Tyr1C GGCAGAGGAWCRTGCCAAGATGT Bossuyt & Milinkovitch (2000);Bossuyt et al. (2006)
Tyr1D TCCTCCGTGGGCACCCARTTCCC Bossuyt & Milinkovitch (2000);Bossuyt et al. (2006)
POMC, proopiomelanocortin; RAG1, recombinase activating gene 1.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 135
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
amongst N, O, P, and Q + R; essentially these fourclades form a polytomy. However, this does not affectour taxonomy because we did not name any nodeswith PP < 0.98. The individual clades M, N, O, P, Q,and R are also each supported by PP > 0.98.
Therefore, we chose to include all data in a concat-enated data set. However, we urge careful considera-tion of incongruence between these partitions beforethe phylogeny is used for biogeographical inference orcomparative analyses. Our final concatenated matrix(deposited in Dryad at: doi:10.5061/dryad.4fd0k) con-sisted of 4416 nucleotide positions with variable numbersof taxa sequenced for 12S (N = 52), 16S (128), RAG1(102), Tyr (98), and POMC (76).
Partitioned Bayesian analyses were conducted inMrBayes v. 3.2.1 (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist, 2001;Ronquist & Huelsenbeck, 2003). All nuclear gene datasets were partitioned by codon position for protein-coding regions, and the mitochondrial genes 12S-tRNAVal and 16S were each treated as individualpartitions, for a total of 11 sequence partitions (Table 2).The Akaike information criterion (AIC), as implement-ed in jModeltest v. 2.1.4 (Guindon & Gascuel, 2003;Darriba et al., 2012), was used to select the best modelof nucleotide substitution for each partition (Table 2).We set the ratepr (rate multiplier) parameter to ‘vari-able’ to allow substitution rates to vary amongst subsets,and set a dirichlet process prior (1,1,1,1) on the statefrequency parameter. Default priors were used for allother model parameters. We ran four independentMarkov chain Monte Carlo analyses, each with four
Metropolis-coupled chains, an incremental heating tem-perature of 0.02, and an exponential distribution witha rate parameter of 25 as the prior on branch lengths.All analyses were run for 15 000 000 generations, withparameters and topologies sampled every 3000 gen-erations. We assessed stationarity with TRACER v. 1.4(Rambaut & Drummond, 2007) and confirmed conver-gence with AWTY (Wilgenbusch, Warren & Swofford,2004; Nylander et al., 2007). We conservatively dis-carded the first 20% of samples as burn-in, resultingin a total of 4000 topologies from the posterior distri-bution for each of four runs.
Partitioned maximum likelihood (ML) analyses wereconducted in RAxMLHPC v. 7.0 (Stamatakis, 2006) onthe concatenated data set using the same partition-ing strategy and sets of deleted characters as the Bayes-ian analysis. The General Time Reversible model withvariable sites modeled according to the Gamma dis-tribution was selected via AIC and used for all subsets(Table 2), with ML analyses performed using the rapidhill-climbing algorithm (Stamatakis et al., 2007). Eachinference was initiated with a random starting treeand nodal support was assessed with 1000 bootstrappseudoreplicates employing the rapid hill-climbingalgorithm (Stamatakis, Hoover & Rougemont, 2008).All new sequences were deposited in GenBank(Appendix 1).
RESULTSTAXON SAMPLING AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES
The aligned matrix contains 135 samples (Appendix1). Similar to other high-level phylogenetic studies (Wienset al., 2009; Pyron & Wiens, 2011) Ceratobatrachidaewas found to be monophyletic, except for some speciesof Ingerrana (see below). To economize on space wepresent the tree (Fig. 2) as if it were rooted betweenthe outgroup and ingroup. The numbers of variablecharacters are: 996 of 1632 (12S); 627 of 909 (16S); 246of 588 (POMC); 233 of 534 (Tyr); 187 of 753 (RAG1).
With a few exceptions, all analyses result in topolo-gies with moderate to high ML bootstrap support (MLBS)and PP amongst species and major clades within thefamily Ceratobatrachidae (Fig. 2). General topologicalpatterns amongst the major clades of outgroup speciesare congruent with published studies (Bossuyt et al.,2006; Frost et al., 2006; Wiens et al., 2009; Pyron &Wiens, 2011) and are not discussed further. Inferredrelationships from Bayesian and ML analyses werebroadly similar; however, a few differences were ob-served. The sample of Ingerana tenasserimensis, thetype species of Ingerana, was recovered by all analysesas part of a clade of outgroup samples (Clade A) withstrong support (MLBS = 100; PP = 0.98; Supporting In-formation Fig. S1). No analyses support the monophyly
Table 2. Models of evolution selected by Akaike informa-tion criterion (AIC; as implemented in jModeltest) and thoseapplied in partitioned, model-based, analyses of mitochondrial(12S, 16S, tRNAVal) and nuclear [proopiomelanocortin (POMC),recombinase activating gene 1 (RAG1), tyrosinase (Tyr)] data
Partition AIC modelNumber ofcharacters
12S + tRNAVal GTR + Γ* 162416S GTR + Γ 909POMC, first codon position GTR + Γ 196POMC, second codon position GTR + Γ 196POMC, third codon position HKY + Γ 196RAG1, first codon position HKY + Γ 251RAG1, second codon position GTR + Γ 251RAG1, third codon position GTR + Γ 251Tyr, first codon position GTR + Γ 178Tyr, second codon position GTR + Γ 178Tyr, third codon position JC 178
*GTR + Γ, General Time Reversible Model with variablesites modeled according to the Gamma distribution; JC,Jukes-Cantor.
136 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
of Ingerana as currently defined (Fig. 2), and Ingeranamariae, Ingerana baluensis, and Ingerana rajae wererecovered as a well-supported clade that is the sistergroup of all remaining ceratobatrachid taxa (Clade C).Amongst ingroup samples (Clade B), all analyses re-covered three primary clades with high support (CladesC, E, M). Apart from Ingerana (Clade C), the remain-ing ceratobatrachids were recovered as part of two clades(Clades E, M). The first is composed of members ofDiscodeles, Ceratobatrachus, Palmatorappia,Batrachylodes, and Melanesian species of Platymantis(Clade E). A large, well-supported clade of PhilippinePlatymantis (Clade M) is the sister group of Clade E.
Focusing solely on strongly supported clades withinthe Philippine and non-Philippine ceratobatrachids (ex-cluding Ingerana), several relationships are note-worthy: (1) species of Discodeles are not recovered asa clade; Discodeles malukuna and Discodelesbufoniformis are supported as the sister group of allother non-Philippine taxa in Clade E, whereas Discodelesguppyi is nested within a group of Pacific species ofPlatymantis (Clades F and H); (2) Bayesian analysessupport the monophyly of the genus Batrachylodes,albeit with weak support for the inclusion ofBatrachylodes minutus as the sister taxon of all othersampled members of the genus (PP = 0.69; Support-ing Information Fig. S1), whereas ML analyses recovera clade of Batrachylodes to the exclusion of B. minutus(Clade L), with the placement of B. minutus weaklysupported (MLBS = 48); (3) the majority of Pacific speciesof the genus Platymantis are inferred to be membersof a single clade (Clade J); and (4) within the well-supported Philippine radiation (Clade M), all analy-ses support five major clades (Clades N–R).
A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE FAMILYCERATOBATRACHIDAE
OVERVIEW
Our phylogenetic analyses and those of others (Bossuytet al., 2006; Frost et al., 2006; Wiens et al., 2009; Pyron& Wiens, 2011) unequivocally support two large clades(Clades E and M) that are together the sister groupof the new genus described below (including Sundalandand Palawan Island species formerly assigned toIngerana). Given that these two clades arephylogenetically and biogeographically well circum-scribed (one is endemic to the Philippines, west of Wal-lace’s Line; and the other is widely distributed eastof Wallace’s Line throughout eastern Indonesia, NewGuinea, Palau, the Bismarcks, Admiralty archipela-gos, Solomon Islands, and Fiji), we assign to them theavailable generic names Platymantis (with restrictedcontent, see below), and Cornufer (with expandedcontent, see below), together within a new unranked
clade, which we define and name below. Our recogni-tion of three genera, Alcalus, Cornufer, and Platymantis,rather than an extensive splitting of Ceratobatrachidaeinto numerous genera, also maintains a desirable degreeof stability of content of Platymantis.
NEW TAXA AND ALLOCATION OF SPECIES TO EXISTING
SUPRASPECIFIC NAMES
We present parallel ranked and phylogenetic taxono-mies. Whereas traditional ranked taxonomy isagnostic with respect to phylogenetic relationships andfocuses on the content or the concept of the taxon,phylogenetic taxonomies associate a name with a cladeand are based on phylogenetic trees (de Queiroz &Gauthier, 1990, 1992, 1994). The phylogenetic defini-tions of taxon names follow the general recommenda-tions of the draft PhyloCode versions 4c and 5a1(Cantino & de Queiroz, 2014); we provide traditionaldiagnoses for most of the same names following therequirements of the ICZN so that these will be avail-able in the sense of the ICZN (1999).
Some explanation of terms is needed; these are takenfrom Cantino & de Queiroz (2014, particularly Article9.3 and the Glossary). A specifier is a species, speci-men, or apomorphy that serves as a reference pointto specify a clade of interest; here we use type speciesas specifiers. A crown clade is a node-based clade thatoriginates with the last common ancestor of two or moreextant species (or organisms); crown clades are de-limited by extant and not extinct taxa, although a crownclade may include extinct taxa. A node-based clade origi-nates with a particular node on a tree, rather than abranch (stem). By contrast, a branch-based (stem-based) clade originates with a specific branch. A branch-based clade might include fossils as the most basalbranches.
Maximum crown-clade definitions are formed as ‘thelargest crown clade containing A but not Z’ or the crownclade originating in the most recent common ances-tor of A and all extant organisms or species that sharea more recent common ancestor with A than with Z(or X, or Y, as needed), where A is an extant internalspecifier and Z is an external specifier (Article 9.9,Cantino & de Queiroz, 2014). In other words, it is themost inclusive crown clade including A but not Z (andother specifiers as needed). Maximum crown-clade defi-nitions are particularly useful when basal relation-ships are not well resolved and when it is desirableto include newly discovered species under the exist-ing taxon name, rather than proposing a new cladename or redefining the clade name to include the newspecies that lie outside of the clade. By contrast, if onewishes to stabilize the content of a taxon (sayCeratobatrachidae) such that the concept ofCeratobatrachidae is not expanded to include a newly
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 137
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
discovered sister group, then a node-based definitionof Ceratobatrachidae is preferable.
Converted clade names (CCNs) are also defined usingphylogenetic conventions. New clade names (NCNs) arenewly coined names. All unranked phylogenetic namesare italicized. We have generally used type species asspecifiers in phylogenetic definitions. The taxonomicauthority (author and date) for ranked taxon namesis included in Table 3. The authors and date for allNCNs are considered to be Brown, Siler, Richards,Diesmos, and Cannatella 2014.
In some cases we have coined NCNs to refer to thesame group denoted by existing ranked names, ratherthan convert (in the sense of the PhyloCode) the rankedname to a clade name. We have done this to avoid con-verting names that imply a rank because under thePhyloCode suffixes such as -idae or -ini do not indi-cate rank. Note that the Phylocode neither encour-ages nor discourages the use of ranks.
For example, Ceratobatrachidae has been various-ly ranked as a subfamily (Bossuyt et al., 2006), a family(Boulenger, 1884), or a tribe (Dubois, 1992). IfCeratobatrachidae were converted to a clade name, andif in the future Ceratobatrachidae were treated as thesubfamily Ceratobatrachinae, then the clade nameCeratobatrachidae and the ranked subfamily nameCeratobatrachinae would refer to the same clade,causing confusion.
For phylogenetic definitions of Alcalus, Cornufer, andPlatymantis we use maximum crown-clade defini-tions because the relationships of these taxa to eachother are well supported. Similarly we have usedmaximum crown-clade definitions for those subcladesof Platymantis that are strongly supported. However,relationships amongst the subclades within Cornuferare weakly supported in places, and several speciesare not assigned to a named subclade of Cornufer. Forgenera that typically have been named based onapomorphies we use apomorphy-based names to re-strict the content of these clades to species that possessthese apomorphies. An example is Discodeles, whichis unique amongst ceratobatrachids in having exten-sively webbed feet.
CERATOBATRACHIDAE BOULENGER, 1884
Type genusCeratobatrachus Boulenger, 1884.
DiagnosisFrogs of the family Ceratobatrachidae differ from theirclose relatives by the possession of (1) direct develop-ment; and (2) T-shaped terminal phalanges with as-sociated expanded finger and toe discs.
Phylogenetic definitionCeratobatrachia (NCN) is a node-based name that refersto the clade arising from the most recent common an-
cestor of Alcalus mariae (type species of Alcalus),Cornufer vitiensis (type species of Cornufer), andPlatymantis pliciferus (type species of Platymantis; cur-rently a junior synonym of Platymantis corrugatus).
ContentThe genera Alcalus (three or four species), Cornufer(58 species), and Platymantis (31 described species).
CommentWe define Ceratobatrachia using a node-baseddefinition, rather than a maximum crown-cladedefinition, because the closest relative of Ceratobatrachia(= Ceratobatrachidae) from amongst the ranoidsis not clear (e.g. Bossuyt et al., 2006; Pyron & Wiens,2011). The node-based name ensures that future useof the Ceratobatrachia refers to the same node,regardless of whether that node name isCeratobatrachidae or Ceratobatrachinae; i.e. its useis independent of any particular ranked taxonomy.We have not converted the ranked nameCeratobatrachidae to a phylogenetic name, but ratherwe have named Ceratobatrachia to avoid confusionbetween the homonymous ranked name and convert-ed clade name.
We apply the ranked name Ceratobatrachidae (Fig. 2,Clade B) to the node usually identified asCeratobatrachidae or Ceratobatrachinae. Several family-group names are available for clades within theCeratobatrachidae, including Cornuferinae Noble 1931,Ceratobatrachinae Boulenger, 1884, and PlatymantinaeLaurent, 1986. Ceratobatrachidae Boulenger, 1884, isnot nomenclaturally problematic. Cornuferinae wasnamed by Noble (1931) to include the generaBatrachylodes, Ceratobatrachus, Cornufer, Discodeles,Hylarana, Micrixalus, Palmatorappia, Platymantis, andStaurois (including Simomantis). Savage (1973: 354)later coined Platymantinae as a subfamily of Ranidae.However, he did not explicitly provide a list of char-acters that diagnose the taxon as required by the In-ternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN1999; hereafter, the Code). Thus, the namePlatymantinae Savage, 1973, is not available (Article13.1; ICZN, 1999) and is a nomen nudum. Laurent(1986) diagnosed the same taxon and made the nameavailable as Platymantinae Laurent, 1986. Dubois (1992)listed Cornuferinae Noble, 1931 and PlatymantiniLaurent, 1986, as junior synonyms of CeratobatrachidaeBoulenger, 1884.
By contrast, Frost (2014) listed Cornuferinae Noble,1931, as a synonym of Eleutherodactylidae Lutz, 1954,stating ‘synonymy by implication of synonymy ofCornufer with Eleutherodactylus by Zweifel (1966).’ Thenomenclatural history of Cornufer is discussed in detailunder the Cornufer account, but relevant to the issueis that the International Commission on Zoological
138 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Tab
le3.
Cla
ssifi
cati
onof
the
fam
ily
Cer
atob
atra
chid
aeba
sed
onph
ylog
enet
ices
tim
ate
from
two
mit
och
ondr
ial
gen
efr
agm
ents
(12S
+tR
NA
Val,
16S
)an
dth
ree
nu
clea
rge
nes
(pro
opio
mel
anoc
orti
n,
reco
mbi
nas
eac
tiva
tin
gge
ne
1,an
dty
rosi
nas
e).
Taxa
mar
ked
wit
han
aste
risk
(*)
wer
en
otin
clu
ded
inth
eph
ylog
enet
ican
alys
is;
som
eof
thes
ew
ere
assi
gned
tocl
ades
onth
eba
sis
ofph
enot
ypic
sim
ilar
ity
and
pres
um
edcl
ose
phyl
ogen
etic
affin
ity;
taxa
mar
ked
wit
ha
dagg
er(†
)ar
eex
tin
ct.
Nod
eO
rigi
nal
desi
gnat
ion
(au
thor
,da
te)
Pre
viou
sge
ner
icpl
acem
ent
Cu
rren
tge
ner
icpl
acem
ent
Su
bgen
us
Cla
den
ame
Spe
cies
Not
es
CIn
gera
na
Alc
alu
sge
n.
nov
.A
lcal
us
Inge
ran
am
aria
eIn
ger,
1954
Inge
ran
aA
lcal
us
non
en
one
mar
iae
Cor
nu
fer
balu
ensi
sB
oule
nge
r,18
96In
gera
na
Alc
alu
sn
one
non
eba
luen
sis
Ran
asa
riba
Sh
elfo
rd,
1905
Inge
ran
aA
lcal
us
non
en
one
sari
ba*
Inge
ran
ara
jae
Iska
nda
r,B
ickf
ord
&A
rifi
nIn
gera
na
Alc
alu
sn
one
non
era
jae
EC
orn
ufe
rC
orn
ufe
rF
Ran
abu
fon
ifor
mis
Bou
len
ger,
1884
Dis
cod
eles
Cor
nu
fer
Pot
amor
ana
subg
en.
nov
.P
otam
oran
an
ewcl
ade
nam
ebu
fon
ifor
mis
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
Dis
cod
eles
mal
uku
na
Bro
wn
&W
ebst
er,
1969
Dis
cod
eles
Cor
nu
fer
Pot
amor
ana
Pot
amor
ana
mal
uku
na
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
nR
ana
opis
thod
onB
oule
nge
r,18
84D
isco
del
esC
orn
ufe
rP
otam
oran
aP
otam
oran
aop
isth
odon
com
b.n
ov.*
New
com
bin
atio
nR
ana
vogt
iH
edig
er,
1934
(rep
lace
men
tn
ame
for
Ran
ave
ntr
icos
us
Vog
t,19
12)
Dis
cod
eles
Cor
nu
fer
Pot
amor
ana
Pot
amor
ana
vogt
ico
mb.
nov
.*N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
TH
alop
hil
avi
tien
sis
Gir
ard,
1853
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rC
orn
ufe
rYa
nu
boto
new
clad
en
ame
viti
ensi
sTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer,
type
spec
ies
for
gen
us
Cor
nu
fer
Hyl
odes
viti
anu
sD
um
éril
,18
53P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Cor
nu
fer
Cor
nu
fer
viti
anu
sTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
sm
egab
oton
ivit
i†W
orth
y,20
01P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Cor
nu
fer
Cor
nu
fer
meg
abot
oniv
iti†
*Tr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
SC
erat
obat
rach
us
guen
ther
iB
oule
nge
r,18
84C
erat
obat
rach
us
Cor
nu
fer
Cer
atob
atra
chu
sC
erat
obat
rach
us
guen
ther
ico
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
HC
orn
ufe
rgu
ppyi
Bou
len
ger,
1884
Dis
cod
eles
Cor
nu
fer
Dis
cod
eles
Dis
cod
eles
gupp
yico
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
UH
ylel
laso
lom
onis
Ste
rnfe
ld,
1920
(syn
.H
ypsi
ran
ah
effe
rnan
iK
ingh
orn
,19
28)
Pal
mat
orap
pia
Cor
nu
fer
Pal
mat
orap
pia
Pal
mat
orap
pia
hef
fern
ani
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n,
resu
rrec
tion
ofC
o.h
effe
rnan
ias
asu
bsti
tute
nam
efo
rso
lom
onis
(see
text
)L
Bat
rach
ylod
esel
egan
sB
row
n&
Par
ker,
1970
Bat
rach
ylod
esC
orn
ufe
rB
atra
chyl
odes
Bat
rach
ylod
esel
egan
sco
mb.
nov
.*N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Bat
rach
ylod
esgi
gas
Bro
wn
&P
arke
r,19
70B
atra
chyl
odes
Cor
nu
fer
Bat
rach
ylod
esB
atra
chyl
odes
giga
sco
mb.
nov
.*N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Bat
rach
ylod
esm
edio
dis
cus
Bro
wn
&P
arke
r,19
70B
atra
chyl
odes
Cor
nu
fer
Bat
rach
ylod
esB
atra
chyl
odes
med
iod
iscu
sco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Bat
rach
ylod
esm
onta
nu
sB
row
n&
Par
ker,
1970
Bat
rach
ylod
esC
orn
ufe
rB
atra
chyl
odes
Bat
rach
ylod
esm
onta
nu
sco
mb.
nov
.*N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Bat
rach
ylod
esm
onta
nu
sB
row
n&
Mye
rs,
1949
Bat
rach
ylod
esC
orn
ufe
rB
atra
chyl
odes
Bat
rach
ylod
estr
ossu
lus
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
nB
atra
chyl
odes
vert
ebra
lis
Bou
len
ger,
1887
Bat
rach
ylod
esC
orn
ufe
rB
atra
chyl
odes
Bat
rach
ylod
esve
rteb
rali
sco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Sph
enop
hry
ne
wol
fiS
tern
feld
,19
20B
atra
chyl
odes
Cor
nu
fer
Bat
rach
ylod
esB
atra
chyl
odes
wol
fico
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
JP
laty
man
tis
adia
stol
us
Bro
wn
,R
ich
ards
,S
uku
mar
an&
Fou
fopo
ulo
s,20
06P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
rasu
bgen
.n
ov.
Aen
igm
anu
ran
ewcl
ade
nam
ead
iast
olu
sco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sad
mir
alti
ensi
sR
ich
ards
,M
ack
&A
ust
in,
2007
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
raad
mir
alti
ensi
sco
mb.
nov
.*N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sak
arit
hym
us
Bro
wn
&T
yler
,19
68P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
akar
ith
ymu
sco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sbo
ule
nge
riP
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
bou
len
geri
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
rP
laty
man
tis
citr
inos
pilu
sB
row
n,
Ric
har
ds&
Bro
adh
ead,
2013
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
raci
trin
ospi
lus
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
scu
stos
Ric
har
ds,
Oli
ver
&B
row
n,
2014
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
racu
stos
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
nP
laty
man
tis
des
tica
ns
Bro
wn
&R
ich
ards
,20
08P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
des
tica
ns
com
b.n
ov..
New
com
bin
atio
nP
laty
man
tis
gill
iard
iZ
wei
fel,
1960
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
ragi
llia
rdi
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
rP
laty
man
tis
gupp
yiB
oule
nge
r,18
84P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
hed
iger
iTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer,
nom
enn
ovu
mfo
rC
o.gu
ppyi
(see
text
)P
laty
man
tis
latr
oR
ich
ards
,M
ack
&A
ust
in,
2007
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
rala
tro
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
nC
orn
ufe
rm
acro
psB
row
n,
1965
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
ram
acro
psTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 139
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Tab
le3.
Con
tin
ued
Nod
eO
rigi
nal
desi
gnat
ion
(au
thor
,da
te)
Pre
viou
sge
ner
icpl
acem
ent
Cu
rren
tge
ner
icpl
acem
ent
Su
bgen
us
Cla
den
ame
Spe
cies
Not
es
Pla
tym
anti
sm
acro
scel
esZ
wei
fel,
1975
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
ram
acro
scel
esco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sm
agn
us
Bro
wn
&M
enzi
es,
1979
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
ram
agn
us
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
nP
laty
man
tis
mam
usi
oru
mB
row
n&
Fou
fopo
ulo
s,20
04P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
mam
usi
oru
mco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sn
akan
aior
um
Bro
wn
,F
oufo
pou
los
&R
ich
ards
,20
06P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
nak
anai
oru
mco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sn
ecke
riB
row
n&
Mye
rs,
1949
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
ran
ecke
riTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
sn
exip
us
Zw
eife
l,19
75P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
nex
ipu
sTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
sco
rru
gatu
sva
r.pa
puen
sis
Mye
r,18
75(‘1
874’
)P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
papu
ensi
sTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
spa
rili
sB
row
n&
Ric
har
ds,
2008
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
rapa
rili
sco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
spe
lew
ensi
sP
eter
s,18
67P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
pele
wen
sis
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
rP
laty
man
tis
papu
ensi
ssc
hm
idti
Bro
wn
&T
yler
,19
68P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
sch
mid
tico
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Cor
nu
fer
solo
mon
isB
oule
nge
r,18
84P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
solo
mon
isTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
ssu
lcat
us
Kra
us
&A
llis
on,
2007
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rA
enig
man
ura
Aen
igm
anu
rasu
lcat
us
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
nP
laty
man
tis
web
eri
Sch
mid
t,19
32P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Aen
igm
anu
raA
enig
man
ura
web
eri
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
rP
laty
man
tis
acro
chor
du
sB
row
n,
1965
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rac
roch
ord
us
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
r
Pla
tym
anti
sac
ule
odac
tylu
sB
row
n,
1952
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rac
ule
odac
tylu
s*Tr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
sba
tan
tae
Bro
wn
&Z
wei
fel,
1969
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rba
tan
tae
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
sbi
mac
ula
tus
Gü
nth
er,
1999
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rbi
mac
ula
tus
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
sbr
own
iA
llis
on&
Kra
us,
2001
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rbr
own
ico
mb.
nov
.*N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sbu
fon
ulu
sK
rau
s&
All
ison
,20
07P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
bufo
nu
lus
com
b.n
ov..
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
sca
esio
psK
rau
s&
All
ison
,20
09P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
caes
iops
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
sch
eesm
anae
Par
ker,
1940
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rch
eesm
anae
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
r
Pla
tym
anti
scr
ypto
tis
Gü
nth
er,
1999
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rcr
ypto
tis
com
b.n
ov.*
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
sm
anu
sK
rau
s&
All
ison
,20
09P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
man
us
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
Pla
tym
anti
sm
imic
us
Bro
wn
&T
yler
,19
68P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
mim
icu
sco
mb.
nov
.N
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Bat
rach
ylod
esm
inu
tus
Bro
wn
&P
arke
r,19
70P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
min
utu
sco
mb.
nov
.R
emov
edfr
omB
atra
chyl
odes
,n
ewco
mbi
nat
ion
Pla
tym
anti
sm
yers
iB
row
n,
1949
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rm
yers
iTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Cor
nu
fer
park
eri
Bro
wn
,19
65P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
park
eri
Tran
sfer
red
toC
orn
ufe
r
Pla
tym
anti
spu
nct
atu
sP
eter
s&
Dor
ia,
1878
Pla
tym
anti
sC
orn
ufe
rN
otas
sign
edto
subg
enu
sC
orn
ufe
rpu
nct
atu
sTr
ansf
erre
dto
Cor
nu
fer
Pla
tym
anti
sw
uen
sch
eoru
mG
ün
ther
,20
06P
laty
man
tis
Cor
nu
fer
Not
assi
gned
tosu
bgen
us
Cor
nu
fer
wu
ensc
heo
rum
com
b.n
ov.
New
com
bin
atio
n
MP
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
140 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Tab
le3.
Con
tin
ued
Nod
eO
rigi
nal
desi
gnat
ion
(au
thor
,da
te)
Pre
viou
sge
ner
icpl
acem
ent
Cu
rren
tge
ner
icpl
acem
ent
Su
bgen
us
Cla
den
ame
Spe
cies
Not
es
NP
laty
man
tis
corr
uga
tus
Du
mér
il,
1853
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
agom
ukh
us
new
clad
en
ame
corr
uga
tus
(syn
.P
l.pl
icif
era
Gu
enth
er,
1854
)
P.pl
icif
era
(syn
P.co
rru
gatu
s)is
the
type
spec
ies
for
gen
us
Pla
tym
anti
sO
Pla
tym
anti
sba
nah
aoB
row
n,A
lcal
a,D
iesm
os&
Alc
ala,
1975
bP
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
ahat
nan
guri
subg
en.
nov
.L
ahat
nan
guri
new
clad
en
ame
ban
ahao
Pla
tym
anti
sbi
akS
iler
,D
iem
sos,
Lin
kem
,D
iesm
os&
Bro
wn
,20
10P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
ahat
nan
guri
subg
en.
nov
.L
ahat
nan
guri
new
clad
en
ame
biak
*
Cor
nu
fer
corn
utu
sTa
ylor
,19
22P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
ahat
nan
guri
Lah
atn
angu
rico
rnu
tus
Pla
tym
anti
sin
sula
tes
Bro
wn
&A
lcal
a,19
70P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
ahat
nan
guri
Lah
atn
angu
riin
sula
tus
Pla
tym
anti
sle
viga
tus
Bro
wn
&A
lcal
a,19
74P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
ahat
nan
guri
Lah
atn
angu
rile
viga
tus
Pla
tym
anti
spy
gmae
us
Bro
wn
,Alc
ala
&D
iesm
os,
1988
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Lah
atn
angu
riL
ahat
nan
guri
pygm
aeu
sP
Ph
ilau
tus
haz
elae
Tayl
or,
1920
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Tir
ahan
ula
psu
bgen
.n
ov.
Tir
ahan
ula
pn
ewcl
ade
nam
eh
azel
ae
Pla
tym
anti
sis
arog
Bro
wn
,B
row
n,A
lcal
a&
Fro
st(r
epla
cem
ent
nam
efo
rP
laty
man
tis
reti
cula
tus
Bro
wn
,B
row
n&
Alc
ala,
1997
a)
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Tir
ahan
ula
pT
irah
anu
lap
isar
og
Pla
tym
anti
sla
wto
ni
Bro
wn
&A
lcal
a,19
74P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
irah
anu
lap
Tir
ahan
ula
pla
wto
ni
Cor
nu
fer
mon
tan
us
Tayl
or,
1922
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Tir
ahan
ula
pT
irah
anu
lap
mon
tan
us
Pla
tym
anti
spa
nay
ensi
sB
row
n,
Bro
wn
&A
lcal
a,19
97P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
irah
anu
lap
Tir
ahan
ula
ppa
nay
ensi
sP
hil
autu
spo
lill
ensi
sTa
ylor
,19
22P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
irah
anu
lap
Tir
ahan
ula
ppo
lill
ensi
sP
laty
man
tis
sier
ram
adre
nsi
sB
row
n,A
lcal
a,O
ng,
&D
iesm
os,
1999
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Tir
ahan
ula
pT
irah
anu
lap
sier
ram
adre
nsi
s
Cor
nu
fer
subt
erre
stri
sTa
ylor
,19
22P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
irah
anu
lap
Tir
ahan
ula
psu
bter
rest
ris
QP
laty
man
tis
baya
ni
Sil
er,A
lcal
a,D
iesm
os&
Bro
wn
,20
08P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
ahan
anpu
no
subg
en.
nov
.T
ahan
anpu
no
new
clad
en
ame
baya
ni
Pla
tym
anti
sd
iesm
osi
Bro
wn
&G
onza
lez,
2007
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Tah
anan
pun
oT
ahan
anpu
no
die
smos
iC
orn
ufe
rgu
enth
eri
Bou
len
ger,
1882
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Tah
anan
pun
oT
ahan
anpu
no
guen
ther
iP
laty
man
tis
luzo
nen
sis
Bro
wn
,Alc
ala,
Die
smos
&A
lcal
a,19
97P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
ahan
anpu
no
Tah
anan
pun
olu
zon
ensi
s
Pla
tym
anti
sn
egro
sen
sis
Bro
wn
,Alc
ala,
Die
smos
&A
lcal
a,19
97P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
ahan
anpu
no
Tah
anan
pun
on
egro
sen
sis
Pla
tym
anti
sra
bori
Bro
wn
,Alc
ala,
Die
smos
&A
lcal
a,19
97P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sT
ahan
anpu
no
Tah
anan
pun
ora
bori
RP
laty
man
tis
caga
yan
ensi
sB
row
n,A
lcal
a&
Die
mso
s,19
99P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
ssu
bgen
.n
ov.
Lu
paco
lus
new
clad
en
ame
caga
yan
ensi
s
Cor
nu
fer
dor
sali
sD
um
éril
,18
53P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
sL
upa
colu
sd
orsa
lis
Pla
tym
anti
sin
dep
ren
sus
caga
yan
ensi
sB
row
n,A
lcal
a&
Die
mso
s,19
99P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
sL
upa
colu
sin
dep
ren
sus
Pla
tym
anti
sm
imu
lus
Bro
wn
,Alc
ala
&D
iem
sos,
1997
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Lu
paco
lus
Lu
paco
lus
mim
ulu
sP
laty
man
tis
nao
mia
eA
lcal
a,B
row
n&
Die
smos
,19
88P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
sL
upa
colu
sn
aom
iae
Pla
tym
anti
spa
engi
Sil
er,
Lin
kem
,D
iesm
os&
Alc
ala,
2007
Pla
tym
anti
sP
laty
man
tis
Lu
paco
lus
Lu
paco
lus
paen
gi
Pla
tym
anti
sps
eud
odor
sali
sB
row
n,A
lcal
a&
Die
mso
s,19
99P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
sL
upa
colu
sps
eud
odor
sali
s
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
elae
us
Bro
wn
&A
lcal
a,19
82P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
sL
upa
colu
ssp
elae
us
Pla
tym
anti
sta
ylor
iB
row
n,A
lcal
a&
Die
mso
s,19
99P
laty
man
tis
Pla
tym
anti
sL
upa
colu
sL
upa
colu
sta
ylor
i
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 141
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Nomenclature designated Halophila vitiensis Girard,1853, as the type species of Cornufer. As H. vitiensishas been placed consistently in either Platymantis orCornufer within the Ceratobatrachidae, Cornufer andCornuferinae would not be considered part ofEleutherodactylidae.
ALCALINAE SUBFAM. NOV.Type genusAlcalus (see account below).
DiagnosisThe diagnosis for Alcalinae is the same as for the genusAlcalus, below.
Phylogenetic definitionWe have not defined Alcalinae as a phylogenetic namebecause it would be redundant with Alcalus; it addsno new information about phylogenetic relationships.However, we name the ranked subfamily Alcalinae, eventhough it is also redundant in content with Alcalus,to provide a coordinate name for its sister-taxonCeratobatrachinae.
ContentOne genus, Alcalus, which includes the speciesAl. mariae, Al. baluensis, and Al. rajae. We antici-pate that Ingerana sariba eventually will be trans-ferred to the new genus as well.
EtymologySee Etymology section for the genus Alcalus below.
ALCALUS GEN. NOV.Type speciesMicrixalus mariae Inger 1954.
DiagnosisMembers of the genus Alcalus can be distinguishedfrom many members of the clade Anurajen (species ofthe genera Cornufer and Platymantis) by having (1)an intermediate body size (Al. baluensis: males 20–25 mm Snout-Vent Length (SVL), females 26–31;Al. mariae: males 32–37 mm SVL, females 35–43); (2)a broad head (vs. slender to moderately broad); (3) acoarsely textured, shagreened, or ‘wrinkled’ skin ap-pearance in all species (vs. smooth, tuberculate, or withlongitudinal dorsolateral dermal ridges); (4) widelyexpanded, terminally squared, spatulate toe discs (vs.non- or minimally expanded, terminally rounded);(5) semi-aquatic microhabitat preferences (vs. prefer-ences for terrestrial or arboreal microhabitats in mostspecies); and by the (6) presence of nuptial pads in males(vs. absence); (7) absence of vocal sacs (vs. presence
of median subgular vocal sacs); (8) absence of super-numerary tubercles on hand (vs. presence in mostspecies); (9) presence of elongate subarticular tuber-cles (vs. presence, round); (10) absence of outer meta-tarsal tubercles on plantar surface of feet (vs. presencein most species); and (11) presence of extensive, usuallyfull, interdigital webbing of the feet (vs. absence).
Phylogenetic definitionAlcalus (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade name thatrefers to the crown clade (C) originating in the lastcommon ancestor of Al. mariae and all extant speciesthat share a more recent common ancestor withAl. mariae than with Cornufer vitiensis or Platymantiscorrugatus. It can also be conceived of as the largestcrown clade containing Al. mariae, but not Co. vitiensisor Pl. corrugatus.
ContentSoutheast Asian (Sunda Shelf and Palawan Island)species formerly placed in Ingerana (Table 3): Al. mariae,Al. baluensis, Al. rajae, and presumably Al. sariba(Shelford, 1905), which was not sampled (Table 3).
CommentIt is not surprising that the montane, semi-aquatic,Southeast Asian island archipelago species formerlyreferred to Ingerana comprise a monophyletic group,unrelated to the ecologically dissimilar andbiogeographically disjunct mainland species of Ingerana(as presently understood, from Andaman Islands,Bhutan, China, north eastern India, Myanmar, andNepal). Erection of a new genus to accommodate thesetaxa is undertaken here with reference to thephylogenetic placement of the type species of ‘true’Ingerana (I. tenasserimensis), which in our phylog-eny is more closely related (but with weak support)to the Dicroglossidae than to the Ceratobatrachidae(Fig. 2). The placement of Alcalus as the sister groupof the clade Anurajen (containing genera Platymantisand Cornufer) has been confirmed elsewhere (Bossuytet al., 2006; Frost et al., 2006; Wiens et al., 2009; Pyron& Wiens, 2011), although taxon sampling was not asextensive. The phylogenetic relationships and pos-sible additional generic subdivision of the non-ceratobatrachid (perhaps dicroglossid) species referredto Ingerana remain unstudied.
EtymologyA masculine noun honouring our long-term collabora-tor, friend, and mentor Angel C. Alcala for his numer-ous contributions to the systematics, ecology,conservation, and developmental biology of South-east Asian amphibians. Suggested common name:Alcala’s dwarf mountain frogs.
142 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
CERATOBATRACHINAE BOULENGER, 1884
DiagnosisOther species of Ceratobatrachinae differ from Alcalusby having (1) a relatively narrow head (vs. wide); and(2) smooth skin, with or without dermal tubercles and/or dermal ridges (vs. coarsely textured, shagreened,or ‘wrinkled’ in appearance); (3) rounded terminal toediscs (vs. spatulate toe discs with squarish terminalshape); (4) absence of nuptial pads in males (vs. pres-ence); (5) presence of a medial subgular vocal sacin most species (vs. absence); (6) presence of palmarsupernumerary tubercles (vs. absence); and (7)presence of rounded subarticular tubercles and outermetatarsal tubercles on plantar surface (vs. pres-ence, elongate). Finally, most species ofCeratobatrachinae (except Cornufer guppyi, species ofthe subgenus Potamorana, and Platymantis levigatus)differ from Alcalus by the absence of interdigital webbingon the feet (vs. presence); and by having terrestrialor arboreal microhabitat preferences (vs. semi-aquatic). Morphological synapomorphies forCeratobatrachinae have not been identified.
ContentThe genera Cornufer and Platymantis (see below).
CommentWe have not converted Ceratobatrachinae (Clade D)to a clade name, but have instead coined a newunranked clade name, Anurajen. If Ceratobatrachinaewere converted to a clade name, and if the familyCeratobatrachidae (Node B) were re-ranked asCeratobatrachinae in the future, then the phylogeneticname Ceratobatrachinae and the ranked nameCeratobatrachinae would refer to different clades, whichwould cause confusion. Therefore, we define a new cladename below denoting the same clade as the subfam-ily Ceratobatrachinae.
ANURAJEN NEW CLADE NAME
Phylogenetic definitionA maximum crown-clade name referring to the crownclade (D) originating with the most recent common an-cestor of Co. vitiensis and all extant species that sharea more recent common ancestor with Co. vitiensis thanwith Alcalus mariae.
ContentSpecies of Platymantis and Cornufer (as forCeratobatrachinae).
CommentThis clade is supported by high bootstrap propor-tions and posterior probabilities (Fig. 2), and consistsof two large subclades (Platymantis and Cornufer) situ-
ated on either side of Wallace’s Line (Fig. 1).Ceratobatrachinae is the ranked name equivalent incontent to Anurajen (Table 4).
EtymologyWe are pleased to name the new clade after JenniferAnne Weghorst in appreciation of the many times thatshe has arduously proofread our manuscripts and forthe devoted support and encouragement that she hasprovided to R. M. B. for many years. Anurajen is derivedfrom the Latin noun Anura and the abbreviated ap-pellation Jen.
GENUS PLATYMANTIS GÜNTHER, 1858
Type speciesPlatymantis pliciferus Günther, 1858, currently con-sidered a junior subjective synonym of Pl. corrugatus(Duméril, 1853); subsequent designation by Zweifel(1967).
DiagnosisMembers of the exclusively Philippine genus Platymantiscan be distinguished from the three or four knownspecies of Alcalus (with the exception of Al. mariae,all Alcalus occur outside the Philippines) by the (1)absence of interdigital webbing or the presence of highlyreduced webbing (vs. presence); (2) presence of median
Table 4. Comparison of ranked and phylogenetic taxono-mies for Ceratobatrachidae
Ranked taxonomy Phylogenetic taxonomy
Ceratobatrachidae Ceratobatrachia NCNAlcalinae subfam. nov. No name needed*
Alcalus new genus Alcalus NCNCeratobatrachinae Anurajen NCN
Cornufer Cornufer CCNCornufer (subgenus) Yanuboto NCN†Potamorana new subgenus Potamorana NCNCeratobatrachus (subgenus) Ceratobatrachus CCNDiscodeles (subgenus) Discodeles CCNPalmatorappia (subgenus) Palmatorappia CCNBatrachylodes (subgenus) Batrachylodes CCNAenigmanura new subgenus Aenigmanura NCN
Platymantis Platymantis CCNPlatymantis (subgenus) Tagomukhus NCN†Lahatnanguri new subgenus Lahatnanguri NCNTirahanulap new subgenus Tirahanulap NCNTahananpuno new subgenus Tahananpuno NCNLupacolus new subgenus Lupacolus NCN
CCN, converted clade name; NCN, new clade name.*A new phylogenetic name equivalent to the Linnean nameCeratobatrachinae is not necessary as this name would have thesame content as the clade (genus) Alcalus.†A NCN is provided to avoid having the same name apply to twodifferent clades, as is the case with the genus and subgenus rank.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 143
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
subgular vocal sacs (vs. absence); (3) absence of nuptialpads (vs. presence); (4) presence of supernumerary tu-bercles on the hands (vs. absence); and (5) presenceof metatarsal tubercles on the foot (vs. absence).
Although all Philippine Platymantis are readily di-agnosed from members of the genus Alcalus, and se-lected species of the genus Cornufer, subgenera Cornufer(= Yanuboto), Potamorana, Discodeles, Ceratobatrachus,Palmatorappia, and Batrachylodes (see diagnoses ofthose clades), characters universally distinguishing Phil-ippine Platymantis from all members of the genusCornufer (in particular, the subgenus Aenigmanura andspecies formerly referred to ‘Platymantis’ from theSolomon−Bismarck−Admiralty Archipelago, Palau, NewGuinea, and eastern Indonesia, Table 3; see species notassigned to subgenus) have not been identified. We areunaware of any morphological synapomorphies forPlatymantis, although our phylogenetic analysis pro-vides very strong support (PP = 1.0) for this clade (Fig. 2,Clade M).
Phylogenetic definitionPlatymantis (CCN) is a maximum crown-clade namereferring to the crown clade (M) originating with themost recent common ancestor of Pl. corrugatus (synonymPl. plificerus, the type species of Platymantis) and allextant species that share a more recent common an-cestor with Pl. corrugatus than with Al. mariae orCo. vitiensis.
ContentPhilippine taxa (currently 31 species) of the subgen-era Platymantis (Tagomukhus, NCN), Lahatnanguri,Tirahanulap, Tahananpuno, and Lupacolus (Table 3).Numerous Philippine species await description, sug-gesting that the content of this genus will expandrapidly in the near future (Siler et al., 2007, 2009, 2010,2011, 2012; Brown et al., 2008, 2012, 2013a, 2013b;Brown & Stuart, 2012).
CommentThe content of the genus Platymantis Günther, 1858,is hereby restricted to the primary Philippine clade(M) and we apply Cornufer Tschudi 1838 to its sistergroup (Clade E), which includes the type species of thegenus Cornufer, Halophila vitiensis Girard, 1853. Giventhat the relationships amongst clades O, N, P, Q, andR show some degree of uncertainty, we have used onespecifier from each clade to assure that the phylogeneticdefinition of the name of Clade M will remain stable.
EtymologyFrom the Greek adjective ‘platy’, meaning flat and‘mantis’. The meaning of ‘mantis’ here is confusing; oftenit is stated that generic names ending in ‘mantis’ arederived from the Greek noun ‘mantis’, a term com-
monly meaning prophet or soothsayer (Liddell & Scott,1996). However, Günther (1858) specifically stated inhis etymology of Platymantis that the Greek noun‘mantis’ referred to ‘tree-frog’ rather than soothsayer.‘Mantis’ was applied by ancient Greeks to the speciesHyla arborea (a species perceived to be akin to proph-ets because it produces advertisement calls prior tothe arrival of rain; Liddell & Scott, 1996). Kraus &Allison (2007) resolved previous confusion concerningthe gender of Platymantis, stemming from Günther’s(1858) mistaken use of both masculine and feminineepithets for the two species included in the originaldefinition of the genus, and R. Günther’s (1999) as-sertion that Platymantis should be treated as a femi-nine noun. Günther (1999) stated that ‘According toGünther (1858) . . . mantis is Greek, of feminine gender,and means tree frog.’ (pp. 327–328), but did not explainhis opinion. We follow Kraus & Allison (2007) in con-sidering the gender of Platymantis as masculine.
SUBGENUS PLATYMANTIS GÜNTHER, 1858
DiagnosisThe subgenus Platymantis (currently a single recog-nized species, Pl. corrugatus) differs from other speciesof Platymantis by having (1) elongate longitudinaldermal ridges along the dorsal body surfaces (vs. dorsumsmooth or tuberculate); (2) distinctive ‘quaaack’ ad-vertisement calls (vs. frequency sweeps, pure tones,or complex calls); and (3) distinctive dark lateral headcoloration (of varying shades; vs. lateral head pigmentundifferentiated from surrounding coloration). The di-agnostic dark lateral head coloration forms a dark ‘face-mask’ that we consider a synapomorphy of this clade.Additionally, members of this subgenus can be diag-nosed from species of arboreal variable Philippine forestfrogs of the genera Lahatnanguri (Platymantis banahao,Pl. cornutus, and Pl. insulatus), and all members ofthe subgenera Tahananpuno and Tirahanulap, by theabsence of expanded digital tips of fingers and toes (vs.presence of some degree of terminal digital expan-sion of fingers and toes), and by having a terrestrialmicrohabitat preference (normally calling beneath leaflitter) and a crepuscular (vs. nocturnal) calling activ-ity pattern (Table 3).
ContentThe allopatric populations of (1) the Luzon and WestVisayan faunal regions, (2) the Camiguin Norte lineage,(3) the populations from the Mindanao faunal regionislands, and (4) the Mindoro Island populations, allcurrently referred to Pl. corrugatus (Table 3). The sub-genus Platymantis is equivalent in content to theunranked taxon Tagomukhus.
Conversion of the name Platymantis wouldresult in two different clades, ranked as genus and
144 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
subgenus, with the same name, Platymantis. There-fore we define a NCN, denoting the same clade as sub-genus Platymantis.
TAGOMUKHUS NEW CLADE NAME
Phylogenetic definitionTagomukhus (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade namereferring to the crown clade (Clade N) originating withthe most recent common ancestor of Pl. corrugatus andall extant species and populations that share a morerecent common ancestor with Pl. corrugatus than withPl. levigatus, Pl. hazelae, Pl. guentheri, or Pl. dorsalis.
ContentPlatymantis (Tagomukhus) corrugatus (syn. P. plicifera,type species of the genus Platymantis).
CommentAt a minimum, we anticipate that the Luzon (+ W.Visayan) Pleistocene Aggregate Island Complex (PAIC;Brown & Diesmos, 2009; Brown et al., 2013a), theMindanao PAIC, the Mindoro PAIC, and CamiguinNorte Island populations will all eventually be recog-nized as distinct species (K. Cobb, R.M.B., A.C.D., C.D.S.,& A.C. Alcala, unpubl. data). Platymantis pliciferus,the type species of the genus, is an available namethat applies to the Mindanao PAIC population (Günther,1859; Peters, 1873), should it be demonstrated to bea diagnosable evolutionary lineage worthy of taxo-nomic recognition.
EtymologyFrom the Tagalog adjective tago, meaning ‘concealed’or ‘unseen’ and the Tagalog noun mukha, meaning ‘coun-tenance’, in reference to the darkly pigmented face-mask present in varying degrees of distinctiveness inmost populations. The name is masculine in gender.Suggested common name: Philippine masked frogs.
LAHATNANGURI SUBGEN. NOV.Type speciesPlatymantis levigatus Brown & Alcala, 1974.
DiagnosisIndividual species of the subgenus Lahatnanguri differfrom other members of Platymantis by characters relatedto their general classification as arboreal tree frogs(Pl. banahao, Pl. cornutus, readily distinguished fromall Philippine Platymantis except members of the sub-genus Tahananpuno), distinctive mottled-coloured lime-stone specialist species (Pl. insulatus, readily diagnosedfrom all Philippine Platymantis except Platymantisbayani, Platymantis biak, and Platymantis speleaus),miniaturized species (Platymantis pygmaeus, SVL 13–
15 mm, readily distinguished from all PhilippinePlatymantis except possibly Platymantis naomiae), anda unique Romblon Province semi-aquatic speciesPl. levigatus (vs. all remaining Philippine species ter-restrial, scansorial, or arboreal). The wide range of mor-phological and ecological variation in this clade rendersan unambiguously exclusive diagnosis of Lahatnanguriimpossible. We are unaware of morphologicalsynapomorphies for this group, although ourphylogenetic analysis provides very strong support forthis clade (Clade O, Fig. 2).
Phylogenetic definitionLahatnanguri (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade namereferring to the crown clade (O) originating with themost recent common ancestor of Platymantis(Lahatnanguri) levigatus and all extant species thatshare a more recent common ancestor with Pl. levigatusthan with Pl. corrugatus, Pl. hazelae, Pl. guentheri, orPl. dorsalis.
ContentPlatymantis banahao, Pl. biak, Pl. cornutus,Pl. insulatus, Pl. levigatus, and Pl. pygmaeus (Table 3).
CommentSeveral unrecognized terrestrial species eventually willbe assigned to the subgenus Lahatnanguri, includingat least three from Mindanao Island (species 20, 21,and 40), a miniature ground frog from the RomblonProvince islands of Sibuyan and Tablas (R. M. Brown,A. C. Diesmos & C. D. Siler, unpubl. data), and at leastone arboreal species from Luzon Island (species 10)(Fig. 2). Although some species (Pl. banahao,Pl. insulatus) of the subgenus Lahatnanguri (Clade O)are phenotypically very similar to some species(Platymantis diesmosi, Pl. bayani, Pl. guentheri, Pl.rabori, Pl. negrosensis) of the subgenus Tahananpuno(Fig. 2, Clade Q) and were, in fact, grouped in anonphylogenetic taxonomy as the Pl. guentheri group(Brown et al., 1997a, b; Alcala & Brown, 1999), thisphenotypic similarity appears to be a case ofecomorphological convergence.
EtymologyFrom the Tagalog (Filipino) phrase lahat ng uri,meaning ‘all kinds’ or ‘every type’ in reference to thefull range of morphological and ecological variationwithin this clade, including miniature semifossorialspecies, large terrestrial ground frogs, semiaquaticspecies, limestone cave specialists, and high-elevationtree canopy frogs. The name is masculine in gender.Suggested common name: variable Philippine forestfrogs.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 145
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
TIRAHANULAP SUBGEN. NOV.Type speciesPhilautus hazelae (Taylor, 1920).
DiagnosisThe morphologically, ecologically, and acoustically similarspecies of Tirahanulap differ from all other subgen-era of Platymantis by having: (1) widely expanded ter-minal discs of fingers and toes (vs. non- or minimallyexpanded): (2) subdigital surfaces relatively flat withlow subarticular tubercles (vs. subarticular tuberclesprominently rounded to pointed); (3) greatly reducedFinger I (vs. Finger I as long or nearly as long as FingerII); (4) tonal advertisement calls of constant frequen-cy (vs. possession of frequency sweep calls or calls withmultiple syllables of different frequencies); (5) smallclutch sizes (four to eight eggs vs. clutches typicallyof 20 or more eggs); and (6) a mid- to upper montaneshrub-layer vegetation microhabitat preference (vs. ter-restrial, semiaquatic, forest canopy, limestone, orsemifossorial). We consider the reduced length of FingerI, and the low, flat subarticular tubercles to be uniquesynapomorphies for the clade, which is strongly sup-ported in phylogenetic analyses (Fig. 2, Clade P).
Phylogenetic definitionTirahanulap (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade namereferring to the crown clade (Fig. 2, Clade P) origi-nating with the most recent common ancestor ofPlatymantis (Tirahanulap) hazelae and all extant speciesthat share a more recent common ancestor withPl. hazelae than with Pl. corrugatus, Pl. levigatus,Pl. guentheri, or Pl. dorsalis.
ContentPlatymantis hazelae, Pl. isarog, Pl. lawtoni, Pl.montanus, Pl. panayensis, Pl. polillensis, Pl.sierramadrensis, and Pl. subterrestris (Table 3).
CommentSpecies of Tirahanulap form a morphologically and eco-logically cohesive group that corresponds to thePl. hazelae group of Brown et al. (1997a; 1999a) andAlcala & Brown (1999). The members of this clade areecologically and phenotypically most similar to Cornufer(Palmatorappia) heffernani (formerly Palmatorappiasolomonis) and the high-elevation shrub frogs of NewBritain (Cornufer macrosceles, Cornufer citrinospilus,and Cornufer mamusiorum) and Manus Island (Cornufercustos). We are aware of at least four currently un-recognized species in this clade (species 2, 3, 5, and42; Fig. 2).
EtymologyFrom the Tagalog verb tumira, meaning, when con-jugated (‘tirahan’), to ‘inhabit’ or ‘reside within’, and
the Tagalog noun ulap, meaning cloud; together meaning‘cloud-dwellers’ or ‘they come from the clouds’. The nameis masculine in gender. Suggested common name: Phil-ippine cloud frogs.
TAHANANPUNO SUBGEN. NOV.Type speciesCornufer guentheri Boulenger, 1882.
DiagnosisMembers of this tree canopy specialist clade or Phil-ippine rain frogs, subgenus Tahananpuno, differ fromother all species of Platymantis (except Pl. banahao,Pl. cornutus, and Pl. insulatus, see below) by having(1) widely expanded terminal discs of fingers and toes(vs. non- or minimally expanded in terrestrial speciesof Tagomukus and Lupacolus); (2) prominent, roundedto pointed subarticular tubercles (vs. flattened on ventralsurfaces in cloud frog species of the subgenusTirahanulap); (3) pulsed advertisement calls (vs. tonal,constant frequency calls of cloud frogs, subgenusTirahanulap; vibrational, stridulated, or complexmultisyllable calls of species of terrestrial frogs of thesubgenera Tagomukus and Lupacolus); and (4) under-story (Pl. guentheri), limestone (Pl. bayani), cliff-edge(Pl. diesmosi), or canopy vegetation microhabitat pref-erences (all other Tahananpuno species). Althoughwidely expanded terminal discs of fingers and toesappear to be a synapomorphy for this clade, they haveevolved independently and diagnose a small subcladeof variable Philippine forest frogs only, subgenusLahatnanguri (Pl. banahao, Pl. cornutus, andPl. insulatus). We are unaware of any unique charac-ters that distinguish species of this new subgenus fromother species of Platymantis. Nevertheless, ourphylogenetic analyses provide strong support for thisclade (Fig. 2, Clade Q).
Phylogenetic definitionTahananpuno (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade namereferring to the crown clade (Fig. 2, Clade Q) origi-nating with the most recent common ancestor ofPlatymantis (Tahananpuno) guentheri and all extantspecies that share a more recent common ancestor withPl. guentheri than with Pl. corrugatus, Pl. dorsalis,Pl. hazelae, or Pl. levigatus.
ContentPlatymantis bayani, Pl. diesmosi, Pl. guentheri, Pl.luzonensis, Pl. negrosensis, and Pl. rabori (Table 3).
CommentThe subgenus Tahananpuno corresponds to thereadily distinguished Pl. guentheri group as defined byBrown et al. (1997a, b) and Alcala & Brown (1999).
146 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Interestingly, and in contrast to expectations based onmorphology and understory/canopy microhabitat pref-erences (Brown et al., 1997a), Pl. banahao, Pl. cornutus,and Pl. insulatus are not part of this clade (or of theformer Pl. guentheri group; Brown et al., 1997a, b; Alcala& Brown, 1999), but rather fall in Clade O (Lahatnanguri).We are aware of at least four additional unrecognizedspecies in this clade (species 6, 7, 8, and 9; Fig. 2).
EtymologyTahananpuno is a masculine noun, derived from theTagalog verb tahanan meaning ‘to dwell upon’, or ‘tooccupy’ and noun puno, ‘tree’, in reference to the pre-vailing microhabitat preference of species in this clade:understory and canopy treefrogs. The name is mas-culine in gender. Suggested common name: Philip-pine rain frogs.
LUPACOLUS SUBGEN. NOV.Type speciesCornufer dorsalis Duméril, 1853.
DiagnosisPhilippine forest ground frogs of the subgenus Lupacolusare distinguished from other species of Platymantis (excepta few species of subgenus Lahatnanguri, see below) byhaving (1) non- to minimally expanded terminal discsof fingers and toes [vs. finger and toe discs expandedin cloud frogs of the subgenus Tirahanulap, rain frogsof the genus Tahananpuno, and three species of vari-able forest frogs of the subgenus Lahatnanguri(Pl. banahao, Pl. cornutus, and Pl. insulatus)]; (2) promi-nently rounded to pointed subarticular tubercles (vs.ventrally flattened in cloud frogs of the subgenusTirahanulap); (3) highly variable and often complexmultisyllable advertisement calls [vs. tonal, constantfrequency calls in cloud frogs of the subgenus Tirahanulap,or repeatedly pulsed calls in rain frogs of the subgenusTahananpuno and a few species of variable Philippineforest frogs, subgenus Lahatnanguri (Pl. banahao,Pl. cornutus, and Pl. insulatus)]; and (4) a predomi-nantly terrestrial, forest-floor microhabitat prefer-ence, with a tendency to call from slightly elevated perchesof 0.2–0.5 m [vs. perching in shrub and understory veg-etation in cloud frogs, subgenus Tirahanulap, and rainfrogs, subgenus Tahananpuno, and a few species of vari-able Philippine forest frogs, subgenus Lahatnanguri(Pl. banahao, Pl. cornutus, and Pl. insulatus)]. We areunaware of any morphological synapomorphies for thisgroup, but our phylogenetic analysis provides very strongsupport for this clade (Fig. 2, Clade R).
Phylogenetic definitionLupacolus (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade name re-ferring to the crown clade (Fig. 2, Clade R) originat-
ing with the most recent common ancestor of Pl. dorsalisand all extant species that share a more recent commonancestor with Pl. dorsalis than with Pl. corrugatus,Pl. hazelae, Pl. guentheri, or Pl. levigatus.
ContentPlatymantis cagayanensis, Pl. dorsalis, Pl. indeprensus,Pl. mimulus, Pl. naomiae, Pl. paengi, Pl. pseudodorsalis,Pl. spelaeus, and Pl. taylori (Table 3).
CommentFor the most part, Lupacolus corresponds to thePl. dorsalis group of W. Brown et al. (1997a, 1999a, b)and Alcala & Brown (1999). This clade of generalizedterrestrial ground frogs contains a large percentage ofcurrently unrecognized species (at least 15 small- tomedium-sized ground frogs from the northern andcentral islands of the archipelago, including species 12,14, 15, 18, 19, 22–25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 43; Fig. 2),but contrary to predictions from taxonomy (Brown et al.,1997a; Alcala & Brown, 1999), does not include thePl. corrugatus clade (Tagomukhus) or the morphologi-cally similar terrestrial, species Pl. pygmaeus andPl. levigatus (Lahatnanguri) (Brown, Brown & Alcala,1997a; Brown et al., 1997b, 1999a; Alcala & Brown,1999).
EtymologyLupacolus is derived from the combination of theTagalog noun Lupa, meaning ‘ground’ or ‘terrestrial’and the Greek colos, meaning ‘inhabitants’ or ‘dwell-ers’ in reference to the largely terrestrial microhabitatof the included species. It is masculine in gender. Sug-gested common name: Philippine forest ground frogs.
GENUS CORNUFER TSCHUDI, 1838
Type speciesHalophila vitiensis Girard, 1853 by subsequent des-ignation, following Opinion 1104 of the Commission(Anonymous, 1978).
DiagnosisMembers of the genus Cornufer can be distinguishedfrom species of the genus Alcalus by the presence of(1) median subgular vocal sacs (vs. absence); (2) absenceof nuptial pads (vs. presence); (3) presence of super-numerary tubercles on hands (vs. absence); (4) pres-ence of metatarsal tubercles beneath feet (vs. absence);and (4) absence or presence but highly reduced ofinterdigital webbing (vs. presence in species of Alcalusand members of Cornufer, subgenera Discodeles andPotamorana).
Although species of Cornufer, subgenera Cornufer,Potamorana, Ceratobatrachus, Discodeles, Palmatorappia,and Batrachylodes are phenotypically diagnosable
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 147
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
from species of the genera Alcalus and Platymantis(see diagnoses of those clades), species of Cornufer(subgenus Aenigmanura) and former members ofSolomon−Bismarck−Admiralty, Palau, Papuan, andeastern Indonesian ‘Platymantis’ (Table 3; see speciesnot assigned to subgenus) cannot be readily distin-guished from species of the genus Platymantis on thebasis of any one morphological character. We are unawareof any morphological synapomorphies for this clade,although it is strongly supported (Fig. 2, Clade E).
Phylogenetic definitionCornufer (CCN) is a maximum crown-clade name re-ferring to the crown clade (Fig. 2, Clade E) originat-ing with the most recent common ancestor ofCo. vitiensis and all extant species that share a morerecent common ancestor with Co. vitiensis than withAl. mariae or Pl. corrugatus.
ContentSpecies of the subgenera (clades) Potamorana, Cornufer,Ceratobatrachus, Palmatorappia, Discodeles,Batrachylodes, Aenigmanura, and species of the Pacific(non-Philippine) clade, genus Cornufer, formerly re-ferred to ‘Platymantis’ and not assigned to subgenusor subclade within Cornufer (Fig. 2; Table 3).
CommentUpon discovering that the overlooked type of Cornufer(Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838) was in fact a speciesof the Neotropical taxon Eleutherodactylus, Zweifel(1966) petitioned the Commission to suppress the namesCornufer and its type species Cornufer unicolor Zweifel,1967, to avoid synonymy of Eleutherodactylus withinCornufer. His argument was that this discovery wouldrequire the assignment of the > 200 species ofEleutherodactylus to Cornufer. Suppression of Cornuferwould mean that the next available name for that groupof ranoids would, at the time, have been PlatymantisGünther, 1858.
Darlington et al. (1967) countered that Cornufer shouldnot be suppressed and that both names, Cornufer andPlatymantis, should be retained as available becauseCornufer had been widely used for some ranoid species.Additionally, the non-overlapping geographical distri-butions of Cornufer (east of Wallace’s Line) andPlatymantis (west of Wallace’s Line) strengthened theargument that both genera should be retained as valid(Darlington et al., 1967).
Prior to Zweifel (1966, 1967), Cornufer and Platymantiswere commonly used (Boulenger, 1918b; Taylor, 1920;Noble, 1931; Gorham, 1965; but see Inger, 1954). Al-though Zweifel (1967: 117) stated that ‘the name Cornuferis unavailable’ (and he was largely followed by workingtaxonomists), the Commission had not yet ruled on hisrequest (Zweifel, 1966) to suppress this name. A decade
later, the Committee ruled against his proposal(Anonymous, 1978) and eventually held that Halophilavitiensis Girard, 1853, be designated as the type speciesof Cornufer and that this genus should be considereda junior subjective synonym of Platymantis, which ‘. . .isto be given precedence over Cornufer Tschudi, 1838, byany zoologist who considers the type-species of thosenominal genera to belong to the same taxonomic genus(Anonymous, 1978; italics added).’ The Committee alsosuppressed all previous designations of the type speciesof Cornufer. Importantly, Cornufer was not sup-pressed; both names remain available and may be usedeither as genera or subgenera.
Given our choice not to place these two type species(Co. vitiensis and Pl. pliciferus, the latter currently asynonym of Pl. corrugatus) in the same genus, and thatthe name Cornufer Tschudi, 1838, remains available(Anonymous, 1978), we recognize both Platymantis (westof Wallace’s Line, i.e. Philippine species, excludingAl. mariae) and Cornufer (all species east of Wal-lace’s Line, i.e. taxa from eastern Indonesia, NewGuinea, Palau, the Solomon Islands, theBismarck−Admiralty archipelagos, and Fiji). Thesenames correspond to our newly defined clades (Fig. 2,Clades M and E, respectively).
Because relationships amongst some species of thegenus Cornufer have low support (Fig. 2), we have usedthe type species of subgenera as specifiers to ensurethat the content of Cornufer will remain stable.
EtymologyAlthough Tschudi (1838) provided no etymology forCornufer, we assume that the name is derived fromthe Latin ‘cornu’ meaning horn, and the Latin verb‘ferre’ (present infinitive), meaning to carry or bear,in reference to the presence of supraocular dermal tu-bercles in Co. vitiensis (the type species). Suggestedcommon names: Fijian ground frog (Cornufer vitianus),Fijian tree frog (Co. vitiensis).
SUBGENUS CORNUFER TSCHUDI, 1838
DiagnosisMembers of the subgenus Cornufer differ from othermembers of the genus Cornufer by having (1) a largemale body size (65–150+ mm SVL, vs. male body sizeusually ∼25–40 mm); (2) terminal discs of fingers andtoes non- to minimally expanded in Co. vitianus (vs.widely expanded in some arboreal riddle frogs of sub-genus Aenigmanura, palm frogs of subgenusPalmatorappia, giant water frogs of subgenus Discodeles,and a few sticky-toed frogs of subgenus Batrachylodes),or widely expanded in Co. vitiensis (vs. non- to mini-mally expanded in some terrestrial riddle frogs of sub-genus Aenigmanura, horned frogs of subgenusCeratobatrachus, river frogs of subgenus Potamorana,
148 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
and a few sticky-toed frogs of subgenus Batrachylodes).Additionally, both species are restricted to the islandsof Fiji, where they are the only native ranoid frogs;they do not possess overlapping distributions with anyother known ceratobatrachids. We are unaware of anymorphological synapomorphies for this group, al-though our molecular data clearly provides strongsupport for Fijian frogs as a monophyletic group.
Conversion of the name Cornufer (referring to thesubgenus) to a phylogenetic name would result in twodifferent clades bearing the name Cornufer. There-fore, we define a new clade name denoting the sameclade (Fig. 2, Clade E) as the subgenus Cornufer.
ContentCornufer vitiensis, Co. vitianus, and (provisionally) theextinct taxon Cornufer megabotoniviti (Worthy, 2001;Table 3). The subgenus Cornufer is equivalent in contentto the unranked taxon Yanuboto.
YANUBOTO NEW CLADE NAME
Phylogenetic definitionYanuboto (NCN) is a node-based name referring to theclade (Fig. 2, Clade T) originating with the most recentcommon ancestor of Co. vitiensis and Co. vitianus (bothspecies formerly in Platymantis).
CommentThe two living species of Fijian ceratobatrachids(Yanuboto) possess nearly a full complement of theecomorphological variation in the genus Cornufer(Brown, 2004). Cornufer vitiensis is a fully arborealtree frog characterized by widely expanded terminaldiscs of the fingers and toes and an arborealmicrohabitat preference and Co. vitianus is a large-bodied, fully terrestrial ground frog (with narrowly tonon-expanded terminal finger and toe discs). Surpris-ingly, these morphologically and ecologically dispar-ate forms (Gorham, 1965, 1968; Morrison, 2003; Zug,2013) are sister species (Fig. 2).
The fossil Co. megabotoniviti is known only from FijianQuaternary deposits. Worthy (2001) allied it toCo. vitianus and Co. vitiensis. Because of the lack ofsynapomorphies that ally it to the other Fijian species,we place it tentatively in Yanuboto (subgenus Cornufer)because of its provenance, but it would not be unrea-sonable to consider it unassigned to subgenus.
EtymologyYanuboto is derived from the Fijian terms yanuyanu,meaning ‘island’, and boto meaning ‘frog’, in refer-ence to the status of the included species status as theonly native anurans of Fiji. The name is masculine ingender. Suggested common names: Fijian ground frog(Co. vitianus), Fijian tree frog (Co. vitiensis).
POTAMORANA SUBGEN. NOV.Type speciesRana bufoniformis Boulenger, 1884.
DiagnosisRiver frog species of the subgenus Potamorana differfrom other subgenera of Cornufer, except giant waterfrogs of the subgenus Discodeles, and Fijian frogs sub-genus Cornufer (= Tanuboto) by having (1) a large bodysize (males 50–75 mm SVL; females 65–140; vs. mostspecies male SVL ∼25–40 mm; (2) moderately exten-sive, but reduced compared with Co. (Discodeles) guppyi,interdigital webbing of feet (vs. highly reduced to ves-tiges (Cornufer nexipus) or absent (all other species);(3) extensive rugosity of dorsal body skin (vs. smooth,weakly rugose, or slightly shagreened body skin); (4)non-expanded terminal discs of fingers and toes (vs.widely expanded in some arboreal riddle frogs of sub-genus Aenigmanura, palm frogs of subgenusPalmatorappia, giant water frogs of subgenus Discodeles,and a few sticky-toed frogs of subgenus Batrachylodes);and (5) semiaquatic microhabitat preferences (vs. ter-restrial). Based on the phylogeny, we consider theirlarge body size, interdigital webbing of the feet, andsemiaquatic microhabitat preferences to be shared,derived characters that unambiguously distinguish thespecies of Potamorana from all other species of Cornuferexcept Discodeles guppyi, in which these characters mostlikely have independently evolved (Fig. 2).
Phylogenetic definitionPotamorana (NCN) is an apomorphy-based name forthe clade (Fig. 2, Clade F) originating in the ancestorof Cornufer bufoniformis and Cornufer malukuna inwhich the following apomorphy, synapomorphic withthat in the various populations of Co. bufoniformis, origi-nated: moderately extensive webbing between the digitsof the feet.
ContentCornufer malukuna and Co. bufoniformis (Table 3). Wedid not sample Cornufer (Discodeles) opisthodon orCornufer (Discodeles) vogti but we tentatively place themin Potamorana because these species share thesynapomorphy (moderately extensive webbing betweenthe digits of the feet) of the clade Potamorana.
CommentThe newly discovered relationships of the former‘Discodeles’ malukuna and ‘Discodeles’ bufoniformisreveal that Discodeles was polyphyletic in its formersense. These species are unrelated to the clade (Fig. 2,Clade H) containing the type species D. guppyi. In retro-spect, it is not surprising that these four morphologi-cally similar (moderate body size, moderate interdigital
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 149
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
webbing, terminal digital discs non-expanded) speciesare now recognized as distinct from Co. (Discodeles)guppyi, a much larger species with full interdigitalwebbing between the toes and moderately expandedterminal digital discs.
EtymologyDerived from the Greek term potamo, meaning ‘riveror stream’, and the Latin rana, meaning ‘frog’, in ref-erence to the semiaquatic habitat preferences of thenew clade. The name is feminine in gender. Suggest-ed common name: Solomon−Bismarck river frogs.
SUBGENUS CERATOBATRACHUS BOULENGER, 1884
Type speciesCeratobatrachus guentheri Boulenger, 1884, by monotypy.
DiagnosisThe sole species of the subgenus Ceratobatrachus,Cornufer (Ceratobatrachus) guentheri, is one of the mostcharismatic and distinctive species in theCeratobatrachidae and is readily diagnosed from allmembers of the genus Cornufer by having (1) elabo-rated ossification of the squamosal (vs. absence ofornamental ossification); and by the (2) presence of man-dible odontoids (vs. absence); and (3) presence of ornatedermal protuberances above the eyes (‘horns’), at thetip of the snout, and along the posterior edges of fore-and hindlimbs (vs. absence). These characters areuniquely derived in this lineage (Fig. 2, Clade S).
Phylogenetic definitionCeratobatrachus is an apomorphy-based name for theclade (Fig. 2, Clade S) originating in the ancestor inwhich the following apomorphy, synapomorphic withthose in the known populations of Co. (Ce.) guentheri,originated: ornate dermal protuberances above the eyes(‘horns’), at the tip of the snout, and in the form ofserrated flaps along the outer edges of the limbs.
Content: Cornufer (Ce.) guentheri (Table 3).
CommentCornufer (Ce.) guentheri is most closely related to theextremely phenotypically dissimilar miniaturized speciesCornufer acrochordus (Fig. 2). This bizarre and com-pletely unexpected relationship stands as a testa-ment to the highly variable and at times bewilderingpatterns of morphological variability and phylogeneticrelationships in the family Ceratobatrachidae.
EtymologyAlthough Boulenger (1884) provided no etymology forCeratobatrachus, the name is probably derived fromthe Greek ‘kerato’, meaning ‘horned’ and the Greek
‘batrachos’, meaning ‘frog’. Suggested common name:Solomon Islands horned frogs.
SUBGENUS DISCODELES BOULENGER, 1918
Type speciesRana guppyi Boulenger, 1884.
DiagnosisThe sole species of the subgenus Discodeles is easilydiagnosed from species of the genus Cornufer by having(1) an extremely large body size [females up to 250 mmSVL (mass of up to 1 kg) vs. most species with femaleSVL ≤ 65 mm]; (2) moderately expanded terminal discsof fingers and toes (vs. widely or non-expanded); (3)fully webbed feet (vs. interdigital webbing absent, limitedto basal vestige, or present but with one or two ter-minal phalanges free of web); and (4) aquaticmicrohabitat preference (vs. terrestrial or arboreal). Weconsider its body size and full interdigital foot webbingto be synapomorphies of this distinct lineage (Fig. 2,Clade H).
Phylogenetic definitionDiscodeles is the apomorphy-based name for the clade(Fig. 2, Clade H) originating in the ancestor in whichthe following apomorphies, synapomorphic with thatin the known populations of D. guppyi, originated: ex-tremely large body size and fully webbed feet.
ContentComposed of highly divergent isolated allopatric andinsular lineages of the nominal species, Co. (D.) guppyiis most likely a complex of evolutionary lineages (species)from New Britain, Bougainville, and various SolomonIslands populations (Table 3).
CommentTwo species of Ceratobatrachidae have the specificepithet guppyi: Rana guppyi Boulenger, 1884 (the typespecies of the aquatic genus Discodeles) and Cornuferguppyi Boulenger, 1884 (a tree frog native to theSolomon Islands). Our inclusion of the two species inthe resurrected genus Cornufer creates homonymybetween the names. Under the principle of priority(ICZN, 1999) we normally would retain the seniorhomonym, the older available name. However, bothspecies were named in the same year, in the same workand on the same page (Boulenger, 1884: 211), an ex-tremely unusual situation.
Under the Code, the preferred and most conserva-tive action would be the substitution of a valid juniorsynonym of one of these species. Rana guppyi Boulenger,1884, purportedly has a junior synonym; Zweifel (1960)treated Rana bufoniformis cognata Hediger, 1933(NHMB 4605, holotype; Forcart, 1946) as a synonym
150 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
of R. guppyi Boulenger, 1884. However, we reject cognataas a junior synonym of R. guppyi because its type lo-cality, ‘Iriu’, Admiralty Islands, falls within the knowngeographical range of ‘D.’ vogti and not within that ofD. guppyi. Hediger’s (1933) description additionally listsmorphological character states (narrowly expanded toediscs, relatively small body size) that lead us to believethat this species is not referable to Co. (D.) guppyi. Wetherefore consider R. bufoniformis cognata Hediger, 1933,as a junior subjective synonym of D. vogti (Hediger,1934). Thus, there is no junior synonym that can besubstituted for R. guppyi Boulenger, 1884.
The second species in this conundrum is Co. guppyiBoulenger, 1884, which also lacks any junior syno-nyms. However, the Code provides for a resolution insuch cases. Article 24.2 of the Code states that the prin-ciple of first reviser (ICZN, 1999:30) is to be used insituations in which the precedence between namescannot be determined and an available junior synonymdoes not exist. Acting as first reviser, we fix prec-edence of R. guppyi Boulenger, 1884, over Co. guppyiBoulenger, 1884. This action maintains the name ofthe well-known species D. guppyi (= Rana guppyiBoulenger, 1884), which is also the type species ofDiscodeles. We provide a new replacement name forCo. guppyi Boulenger, 1884, below (see under subge-nus Aenigmanura).
EtymologyAlthough Boulenger (1918b) provided no etymology forDiscodeles, he distinguished it from other Papuan andMelanesian forms on the basis of the ‘horseshoe-shaped groove’ (Boulenger, 1918b:238) evident on thetips of fingers and toes. Thus, we assume that the nameis derived from the Latin ‘discus’, meaning a flat andround shape, and the Greek ‘delos’, meaning visibleor evident, in reference to presence of the digital discs.Suggested common name: giant Pacific water frogs.
SUBGENUS PALMATORAPPIA AHL, 1927
Type speciesHylella solomonis Sternfeld, 1920.
DiagnosisThe single species Cornufer (Palmatorappia) heffernani(formerly Palmatorappia solomonis; see below) can bereadily diagnosed from other members of the genusCornufer by having (1) a small, delicate, slender bodyand limbs (vs. more robust body form and limbs); (2)widely expanded terminal discs of fingers and toes (vs.non- to minimally expanded in some terrestrial riddlefrogs of subgenus Aenigmanura, horned frogs of sub-genus Ceratobatrachus, river frogs of subgenusPotamorana, and a few sticky-toed frogs of subgenusBatrachylodes); (3) flattened subarticular tubercles of
hands and feet (vs. subarticular tubercles rounded topointed); (4) moderate interdigital webbing of fingers(unique amongst species of the genus Cornufer) andtoes (present as vestiges in Co. (Aenigmanura) nexipus(vs. absent or much more extensive); and (5) interdigitalwebbing extensive in Co. (D.) guppyi but moderate (oneor two terminal phalanges free) in species of the sub-genus Potamorana. We consider this suite of charac-ters to be uniquely derived within Cornufer. Based onour phylogeny (Fig. 2), moderate interdigital webbingof the manus appears to be a unique apomorphy dis-tinguishing Palmatorappia from all otherceratobatrachids.
Phylogenetic definitionPalmatorappia is an apomorphy-based name for theclade (Fig. 2, Clade U) originating in the ancestor inwhich the following apomorphy, synapomorphic withthat in the various populations of Palmatorappiaheffernani, originated: moderate interdigital webbingof the fingers.
ContentCornufer (Pa.) heffernani (Kinghorn, 1928); formerlya junior synonym of Pa. solomonis (Sternfeld, 1920);here designated a nomen substitutum; see below(Table 3).
CommentIn general phenotypic characteristics and microhabitatpreferences, the sole species of the subgenusPalmatorappia is unlike any other Solomon memberof the genus Cornufer and, in fact, phenotypically andecologically much more closely resembles the unrelat-ed members of the clade Platymantis (Tirahanulap) ofthe Philippines (formerly referred to as the Platymantishazelae Group, sensu Brown et al., 1997a) and speciesof Cornufer (Aenigmanura) from the mountains of NewBritain Island (Co. macrosceles, Co. citrinospilus,Co. mamusiorum) and Manus Island (Co. custos).
The allocation of the Solomon Islands palm frog,Pa. solomonis, originally Hylella solomonis, andPlatymantis solomonis (Boulenger, 1884) (a wide-spread Solomon Islands ground frog), originally Cornufersolomonis, to the genus Cornufer creates homonymy.That the identical species names belong to differentsubgenera within Cornufer is not relevant to the issueof homonymy (Article 57.4). Following the principle ofpriority we retain the senior homonym Co. solomonisBoulenger, 1884; in our classification the new combi-nation is Cornufer (Aenigmanura) solomonis.
Hylella solomonis Sternfeld, 1920, is the type andonly species of Palmatorappia Ahl, 1927; the princi-ple of homonymy requires that this junior homonymbe replaced even though it would be desirable to main-tain the name of the type species in the interest of
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 151
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
stability. The only available junior synonym ofPa. solomonis is Hypsirana heffernani Kinghorn, 1928,which was synonymized under Pa. solomonis by Brown(1952). Therefore, we designate Hyps. heffernaniKinghorn, 1928, as a substitute name for Hyl. solomonisSternfeld, 1920. The species commonly known asPa. solomonis will be Cornufer (Palmatorappia)heffernani comb. nov.
EtymologyMost likely from the Latin ‘palmat-’, meaning the con-dition in which the spaces between the digits are filledin (as by webbing), and Rappia, a patronym for Rapp,who named the genus Hyperolius. Günther (1865) un-justifiably proposed Rappia as a substitute name forHyperolius Rapp, 1842, so Rappia is a patronym andthus Palmatorappia is to be treated as masculine.Common name: Solomon Islands palmate frogs.
SUBGENUS BATRACHYLODES BOULENGER, 1887
Type speciesBatrachylodes vertebralis Boulenger, 1887.
DiagnosisSpecies of the subgenus Batrachylodes form a pheno-typically and ecologically cohesive group, differing fromother members of the genus Cornufer by having (1) asmall body size (males 17–24 mm SVL; vs. ≥ 25 mm);(2) stout, triangular bodies (vs. body shape slender, nottriangular); (3) pointed snouts (vs. rounded); and (4)slightly expanded to widely expanded terminal discsof fingers and toes (vs. terminal discs non-expanded);and by the (5) presence of darkened loreal stripes con-tinuing diagonally across the flank to form a distinct-ly stratified lateral body marking (i.e. clearly demarcateddarker dorsal and lighter ventral colours) in most species(vs. absence); and (6) absence of interdigital webbing(vs. presence in Potamorana and Discodeles). We con-sider body shape (microhylid-like; generally triangu-lar bodies with very small heads and strongly pointedsnouts) and stratified coloration (light above, dark onlateral surfaces) to be synapomorphies for the subge-nus (Boulenger, 1887; Sternfeld, 1920; Brown & Parker,1970), which is strongly supported in our phylogeny(Fig. 2, Clade L).
Phylogenetic definitionBatrachylodes is an apomorphy-based name for the clade(Fig. 2, Clade L) originating in the ancestor of Cornufer(Batrachylodes) vertebralis and Cornufer (Batrachylodes)trossulus, in which the following apomorphy,synapomorphic with that in Batrachylodes vertebralis,originated: very small, triangular bodies with smallheads and strongly pointed snouts (Fig. 2).
ContentSeven species formerly referred to the genusBatrachylodes (i.e. excluding Cornufer minutus; Fig. 2,and below), exclusively from the Solomon Islands (Brown& Parker, 1970: Cornufer elegans, Co. gigas, Co.mediodiscus, Co. montanus, Co. trossulus, Co. vertebralis,and Co. wolfi; Table 3). Brown et al. (2013) discussedan undescribed species from New Britain Island, Bis-marck Archipelago (the first report of a species of thisgenus outside the Solomon Island Archipelago;Foufopoulos & Richards, 2007).
CommentThe species not sampled by us (B. elegans, B. gigas,B. mediodiscus, and B. montanus) from the morpho-logically cohesive and biogeographically circum-scribed Batrachylodes are also placed in Batrachylodesbecause they share the synapomorphy on which thephylogenetic name is based. We exclude Co. minutusfrom this group on the basis of its unstable phylogeneticaffinities (Fig. 2), which, in the combined data setsuggest a closer relationship to Melanesian (Cornufersp. Halmahera, Cornufer batantae, and Cornuferbimaculatus) species than to members of the subge-nus Batrachylodes, with the caveat that support forthis relationship is low (Fig. 2).
EtymologyAlthough Boulenger (1887) provided no etymology forBatrachylodes, the name is most likely derived fromthe Greek ‘batrachus’, meaning frog, and possibly‘hylodes’, in reference to the genus Hylodes. Boulenger’s(1882) concept of Hylodes included 45 species that aretoday allocated to Pristimantis, Eleutherodactylus,Lithodytes, Batrachyla, and other genera. One ofBoulenger’s diagnostic characters for Hylodes was ex-panded digital discs, such as are present in someBatrachylodes species. Hylodes is almost certainlyderived from Hyla- + ‘-odes’ (Greek), meaning like orsimilar to Hyla, implicitly with expanded discs. Commonname: Solomon Islands sticky-toed frogs.
AENIGMANURA SUBGEN. NOV.Type speciesPlatymantis papuensis schmidti Brown & Tyler, 1968.
DiagnosisIndividual species of the subgenus Aenigmanura differfrom other members of Cornufer by characters relatedto their general classification as either generalized ter-restrial species with narrow finger and toe discs or ar-boreal forms with widely expanded finger and toe discs.The arboreal tree frogs of Aenigmanura (Cornufercitrinospilus, Co. custos, Co. hedigeri [formerlyPlatymantis guppyi; see below], Co. macrosceles, Co.
152 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
mamusiorum, Co. nakanaiorum, Co. neckeri, Co. nexipus,Co. parilis, Co. sp. B. Manus and Co. sp. C. Manus)can be readily distinguished from ground frogs (se-lected members of subgenus Aenigmanura and allCornufer species not assigned to subgenera, all withnon-expanded discs of fingers and toes), aquatic species(subgenera Potamorana and Discodeles, characterizedby the presence of interdigital webbing), sticky-toedfrogs (subgenus Batrachylodes, small, triangular-shaped bodies with strongly pointed snouts), the Fijianground frog (Co. vitianus, with non-expanded discs offingers and toes), palm frogs (subgenus Palmatorappia,with interdigital webbing present on hands), and hornedfrogs (subgenus Ceratobatrachus, with elaborately casquedskull morphology and dermal horns above the eyelids).The terrestrial species of Aenigmanura (Cornuferadiastolus, Cornufer admiraltiensis, Cornuferakarithymus, Cornufer boulengeri, Cornufer bufonulus,Cornufer desticans, Cornufer gilliardi, Cornufer latro,Cornufer magnus, Cornufer papuensis, Cornuferpelewensis, Cornufer schmidti, Cornufer solomonis,Cornufer sulcatus, and Cornufer weberi) can be dis-tinguished from river frogs and giant frogs (subgeneraPotamorana and Discodeles, characterized by the pres-ence of interdigital webbing), sticky-toed frogs (sub-genus Batrachylodes, small, triangular-shaped bodieswith strongly pointed snouts), the Fijian tree frog(Co. vitiensis, with widely expanded discs of fingers andtoes), palm frogs (subgenus Palmatorappia, an arbor-eal species with expanded finger and toe discs, andinterdigital webbing present on hands and feet), andhorned frogs (subgenus Ceratobatrachus, with elabo-rately casqued skull morphology and dermal horns abovethe eyelids).
As implied by the name, the wide range of morpho-logical and ecological variation in this clade rendersan unambiguously exclusive diagnosis of Aenigmanuraimpossible. We are unaware of morphologicalsynapomorphies for this group, although ourphylogenetic analysis provides very strong support forthis phenotypically and ecologically diverse clade (Fig. 2,Clade J).
Phylogenetic definitionAenigmanura (NCN) is a maximum crown-clade namereferring to the crown clade (Fig. 2, Clade J) originat-ing with the most recent common ancestor ofCo. papuensis and all extant species that share a morerecent common ancestor with Co. papuensis than withany of the other species of the clade Cornufer. Alter-natively it can be conceived of as the largest crownclade containing Co. papuensis, but not any other speciesof the clade Cornufer.
ContentCornufer adiastolus, Co. admiraltiensis, Co. akarithymus,Co. boulengeri, Co. citrinospilus, Co. custos, Co. desticans,
Co. gilliardi, Co. hedigeri (formerly Pl. guppyi;see below), Co. latro, Co. macrosceles, Co. magnus,Co. mamusiorum, Co. nakanaiorum, Co. neckeri,Co. nexipus, Co. parilis, Co. papuensis, Co.pelewensis, Co. schmidti, Co. solomonis, Co. sulcatus,Co. weberi, the newly described Co. custos (Richardset al., 2014), and two undescribed species fromManus Island (sp. B Manus and sp. C Manus; Fig. 2.,Clade J).
CommentThe range of body sizes in this large clade is strik-ing. From miniaturized terrestrial species such asCo. sulcatus and Co. akarithymus (males 17–27 mmSVL), to giant ground species such as Co. magnus(males 75–150 mm SVL), to large canopy frogs suchas Co. neckeri and Co. hedigeri (formerly Pl. guppyi;see below), to delicate, high-elevation, arboreal shrubspecies such as Co. macrosceles and Co. mamusiorum,to widespread terrestrial generalists such asCo. papuensis, Co. weberi, Co. schmidti, andCo. solomonis – the subgenus Aenigmanura exhibitsnearly the full range of ceratobatrachid ecomorphologicaldiversity (Brown, 2004), all within one clade of closelyrelated species.
As noted above, allocation of Pl. guppyi Boulenger,1884 (not to be confused with D. guppyi) to the genusCornufer presented a case of secondary homonymywith respect to R. guppyi Boulenger, 1884. Given thatno available junior synonym exists for the latterand that it is also the type species of Discodeles, weelected not to alter this name, and we have givenR. guppyi precedence over Pl. guppyi following the prin-ciple of first reviser (ICZN, 1999:30). Thus, the estab-lishment of a replacement name for Pl. guppyiBoulenger, 1884, is necessary. Accordingly, we desig-nate Co. hedigeri as a nomen novum for Pl. guppyiBoulenger, 1884. The epithet hedigeri is a patronymfor Heine Hediger (1908–1992) in recognition of hiscontributions (Hediger, 1933, 1934) to the taxonomyof the genus Cornufer sensu lato and the biology ofthe South Pacific.
EtymologyFrom the Latin enigma, meaning something ‘obscureor unknown, a riddle’, and anura, meaning ‘frog’, inreference to the unanticipated and confusing range ofmorphological and ecological variation represented bythe closely related species of the new subgenus. Thename is masculine in gender. Suggested common name:Pacific Island riddle frogs.
DISCUSSIONPHENOTYPIC CHARACTERS AND DIAGNOSES
The phylogenetic framework for our new ceratobatrachidclassification was derived from a new multilocus DNA
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 153
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
sequence data set. Although some phenotypic charac-ters are easily identified as synapomorphies (e.g. thedermal ‘horns’ of Ceratobatrachus), we have not com-prehensively surveyed phenotypic characters to deter-mine their value as possible synapomorphies, and inmany cases it is not possible to provide informationthat will place a species within a clade without usingDNA sequences. As a result, some unsampled speciesand/or species of uncertain phylogenetic affinities(Figs. 2, 3), are not yet referable to subgenera (Table 3).
Our approach takes a top-down perspective in thatwe have begun with a phylogeny and will progres-sively incorporate information about phenotype. Thenext steps in our studies of ceratobatrachid evolutioninclude the description of many new species, with acomprehensive survey of external morphology andphylogenetic analysis of advertisement calls. Our ex-perience with these frogs suggests that we will gleanmany synapomorphies from the phenotype and acous-tic data. Integrating these new data into thisphylogenetic framework will provide a broader viewof ceratobatrachid evolution.
TAXONOMY
Our phylogeny of the Ceratobatrachidae is a major steptowards the development of a stable taxonomy for this
poorly understood clade of frogs from Southeast Asiaand the Pacific islands. Clearly Platymantis as previ-ously defined is not monophyletic (Fig. 3A). Setting asidefor the moment the genus Alcalus (formerly South-east Asian species of Ingerana) as uncontroversial, wecarefully considered the following options for the tax-onomy of Clade D (Fig. 2).
1. Recognizeone genus Platymantis for Clade D, withno subgenera. This would subsume several species-poor genera such as Discodeles, Palmatorappia, etc.as junior synonyms of Platymantis. However, a ‘flat’taxonomy such as this would conceal the phylogenetichierarchy elucidated by this study. Because > 80%of ceratobatrachid species are Platymantis, few genus-species combinations would change.
2. Recognize one genus Platymantis for Clade D, withseveral subgenera, many of them new. This wouldconvey both phylogenetic hierarchy and diversityin morphology, ecology, and biogeography. It wouldalso retain the use of well-known clade names suchas Discodeles, Ceratobatrachus, Batrachylodes, andPalmatorappia, which are associated with widelyappreciated and distinct phenotypes. Similar to (1),few genus-species combinations would change.
3. Split Clade D into several genera. This woulddissolve Platymantis, reduce its content, and so
Figure 3. A schematic representation of ceratobatrachid phylogeny (based on Fig. 2), summarizing (A) the previous tax-onomy of ceratobatrachid frogs and (B) the new classification scheme proposed here.
154 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
re-allocate many species to different genera.Numerous genus-species combinations wouldchange.
4. Adopt an intermediate option, which is to recognizetwo genera, Cornufer and Platymantis, for Clade D.Subgenera would be used to reflect hierarchical struc-ture and biotic diversity. The number of changes ingenus-species combinations would be fewer than inoption (3) but more than in (1) and (2).
We have adopted option (4), but we can be criti-cized for not using option (2), and in fact some of theauthors (D. C. C. vs. R. M. B.) disagree on this choice.The latter would maintain the generic name Platymantisfor the large number of species in Clade J(Aenigmanura) and minimize changes in combina-tions. Our use of the Cornufer−Platymantis arrange-ment (Fig. 3B) increases the number of changes ingenus-species combination, although not as much asoption (3), but emphasizes a trenchant biogeographi-cal pattern between Clade M and Clade E, each situ-ated on either side of Wallace’s Line.
Under options (2) and (4) subgeneric ranks could beused. Under option (2), one might use two subgen-era, Platymantis and Cornufer, with smaller taxa withineach. These less inclusive taxa might be ranked as sec-tions or series. According to the Code (Article 10.4; ICZN,1999) such ranks are treated as subgenera. Nested levelsof subgenera are an ideal but underused way to provideadditional hierarchical information that is not evidentin ‘flat’ taxonomies; for an example see Hillis et al.(2001). However, the use of nested subgenera isproblematic under the Code (see Dubois, 2007;Hillis, 2007), which reflects the Code’s non-evolutionaryorigins.
Although subgenera are an excellent means of en-hancing phylogenetic information in taxonomy, they haveproblems that derive from the Code’s emphasis on ranks.For example, although the proper form ofCeratobatrachus guentheri under our taxonomy isCornufer (Ceratobatrachus) guentheri, Ce. guentheri aloneunambiguously refers to that species without explicitmention of the subgenus rank. Unfortunately, the Codeprohibits omission of the genus name when the sub-genus name is used (Article 4.2), but ignoring thisrule has little negative effect if the name is used incontext. Additionally, monotypic subgenera (e.g.Ceratobatrachus in our taxonomy) add no informa-tion about relationships to other taxa, but we retainthese names to connect the species epithets to previ-ous taxonomies.
A second problem is that a subgenus containing thetype species of the genus must be denoted by the samename as the genus (Articles 43.1 and 44.1). For example,from its creation Platymantis exists both as a genusand subgenus name, and simple reference to
‘Platymantis’ is ambiguous as to rank. A simple solu-tion is to define a new, unranked name in place of thesubgeneric name, as we have done (Table 4), so thatthe name Platymantis refers to only one node.
It is possible that a future worker will propose raisingthe subgenera to generic rank. We feel that this actionwould be ill-advised and unwarranted because it wouldresult in changes in a large number of genus–speciescouplet names. The practice of unnecessarily split-ting a genus into several genera destabilizes taxono-my and hides nested phylogenetic information [see forexample the proposal to split Anolis by Nicholson et al.(2012) and responses by Poe (2013) and R. Glor (unpubl.data)]. In many cases of oversplitting, the possibilityof using subgenera is typically not considered or is re-jected without discussion.
In weighing the goals of naming diversity that cor-responds to phenotypic or geographical distinctiveness(and with the goals, some may feel, of optimizing edu-cational and conservation benefits that may be asso-ciated with more atomized classification), vs. avoidingan excess of names of equal rank owing to the splittingof clades (Cannatella & de Queiroz, 1989; Glaw, Vences& Böhme, 1998; Vences et al., 2000; Vences & Glaw,2001; Glaw & Vences, 2006; Glaw, Hoegg & Vences,2006; Pauly, Hillis & Cannatella, 2009; Poe, 2013), wehave adopted a compromise between changing genus–species couplets and retaining the presumed inten-tions of earlier taxonomists (Tschudi, 1838; Günther,1858; Boulenger, 1884, 1887, 1896, 1918a; Ahl, 1927)who apparently recognized, appreciated, and formallynamed the morphological, biogeographical, and eco-logical distinctiveness of the taxa (Noble, 1931; Gorham,1965). We feel that this compromise both recognizesthe marked diversity within the Ceratobatrachidae, andalso imparts a stable hierarchical classification that isconservative in that it requires relatively few changesto existing species names (Fig. 3).
Challenges exist for improved understanding of therelationships of ceratobatrachids. First, additional taxonsampling will provide new information to this initialestimate of phylogeny. With the addition of possibly40–65 undescribed species (R. M. Brown, S. J. Rich-ards, A. C. Diesmos & C. D. Siler, unpubl. data), somerelationships and classification schemes will prob-ably change. Additionally, poor resolution amongst thesubgenera Ceratobatrachus, Discodeles, Potamorana,Batrachylodes, Palmatorappia, Aenigmanura, and thespecies of Cornufer not assigned to subgenera willrequire additional gene sampling and taxonomic re-vision. For the meantime, we consider the classifica-tion of Ceratobatrachidae to be a work in progress (sensuGraybeal & Cannatella, 1995; Linkem, Diesmos &Brown, 2011) and we anxiously await future studiesthat will address the remaining problems identifiedhere.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 155
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to Angel C.Alcala and the late Walter C. Brown for encouragingus to work collaboratively on frogs of the familyCeratobatrachidae. For loans of specimens (Appendix1), access to genetic samples, use of photographs, and/or assistance in the field, we thank A. Allison, C. Austin,D. Bickford, R. Crombie, S. Donnellan, R. Drewes, B.Evans, R. Fisher, R. Günther, R. Inger, D. Iskandar,F. Kraus, T. LaDuc, A. Leviton, J. McGuire, C. Mor-rison, R. Norris, P. Pikacha, A. Resetar, I. Setiadi, andJ. Vindum. William E. Duellman provided commentson a previous version of the manuscript. We thank thePhilippine Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), the Solomon Islands Forestry andEnvironment departments, the Indonesian Institute ofSciences (LIPI), and the Papua New Guinea Nation-al Research Institute and Department of Environ-ment and Conservation, for research, collecting, andexport permits. We thank K. de Queiroz for consulta-tion regarding phylogenetic taxonomy. Support for thisresearch was provided by South Australian Museumand Conservation International funds provided toS. J. R., a Rufford Foundation award to A. C. D.,Fulbright and Fulbright-Hayes fellowships to C. D. S.,and multiple U.S. National Science Foundation grants:DEB 0804115 to C. D. S.; DEB 9981631 and DEB0206729 to D. C. C.; and EB 073199, DEB 0640737,DEB 0743491, and EF 0334952 to R. M. B.
REFERENCES
Ahl E. 1927. ‘1926.’ Ueber neue oder seltene Froschlurche ausdem Zoologischen Museum Berlin. Sitzungsberichte derGesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1926: 111–117.
Alcala AC. 1962. Breeding behavior and early developmentof frogs of Negros, Philippine islands. Copeia 1962: 679–726.
Alcala AC, Brown WC. 1998. Philippine amphibians: an il-lustrated field guide. Makati City, Philippines: Bookmark Press.
Alcala AC, Brown WC. 1999. Philippine frogs of the genusPlatymantis (Amphibia: Ranidae). Philippine Journal of Science128: 281–287.
Allison A. 1996. Zoogeography of amphibians and reptiles ofNew Guinea and the Pacific region. In: Keast A, Miller SE,eds. The origin and evolution of Pacific island biotas, NewGuinea to eastern Polynesia: patterns and processes. Am-sterdam, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing, 407–436.
Allison A, Kraus F. 2001. New species of Platymantis(Anura: Ranidae) from New Ireland. Copeia 2000: 194–202.
AmphibiaWeb. 2014. Information on amphibian biology andconservation. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Availableat: http://amphibiaweb.org/ (accessed: May 2014).
Anonymous. 1978. Opinion 1105. Relative precedence ofCornufer Tschudi, 1838, and Platymantis Günther, 1858(Amphibia Salientia). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 34:222–233.
Barbour T. 1923. The frogs of the Fiji Islands. Proceedingsof the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 75: 111–115.
Blackburn DC, Wake DB. 2011. Class Amphibia Gray 1825.Zootaxa 3148: 39–55.
Bossuyt F, Brown RM, Hillis DM, Cannatella DC,Milinkovitch MC. 2006. Late Cretaceous diversification re-sulted in continent-scale regionalism in the cosmopolitan frogfamily Ranidae. Systematic Biology 55: 579–594.
Bossuyt F, Milinkovitch MC. 2000. Convergent adaptive ra-diations in Madagascan and Asian ranid frogs revealcovariation between larval and adult traits. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, USA 97: 6585–6590.
Boulenger GA. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s.Ecaudata in the Collection of the British Museum. London:Taylor and Francis.
Boulenger GA. 1884. Diagnoses of new reptiles and batrachiansfrom the Solomon Islands, collected and presented to theBritish Museum by H. B. Guppy, Esq., M.B., H.M.S. ‘Lark’.Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1884: 210–213.
Boulenger GA. 1886. On the reptiles and batrachians of theSolomon Islands. Transactions of the Zoological Society ofLondon 12: 35–62.
Boulenger GA. 1887. Second contribution to the herpetol-ogy of the Solomon Islands. Proceedings of the ZoologicalSociety of London 1887: 333–338.
Boulenger GA. 1896. Descriptions of two new batrachians ob-tained by Mr. A. Everett on Mount Kina Balu, North Borneo.Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 6 17: 449–450.
Boulenger GA. 1918a. Remarks on the batrachian generaCornufer Tschudi, Platymantis Günther, Simomantis, g. n.,and Staurois Cope. Annals and Magazine of Natural History9: 372–375.
Boulenger GA. 1918b. On the Papuan, Melanesian, and NorthAustralian species of the genus Rana. Annals and Maga-zine of Natural History Series 9 1: 236–241.
Brown RM. 2004. Evolution of ecomorphological variation andacoustic diversity in mate-recognition signals of SoutheastAsian forest frogs (subfamily Platymantinae). Doctoral Dis-sertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Brown RM. 2007. Robert F. Inger’s systematics and zooge-ography of Philippine Amphibia. In: Inger RF, ed. System-atics and zoogeography of Philippine Amphibia. Kota Kinabalu,Malaysia: Natural History Publications, 1–17.
Brown RM. 2009. Frogs. In: Gillespie R, Clague D, eds. En-cyclopedia of islands. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-nia Press, 347–351.
Brown RM, Diesmos AC. 2009. Philippines, biology. In:Gillespie R, Clague D, eds. Encyclopedia of islands. Berke-ley, CA: University of California Press, 723–732.
Brown RM, Diesmos AC, Alcala AC. 2008. Philippine am-phibian biodiversity is increasing in leaps and bounds. In:
156 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Stuart SN, Hoffmann M, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Berridge R,Ramani P, Young BE, eds. Threatened amphibians of the world.Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Ediciones; Gland, Switzerland: IUCN– The World Conservation Union; and Arlington, Virginia:Conservation International, 82–83.
Brown RM, Foufopoulos J, Richards SJ. 2006. New speciesof Platymantis (Amphibia; Anura: Ranidae) from New Britainand redescription of the poorly known Platymantis nexipus.Copeia 2006: 674–695.
Brown RM, Gonzalez JC. 2007. A new forest frog of the genusPlatymantis (Amphibia; Anura: Ranidae) from the BicolPeninsula of Luzon Island, Philippines. Copeia 2007: 251–266.
Brown RM, Oliveros CH, Siler CD, Fernandez JB, WeltonLJ, Buenavente PAC, Diesmos MLD, Diesmos AC. 2012.Amphibians and reptiles of Luzon Island (Philippines), VII:herpetofauna of Ilocos Norte Province, Northern Cordilleramountain range. Check List 8: 469–490.
Brown RM, Richards SJ. 2008. Two new frogs of the genusPlatymantis (Anura: Ceratobatrachidae) from the Isabel Islandgroup, Solomon Islands. Zootaxa 1888: 47–68.
Brown RM, Richards SJ, Broadhead TS. 2013. A newshrubfrog in the genus Platymantis (Ceratobatrachidae) fromthe Nakanai Mountains of eastern New Britain Island, Bis-marck Archipelago. Zootaxa 3710: 31–45.
Brown RM, Richards SJ, Sukumaran J, Foufopoulos J.2006. A new morphologically cryptic species of forest frog(genus Platymantis) from New Britain Island, Bismarck Archi-pelago. Zootaxa 1334: 45–68.
Brown RM, Siler CD, Oliveros CH, Esselstyn JA, DiesmosAC, Hosner PA, Linkem CW, Barley AJ, Oaks JR,Sanguila MB, Welton LJ, Blackburn DS, Moyle RG, Pe-terson AT, Alcala AC. 2013a. Evolutionary processes of di-versification in a model island archipelago. Annual Reviewof Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 44: 411–435.
Brown RM, Siler CD, Oliveros CH, Welton LJ, Rock A,Swab J, Van Weerd M, van Beijnen J, Jose E, Rod-riguez D, Jose E, Diesmos AC. 2013b. The amphibiansand reptiles of Luzon Island, Philippines, VIII: theherpetofauna of Cagayan and Isabela Provinces, northernSierra Madre mountain range. Zookeys 266: 1–120.
Brown RM, Stuart BL. 2012. Patterns of biodiversity dis-covery through time: an historical analysis of amphibian speciesdiscoveries in the Southeast Asian mainland and island archi-pelagos. In: Gower DJ, Johnson KG, Richardson JE, RosenBR, Rüber L, Williams ST, eds. Biotic evolution and envi-ronmental change in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 348–389.
Brown WC. 1949. A new frog of the genus Platymantis fromthe Solomon islands. American Museum Novitates 1387:1–4.
Brown WC. 1952. The amphibians of the Solomon Islands.Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 107: 1–64.
Brown WC. 1997. Biogeography of amphibians in the islandsof the southwest Pacific. Proceedings of the California Academyof Sciences 50: 21–38.
Brown WC, Alcala AC. 1982. Modes of reproduction of Phil-ippine anurans. In: Rodin AGJ, Miyata A, eds. Advances in
herpetology and evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Museumof Comparative Biology, 416–428.
Brown WC, Alcala AC, Diesmos AC. 1997c. A new speciesof the genus Platymantis (Amphibia: Ranidae) from LuzonIsland, Philippines. Proceedings of the Biological Society ofWashington 110: 18–23.
Brown WC, Alcala AC, Diesmos AC. 1999b. Four new speciesof the genus Platymantis (Amphibia: Ranidae) from LuzonIsland, Philippines. Proceedings of the California Academyof Sciences 51: 449–460.
Brown WC, Alcala AC, Diesmos AC, Alcala E. 1997b. Speciesof the guentheri group of Platymantis with descriptions offour new species. Proceedings of the California Academy ofSciences 50: 1–20.
Brown WC, Alcala AC, Ong PS, Diesmos AC. 1999a. Anew species of Platymantis (Amphibia: Ranidae) from theSierra Madre Mountains of Luzon Island, Philippines.Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 112: 510–514.
Brown WC, Brown RM, Alcala AC. 1997a. Species of thehazelae group of Platymantis (Amphibia: Ranidae) from thePhilippines, with descriptions of two new species. Proceed-ings of the California Academy of Sciences 49: 405–421.
Brown WC, Menzies JI. 1979. A new Platymantis (Amphibia:Ranidae) from New Ireland, with notes on the amphibiansof the Bismarck Archipelago. Proceedings of the BiologicalSociety of Washington 91: 965–971.
Brown WC, Myers GS. 1949. A new frog of the genus Cornuferfrom the Solomon Islands with notes on the endemic natureof the Fijian fauna. American Museum Novitates 1418: 1–10.
Brown WC, Parker F. 1970. New frogs of the genusBatrachylodes (Ranidae) from the Solomon Islands. Breviora346: 1–31.
Brown WC, Tyler MJ. 1968. Frogs of the genus Platymantis(Ranidae) from New Britain with descriptions of new species.Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 81: 69–86.
Cannatella DC, de Queiroz K. 1989. Phylogenetic system-atics of the anoles: is a new taxonomy warranted? System-atic Zoology 38: 57–69.
Cantino PD, de Queiroz K. 2014. International code ofphylogenetic nomenclature. Draft Version 4c. Available at: http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/preface.html. Downloaded 24 March2014.
Crombie RI, Pregill GK. 1999. A checklist of the herpetofaunaof the Palau Islands (Republic of Belau, Oceania). Herpetologica23: 29–80.
Darlington PJ, Inger RF, Mayr E, Williams EE. 1967. Com-ments on the proposed suppression of Cornufer unicolorTschudi 1838 (Amphibia). Z.N. (S.) 1749. Bulletin of Zoo-logical Nomenclature 24: 92.
Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2012.jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel com-puting. Nature Methods 9: 772.
Darst CR, Cannatella DC. 2004. Novel relationships amonghyloid frogs inferred from 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNAsequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 462–475.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 157
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Dubois A. 1981. Liste des genres et sous-genres nominauxde Ranoidea (Amphibiens, Anoures) du monde, avecidentification de leurs especes-types: consequencesnomenclaturales. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, SupplementoXV 13: 225–284.
Dubois A. 1987. Miscellanea taxinomica batrachologica (I). Alytes5: 7–95.
Dubois A. 1992. Notes sur la classification des Ranidae(Amphibiens, Anoures). Bulletin Mensuel de la SociétéLinnéenne de Lyon 61: 305–352.
Dubois A. 2007. Naming taxa from cladograms: some confu-sions, misleading statements, and necessary clarifications.Cladistics 23: 390–402.
Edgar PW, Lilley RPH. 1993. Herpetofauna survey ofManusela National Park. In: Edwards ID, Macdonald AA,Proctor J, eds. Natural history of Seram, Maluku, Indo-nesia. Andover: Intercept Ltd., 131–141.
Edgar RC. 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment withhigh accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Re-search 32: 1792–1797.
Esselstyn JA, Garcia HJD, Saulog MG, Heaney LR. 2008.A new species of Desmalopex (Pteropodidae) from the Phil-ippines, with a phylogenetic analysis of the Pteropodini.Journal of Mammalogy 89: 815–825.
Evans BJ, Brown RM, McGuire JA, Supriatna J, AndayaniN, Diesmos AC, Iskandar D, Melnick DJ, CannatellaDC. 2003. Phylogenetics of fanged frogs: testing biogeo-graphical hypotheses at the interface of the Asian and Aus-tralian faunal zones. Systematic Biology 52: 794–819.
Forcart L. 1946. Katalog des Typusexemplare in der Amphibien-sammlung des naturhistorischen Museums zu Basel.Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel57: 118–142.
Ford LS, Cannatella DC. 1993. The major clades of frogs.Herpetological Monographs 7: 94–117.
Foufopoulos J, Brown RM. 2004. A new frog of the genusPlatymantis (Amphibia; Anura; Ranidae) from New Britain,with a redescription of the poorly-known Platymantismacrosceles. Copeia 2004: 825–841.
Foufopoulos J, Richards SJ. 2007. The amphibians and rep-tiles of New Britain Island: diversity and conservation status.Hamadryad 31: 176–201.
FrostDR.1985. Amphibian speciesof theworld.Lawrence, KA:Allen Press and the Association of Systematic Collections.
Frost DR. 2014. Amphibian species of the world: an onlinereference. Version 5.6 (May 2014). New York: AmericanMuseum of Natural History. Electronic database accessibleat: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html
Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, HaddadCFB, de Sá RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, DonnellanSC, Raxworthy CJ, Campbell JA, Blotto BL, Moler PE,Drewes RC, Nussbaum RA, Lynch JD, Green DM,Wheeler WC. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin ofthe American Museum of Natural History 297: 1–370.
Fu J, Weadick CJ, Bi K. 2007. A phylogeny of the high-elevation Tibetan megophryid frogs and evidence for the multi-ple origins of reversed sexual size dimorphism. Journal ofZoology 273: 315–325.
Gibbons JRH. 1985. The biogeography and evolution ofPacific island reptiles and amphibians. In: Grigg G, ShineR, Ehmann H, eds. Biology of Australian frogs and reptiles.Sydney: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 125–142.
Glaw F, Hoegg S, Vences M. 2006. Discovery of a new basalrelict lineage of Madagascan frogs and its implications formantellid evolution. Zootaxa 1334: 27–43.
Glaw F, Vences M. 2006. Phylogeny and genus-level classi-fication of mantellid frogs (Amphibia, Anura). Organisms, Di-versity and Evolution 6: 236–253.
Glaw F, Vences M, Böhme W. 1998. Systematic revision ofthe genus Aglyptodactylus Boulenger, 1919 (Amphibia:Ranidae), and analysis of its phylogenetic relationships toother Madagascan ranid genera (Tomopterna, Boophis,Mantidactylus, and Mantella). Zeitschrift für ZoologischeSystematik und Evolutionsforschung 36: 17–37.
Goebel AM, Donnelly JM, Atz ME. 1999. PCR primers andamplification methods for 12S ribosomal DNA, the controlregion, cytochrome oxidase I, and cytochrome b in bufonoidsand all other frogs, an overview of PCR primers which haveamplified DNA in amphibians successfully. MolecularPhylogenetics and Evolution 11: 163–199.
Gorham SW. 1965. Fiji frogs, with synopses of the generaCornufer and Platymantis. Berlin: Dunker und Humbolt.
Gorham SW. 1968. Fiji frogs, life history data from field work.Berlin: Dunker und Humbolt.
Graybeal A, Cannatella DC. 1995. A new taxon of Bufonidaefrom Peru, with descriptions of two new species and a reviewof the phylogenetic status of supraspecific bufonid taxa.Herpetologica 51: 105–131.
Guindon S, Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast and accuratemethod to estimate large phylogenies by maximum-likelihood.Systematic Biology 52: 696–704.
Günther ACLG. 1858. Neue Batrachier in der Sammlung desbritischen Museums. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, Berlin 24:319–328.
Günther ACLG. 1859. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientiain the collection of the British Museum. London: Taylor andFrancis.
Günther ACLG. 1865. Reptilia. Zoological Record 1: 99–132.
Günther R. 1999. Morphological and bioacoustic character-istics of frogs of the genus Platymantis (Amphibia, Ranidae)in Irian Jaya, with descriptions of two new species.Mitteilungen aus dem Museum fur Naturkunde in Berlin,Zoologische Reihe 75: 317–335.
Günther R. 2006. A new species of the frog genus Platymantisfrom the mountains of Yapen Island, northern Papua Prov-ince, Indonesia (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae). ZoologischeAbhandlungen 55: 85–94.
Hediger H. 1933. Über die von Herrn Dr. A. Bühler auf derAdmiralitäts-Gruppe und einigen benachbarten Inselngesammelten Reptilien und Amphibien. Verhandlungen derNaturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel 44: 1–25.
Hediger H. 1934. Beitrag zur herpetologie und zoologeographieNew Britanniens. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung fürSystematik, Ökologie und Geographie, Jena 65: 44–582.
158 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Hillis DM. 2007. Constraints in naming parts of the Tree ofLife. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 331–338.
Hillis DM, Wilcox TP. 2005. Phylogeny of the New World truefrogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34: 299–314.
Hillis DM, Chamberlain DA, Wilcox TP, Chippindale PT.2001. A new species of subterranean blind salamander(Plethodontidae: Hemidactyliini: Eurycea: Typhlomolge)from Austin, Texas, and a systematic revision of centralTexas paedomorphic salamanders. Herpetologica 57: 266–280.
Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesianinference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755.
Inger RF. 1954. Systematics and zoogeography of PhilippineAmphibia. Fieldiana 33: 181–531.
Inger RF. 1966. The systematics and zoogeography of theAmphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana 52: 1–402.
Inger RF. 1996. Commentary on a proposed classification ofthe family Ranidae. Herpetologica 52: 241–246.
Inger RF. 1999. Distributions of amphibians in southern Asiaand adjacent islands. In: Duellman WE, ed. Patterns of dis-tribution of amphibians, a global perspective. Baltimore, MD:John Hopkins University Press, 445–482.
Inger RI, Tan FL. 1996a. Checklist of the frogs of Borneo.Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 44: 551–574.
Inger RI, Tan FL. 1996b. The natural history of amphib-ians and reptiles in Sabah. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: NaturalHistory Publications.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature(ICZN). 1999. International code of zoological nomencla-ture, 4th edn. London: International rust for ZoologicalNomenclature.
Köhler F, Schultze K-J, Günther R, Plötner J. 2008. Onthe genetic diversity in the mitochondrial 12S rRNA geneof Platymantis frogs from Western New Guinea (Anura:Ceratobatrachidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics andEvolutionary Research 46: 177–185.
Kraus F, Allison A. 2007. Two new species of Platymantis(Anura: Ranidae) from New Britain. Zootaxa 1485:13–32.
Kraus F, Allison A. 2009. New species of frogs from PapuaNew Guinea. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 104: 1–36.
Kuramoto M. 1985. Karyological divergence in three platymantinefrogs, family Ranidae. Amphibia-Reptilia 6: 355–361.
Kuramoto M. 1997. Relationships of the Palau frog, Platymantispelewensis (Anura: Ranidae): morphological, Karyological, andacoustic evidences. Copeia 1997: 183–187.
Laurent RF. 1986. Sous classe des lissamphibiens(Lissamphibia). Systematique. In: Grasse P-P, Delsol M, eds.Traite de zoologie. Anatomie, systematique, biologie. Tome 14.Batraciens. Paris: Masson, 594–797.
Liddell HG, Scott R. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Linkem CW, Diesmos AC, Brown RM. 2011. Molecular sys-tematics of the Philippine forest skinks (Reptilia: Scincidae:Sphenomorphus): testing morphological and biogeographic hy-potheses of interspecific relationships. Zoological Journal ofthe Linnean Society 163: 1217–1243.
Maddison WP, Maddison DR. 2000. McClade: analysis ofphylogeny and character evolution. Version 4.0. Sunder-land, MA: Sinauer.
Mauro DS, Gower DJ, Oommen OV, Wilkinson M, ZardoyaR. 2004. Phylogeny of caecilian amphibians (Gymnophiona)based on complete mitochondrial genomes and nuclear RAG1.Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33: 413–427.
Menzies JI. 2006. The frogs of New Guinea and the SolomonIslands. Moscow: Pensoft Publishers.
Mertens R. 1934. Die Insel-Reptilien, ihre ausbreitung, vari-ation, und artbildung. Zoologica 84: 1–209.
Morrison C. 2003. A field guide to the herpetofauna of Fiji.Suva, Fiji: Institute of Applied Sciences, University of theSouth Pacific.
Narayan E, Christi K, Morley C. 2008. Ecology and repro-duction of endangered Platymantis vitiana (Anura, Ranidae).South Pacific Journal of Natural Sciences 26: 28–32.
Narayan EJ, Hero J-M, Christi KS, Morley CG. 2011. Earlydevelopmental biology of Platymantis vitiana including sup-portive evidence of structural specialization unique to theCeratobatrachidae. Journal of Zoology 284: 68–75.
Nicholson KE, Crother BI, Guyer C, Savage JM. 2012. Itis time for a new classification of anoles (Squamata:Dactyloidae). Zootaxa 3477: 1–108.
Noble GK. 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. New York: Dover.Norris RM. 2002. Morphology and systematics of the Solomon
Island ranid frogs. Doctoral Dissertation, The University ofAdelaide.
Nylander JAA, Wilgenbusch JC, Warren DL, Swofford DL.2007. AWTY (Are We There Yet?) a system for graphical ex-ploration of MCMC convergence in Bayesian phylogenetics.Bioinformatics 24: 581–583.
Ota H, Matsui M. 1995. Karyotype of the ranid frog Platymantispelewensis, from Belau, Micronesia, with comments on itssystematic implications. Pacific Science 49: 296–300.
Palumbi SR. 1996. The polymerase chain reaction. In:Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK, eds. Molecular systemat-ics, 2nd edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 205–247.
Parker HW. 1939. Reptiles and amphibians of Bougainville,Solomon Islands. Bulletin du Musée Royal d’Histoire Naturellede Belgique 15: 2–5.
Parker HW. 1940. Undescribed anatomical structures and newspecies of reptiles and amphibians. Annals and Magazine ofNatural History Series 11: 257–274.
Pauly GB, Hillis DM, Cannatella DC. 2009. Taxonomicfreedom and the role of official lists of species names.Herpetologica 65: 115–128.
Peters WHC. 1863. Fernere mittheilungen über neue batrachier.Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie desWissenschaften zu Berlin 1863: 445–470.
Peters WHC. 1873. Über eine neue Schildrötenart, CinosternonEffeldtii und einige andere neue oder weniger bekannteAmphibien. Monatsberichte der Königlichen PreussischeAkademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1873: 603–618.
Pikacha P, Morrison C, Richards S. 2008. Frogs of theSolomon Islands. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Applied Sciences andthe University of the South Pacific.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 159
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Poe S. 2013. 1986. Redux: new genera of anoles (Squamata:Dactyloidae) are unwarranted. Zootaxa 3626: 295–299.
Pyron RA, Wiens JJ. 2011. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibiaincluding over 2,800 species, and a revised classification ofextant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. MolecularPhylogenetics and Evolution 61: 543–583.
de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central prin-ciple in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names.Systematic Zoology 39: 307–322.
de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 449–480.
de Queiroz K, Gauthier J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic systemof biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology and Evolu-tion 9: 27–31.
Rambaut A, Drummond AJ. 2007. Tracer. Available at: http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer
Richards SJ, Mack AL, Austin CC. 2007. Two new speciesof Platymantis (Anura: Ceratobatrachidae) from the Admi-ralty Archipelago, Papua New Guinea. Zootaxa 1639: 41–55.
Richards SJ, Oliver P, Brown RM. 2014. A new scansorialspecies of Platymantis (Anura: Ceratobatrachidae) from ManusIsland, Admiralty Archipelago, Papua New Guinea. In: TelnovD, ed. Biodiversity, Biogeography and Nature Conservationin Wallacea and New Guinea Monograph Series. Vol. 2.Lettland, Latvia: The Entomological Society of Latvia, 123–132.
Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003. MRBAYES 3: Bayes-ian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics19: 1572–1574.
Ryan PA. 1984. Fiji Amphibia. Domodomo 11: 87–98.Savage JM. 1973. The geographic distribution of frogs: pat-
terns and predictions. In: Vial JL, ed. Evolutionary biologyof the anurans: contemporary research on major problems.Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 351–445.
Schmidt LP. 1932. Reptiles and amphibians from the SolomonIslands. Field Museum of Natural History Zoological Series18: 176–190.
Siler CD, Alcala AC, Diesmos AC, Brown RM. 2009. A newspecies of limestone forest frog, genus Platymantis (Amphibia:Anura: Ceratobatrachidae) from eastern Samar Island, Phil-ippines. Herpetologica 65: 92–105.
Siler CD, Diesmos AC, Linkem CW, Sy E, Brown RM. 2010.A new species of limestone-forest frog, genus Platymantis(Amphibia: Anura: Ceratobatrachidae) from central LuzonIsland, Philippines. Zootaxa 2482: 49–63.
Siler CD, Linkem CW, Diesmos AC, Alcala AC. 2007.New species of the genus Platymantis (Amphibia; Anura;Ranidae) from Panay Island, Philippines. Herpetologica 63:351–364.
Siler CD, Swab JC, Oliveros CH, Diesmos AC, Averia L,Alcala AC, Brown RM. 2012. Amphibians and reptiles,Romblon Island Group, central Philippines: comprehensiveherpetofaunal inventory. Check List 8: 443–462.
Siler CD, Welton LJ, Siler JM, Brown J, Bucol A, DiesmosAC, Brown RM. 2011. Amphibians and reptiles, Luzon Island,Aurora Province and Aurora Memorial National Park, North-ern Philippines: new island distribution records. Check List7: 182–195.
Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixedmodels. Bioinformatics 22: 2688–2690.
Stamatakis A, Blagojevic F, Nikolopoulos D, AntonopoulosC. 2007. Exploring new search algorithms and hardware forphylogenetics: RAxML meets the IBM cell. Journal of VLSISignal Processing 48: 271–286.
Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. 2008. A rapid boot-strap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Systematic Biology57: 758–771.
Sternfeld R. 1920. Zur tiergeographic Papuasiens und der pazi-fischen Inselwent. Abhandlungen der SenckenbergischenNaturforschenden Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main 36: 375–436.
Taylor EH. 1920. Philippine Amphibia. Philippine Journal ofScience 16: 213–359.
Taylor EH. 1922a. Additions to the herpetological fauna ofthe Philippine Islands, I. Philippine Journal of Science 21:161–206.
Taylor EH. 1922b. Additions to the herpetological fauna ofthe Philippine Islands, II. Philippine Journal of Science 21:161–206.
Taylor EH. 1923. Additions to the herpetological fauna of thePhilippine Islands, III. Philippine Journal of Science 22: 151–557.
Taylor EH. 1925. Additions to the herpetological fauna of thePhilippine Islands, IV. Philippine Journal of Science 26: 97–111.
Thibaudeau G, Altig R. 1999. Endotrophic anurans: devel-opment and evolution. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R, eds. Tad-poles. Biology of anuran larvae. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press, 170–188.
Tschudi JJ. 1838. Classification der batrachier, mitBerücksichtigung der fossilen thiere dieser abtheilung derReptilien. Neuchatel, Switzerland: Petitpierre.
Tyler MJ. 1979. Herpetofaunal relationships of South Americawith Australia. In: Duellman WE, ed. The South Americanherpetofauna: its origin, evolution, and dispersal. Law-rence, KA: University of Kansas Museum of Natural History,73–106.
Tyler MJ. 1999. Distribution patterns of amphibians in theAustralo-Papuan region. In: Duellman WE, ed. Patterns ofdistribution of amphibians, a global perspective. Baltimore,MD: John Hopkins University Press, 541–564.
Van Kampen PN. 1923. The Amphibia of the Indo-Australian archipelago. Leiden, The Netherlands: BrillPublishing.
Vences M, Glaw F. 2001. When molecules claim for taxo-nomic changes: new proposals on the classification of Old Worldtreefrogs. Spixiana 24: 85–92.
Vences M, Kosuch J, Lötters S, Widmer A, Köhler J,Jungfer K-H, Veith M. 2000. Phylogeny and classificationof poison frogs (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae), based onmitochondrial 16S and 12S ribosomal RNA gene sequences.Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 15: 34–40.
Wiens JJ, Fetzner JW, Parkinson CL, Reeder TW. 2005.Hylid frog phylogeny and sampling strategies for specioseclades. Systematic Biology 54: 719–748.
160 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Wiens JJ, Sukumaran J, Pyron RA, Brown RM. 2009. Evo-lutionary and biogeographic origins of high tropical diversityin Old World frogs (Ranidae). Evolution 64: 1217–1231.
Wilgenbusch JC, Warren DL, Swofford DL. 2004. AWTY:a system for graphical exploration of MCMC convergence inBayesian phylogenetic inference. Available at: http://ceb.csit.fsu.edu/awty
Worthy TH. 2001. A new species of Platymantis (Anura:Ranidae) from Quaternary deposits on Viti Levu, Fiji. Palae-ontology 44: 665–680.
Zug G. 2013. Reptiles and amphibians of the Pacific Islands:a comprehensive guide. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-nia Press.
Zweifel RG. 1960. Results of the 1958-1959 Gilliard New Britain
Expedition. 3. Notes on the frogs of New Britain. AmericanMuseum Novitates 2023: 1–27.
Zweifel RG. 1966. Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia,Salientia): request for suppression under the plenary powers.Z.N. (S.) 1749. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23: 167–168.
Zweifel RG. 1967. Identity of the frog Cornufer unicolor andthe application of the generic name Cornufer. Copeia 1967:117–121.
Zweifel RG. 1969. Frogs of the genus Platymantis (Ranidae)in New Guinea, with the description of a new species. Ameri-can Museum Novitates 2374: 1–19.
Zweifel RG. 1975. Two new frogs of the genus Platymantisfrom New Britain. American Museum Novitates 2582: 1–7.
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 161
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
AP
PE
ND
IX
Taxa
,fi
eld
coll
ecto
rn
um
ber,
mu
seu
mre
posi
tory
cata
log
nu
mbe
rs,
loca
liti
es,
and
Gen
ban
kca
talo
gn
um
bers
for
sam
ples
incl
ude
din
this
stu
dy.
See
Tabl
es3
&4
and
Fig
ure
3fo
rsu
mm
arie
sof
upd
ated
clas
sifi
cati
on
Gen
us
Spe
cies
Fie
ldN
o.C
atal
ogN
o.C
oun
try
Reg
ion
/Sta
teIs
lan
dG
ener
allo
cali
tyS
peci
fic
loca
lity
12S
–16S
RA
G1
Tyr
PO
MC
Alc
alu
sra
jae
RM
BR
8.20
07F
NR
MB
Ru
nn
um
bere
dIn
don
esia
Wes
tK
alim
anta
nP
rovi
nce
Bor
neo
Kec
amat
anM
enu
kun
g,K
abu
pate
nM
elaw
i
KP
2980
26K
P29
8324
KP
2981
61
Alc
alu
sra
jae
RM
BR
1127
FN
RM
BR
0011
27In
don
esia
Wes
tK
alim
anta
nP
rovi
nce
Bor
neo
Kec
amat
anM
enu
kun
g,K
abu
pate
nM
elaw
i
KP
2980
27K
P29
8325
KP
2981
62
Alc
alu
sra
jae
RM
BR
.011
53F
NR
MB
R01
153
Indo
nes
iaW
est
Kal
iman
tan
Pro
vin
ceB
orn
eoK
P29
8028
KP
2983
26K
P29
8163
Alc
alu
sba
luen
sis
FM
NH
4142
8F
MN
H23
5604
Mal
aysi
aS
abah
Bor
neo
Kot
aM
aru
duD
istr
ict
KP
2980
29
Alc
alu
sm
aria
eR
MB
7803
KU
3095
18P
hil
ippi
nes
Pal
awan
PAIC
,P
alaw
anP
rovi
nce
Pal
awan
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofB
rook
e’s
Poi
nt
Bou
nda
ryof
Bar
anga
yS
amar
inan
aan
dS
aulo
g:M
t.M
anta
lin
gah
anR
ange
;A
rea
=″P
itan
g″
KP
2980
38K
P29
8263
KP
2981
66
Cor
nu
fer
cfw
olfi
sp.
2C
CA
2619
LS
UM
Z94
038
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Nor
thS
olom
ons
Pro
vin
ceB
ouga
invi
lle
Cen
tral
Bou
gain
vill
eTo
gara
uTw
oV
illa
ge,
SE
Slo
peof
Mt.
Bal
bi
KP
2980
15K
P29
8255
KP
2983
17K
P29
8150
Cor
nu
fer
min
utu
sA
BT
C49
504
AB
TC
4950
4P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaN
orth
Sol
omon
sP
rovi
nce
Bou
gain
vill
eC
entr
alB
ouga
invi
lle
KP
2980
16K
P29
8256
KP
2983
18K
P29
8151
Cor
nu
fer
cftr
ossu
lus
CC
A26
06L
SU
MZ
9403
5P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaN
orth
Sol
omon
sP
rovi
nce
Bou
gain
vill
eC
entr
alB
ouga
invi
lle
Toga
rau
Two
Vil
lage
,S
ES
lope
ofM
t.B
albi
KP
2980
17K
P29
8257
KP
2983
19K
P29
8152
Cor
nu
fer
vert
ebra
lis
CC
A25
81L
SU
MZ
9401
8P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaN
orth
Sol
omon
sP
rovi
nce
Bou
gain
vill
eC
entr
alB
ouga
invi
lle
Toga
rau
Two
Vil
lage
,S
ES
lope
ofM
t.B
albi
KP
2980
18K
P29
8258
KP
2983
20K
P29
8153
Cor
nu
fer
cfw
olfi
sp.
1C
CA
2622
LS
UM
Z94
039
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Nor
thS
olom
ons
Pro
vin
ceB
ouga
invi
lle
Cen
tral
Bou
gain
vill
eTo
gara
uTw
oV
illa
ge,
SE
Slo
peof
Mt.
Bal
bi
KP
2980
19K
P29
8259
KP
2983
21K
P29
8154
Cor
nu
fer
guen
ther
iC
CA
2583
LS
UM
Z93
759
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Nor
thS
olom
ons
Pro
vin
ceB
ouga
invi
lle
Cen
tral
Bou
gain
vill
eTo
gara
uTw
oV
illa
ge,
SE
Slo
peof
Mt.
Bal
bi
KP
2980
21K
P29
8261
KP
2981
56
Cor
nu
fer
bufo
nif
orm
isC
CA
2585
LS
UM
Z94
046
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Nor
thS
olom
ons
Pro
vin
ceB
ouga
invi
lle
Cen
tral
Bou
gain
vill
eTo
gara
uTw
oV
illa
ge,
SE
Slo
peof
Mt.
Bal
bi
KP
2980
22K
P29
8157
Cor
nu
fer
bufo
nif
orm
isR
MB
6925
KU
3072
03S
olom
onIs
lan
dsW
este
rnP
rovi
nce
Ran
ongg
aR
anon
gga
Vil
lage
ofP
oroi
KP
2980
23K
P29
8158
Cor
nu
fer
gupp
yiC
CA
2586
LS
UM
Z94
047
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Nor
thS
olom
ons
Pro
vin
ceB
ouga
invi
lle
Cen
tral
Bou
gain
vill
eTo
gara
uTw
oV
illa
ge,
SE
Slo
peof
Mt.
Bal
bi
KP
2980
24K
P29
8262
KP
2983
22K
P29
8159
Cor
nu
fer
mal
uku
na
A16
9052
AM
NH
A16
9052
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Wes
tern
Pro
vin
ceK
olam
ban
gara
New
Geo
rgia
Isla
nd
grou
pK
olam
ban
gara
Vol
can
oK
P29
8025
KP
2983
23K
P29
8160
Cor
nu
fer
min
utu
sA
84A
BT
C50
388
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Ch
oise
ul
Pro
vin
ceC
hoi
seu
lP
avor
aR
iver
KP
2980
30C
orn
ufe
rw
olfi
SJR
5324
SA
MA
R56
813
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Isab
elP
rovi
nce
Bar
ora
Faa
Bar
ora
Faa
Isla
nd,
off
the
wes
tern
tip
ofIs
abel
Isla
nd
KP
2980
33K
P29
8328
KP
2981
64
Cor
nu
fer
tros
sulu
sA
43A
BT
C50
347
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Ch
oise
ul
Pro
vin
ceC
hoi
seu
lP
avor
aR
iver
KP
2980
34C
orn
ufe
rgu
ppyi
JF01
6U
WZ
Mu
nn
um
bere
dP
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaB
ism
arck
Arc
hip
elag
o,W
est
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
nor
ther
nN
akan
aiM
oun
tain
s
Nak
anai
Pla
teau
,ri
dge
betw
een
the
Ivu
lean
dS
igol
eri
ver
KP
2980
35K
P29
8329
KP
2981
65
162 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Cor
nu
fer
hef
fern
ani
SJR
5303
SA
MA
R56
799
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Isab
elP
rovi
nce
Bar
ora
Faa
Bar
ora
Faa
,of
fth
ew
este
rnti
pof
Isab
el
KP
2980
42K
P29
8167
Cor
nu
fer
nec
keri
A57
AB
TC
5036
1S
olom
onIs
lan
dsC
hoi
seu
lP
rovi
nce
Ch
oise
ul
Pav
ora
Riv
erK
P29
8044
Cor
nu
fer
pele
wen
sis
CC
A13
07P
alau
Pal
auK
P29
8045
KP
2983
30K
P29
8168
Cor
nu
fer
adia
stol
us
FK
1076
2B
PB
M22
365
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Bis
mar
ckA
rch
ipel
ago,
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
9km
NN
Wof
Mar
mar
(Cam
p1)
KP
2980
52K
P29
8331
KP
2981
69
Cor
nu
fer
adm
iral
tien
sis
SJR
2603
SA
MA
R62
801
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Adm
iral
tyA
rch
ipel
ago,
Man
us
Pro
vin
ceM
anu
sC
hac
hu
auC
amp
nea
rTu
lu1
Vil
lage
KP
2980
53K
P29
8170
Cor
nu
fer
bou
len
geri
A96
81A
9681
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Bis
mar
ckA
rch
ipel
ago,
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
KP
2980
56K
P29
8266
KP
2983
33K
P29
8173
Cor
nu
fer
acro
chor
du
sS
JR54
57S
AM
AR
5690
0S
olom
onIs
lan
dsIs
abel
Pro
vin
ceIs
abel
Kol
opak
isa
Isla
nd
Kol
opak
isa
Vil
lage
KP
2980
57K
P29
8174
Cor
nu
fer
gill
iard
iF
K10
830
BP
BM
2226
1P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaB
ism
arck
Arc
hip
elag
o,E
ast
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
Eas
tern
New
Bri
tain
8.8
kmN
NW
ofM
arm
ar(B
uli
sa’s
trai
l)
KP
2980
60K
P29
8335
KP
2981
77
Cor
nu
fer
mac
rosc
eles
FK
1080
9B
PB
M22
273
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
9.2
kmN
NW
Mar
mar
(cav
en
ear
Cam
p1)
KP
2980
64K
P29
8181
Cor
nu
fer
mag
nu
sS
JR51
32S
AM
AR
6024
0P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaA
dmir
aty
Arc
hip
elag
o,E
ast
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
Wan
ui
Riv
erV
alle
yW
anu
iC
amp
KP
2980
65K
P29
8182
Cor
nu
fer
des
tica
ns
A81
AB
TC
5038
5S
olom
onIs
lan
dsC
hoi
seu
lP
rovi
nce
Ch
oise
ul
Pav
ora
Riv
erK
P29
8068
KP
2981
84C
orn
ufe
rn
akan
aior
um
JF13
6U
PN
G10
010
New
Gu
inea
Bis
mar
ckA
rch
ipel
ago,
Wes
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
nor
ther
nN
akan
aiM
oun
tain
s
nor
ther
ned
geof
Nak
anai
Pla
teau
KP
2980
69K
P29
8185
Cor
nu
fer
nex
ipu
sJF
009
UW
ZM
2389
3N
ewG
uin
eaB
ism
arck
Arc
hip
elag
o,W
est
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
nor
ther
nN
akan
aiM
oun
tain
s
Nak
anai
Pla
teau
,ri
dge
betw
een
the
Ivu
lean
dS
igol
eri
ver
KP
2980
70K
P29
8186
Cor
nu
fer
occi
den
tali
sR
MB
2025
TN
HC
5967
7In
don
esia
Su
law
esi,
Eas
tern
Su
law
esi
Pro
vin
ceP
elen
gK
ecam
atan
Tin
angk
un
g,D
esa
Sai
yan
g,3
kmS
ofS
aiya
ng
onrd
toA
mbe
lan
g
KP
2980
71K
P29
8339
KP
2981
87
Cor
nu
fer
papu
ensi
sA
BT
C48
181
AB
TC
4818
1P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaM
adan
gP
rovi
nce
New
Gu
inea
Mad
ang
Cav
esK
P29
8072
KP
2983
40K
P29
8188
Cor
nu
fer
pari
lis
SJR
5469
SA
MA
R56
910
Sol
omon
sIs
abel
Pro
vin
ceIs
abel
nor
ther
nIs
abel
Kol
opak
isa
Vil
lage
,K
P29
8074
KP
2983
41C
orn
ufe
rcu
stos
SJR
2611
SA
MA
R63
511
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Adm
iral
tyA
rch
ipel
ago,
Man
us
Pro
vin
ceM
anu
sM
anu
sP
rovi
nce
KP
2980
77K
P29
8192
Cor
nu
fer
man
us
SJR
2591
UP
1001
6P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaA
dmir
alty
Arc
hip
elag
o,M
anu
sP
rovi
nce
Man
us
Man
us
Pro
vin
ceK
P29
8078
Cor
nu
fer
viti
anu
sC
M14
98n
ovo
uch
erF
iji
Wai
saK
P29
8079
KP
2982
71K
P29
8343
KP
2981
93C
orn
ufe
rvi
tien
sis
CM
F7P
no
vou
cher
Fij
iS
avu
ruK
P29
8080
KP
2982
72K
P29
8344
KP
2982
72C
orn
ufe
rca
esio
psF
K10
773
BP
BM
2223
3P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaB
ism
arck
Arc
hip
elag
o,E
ast
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
9km
NN
Wof
Mar
mar
(Cam
p1
+/−
200
m)
KP
2980
81K
P29
8345
KP
2981
95
Cor
nu
fer
bufo
nu
lus
FK
1091
8B
PB
M22
187
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Bis
mar
ckA
rch
ipel
ago,
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
11.8
kmN
NW
ofM
arm
ar(P
oin
t14
)K
P29
8082
KP
2983
46K
P29
8196
Cor
nu
fer
hed
iger
iA
MS
R36
662
AM
NH
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Mal
aita
Pro
vin
ceM
alai
taK
P29
8083
KP
2982
73K
P29
8347
KP
2981
97C
orn
ufe
rak
arit
hym
us
FK
1127
5B
PB
M22
209
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Bis
mar
ckA
rch
ipel
ago,
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
2.6
kmN
NW
ofM
arm
ar(C
amp
2)K
P29
8084
KP
2983
48K
P29
8198
Cor
nu
fer
solo
mon
isC
CA
2656
LS
UM
Z93
777
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Nor
thS
olom
ons
Pro
vin
ceB
ouga
invi
lle
Cen
tral
Bou
gain
vill
eS
outh
Eas
tS
lope
Mt.
Bal
biK
P29
8088
KP
2982
75K
P29
8350
KP
2982
02
Cor
nu
fer
bata
nta
eR
G78
12In
don
esia
Wes
tP
apu
aP
rovi
nce
New
Gu
inea
Man
okw
ari,
Gu
nu
ng
Mej
aK
P29
8090
Cor
nu
fer
bim
acu
latu
sR
G76
00In
don
esia
New
Gu
inea
KP
2980
92C
orn
ufe
rch
eese
man
aeA
BT
C36
92A
BT
C36
92P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaS
anda
un
Pro
vin
ceN
ewG
uin
eaN
orth
ern
New
Gu
inea
Uta
iK
P29
8096
KP
2983
55K
P29
8208
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 163
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
AP
PE
ND
IXC
onti
nu
ed
Gen
us
Spe
cies
Fie
ldN
o.C
atal
ogN
o.C
oun
try
Reg
ion
/Sta
teIs
lan
dG
ener
allo
cali
tyS
peci
fic
loca
lity
12S
–16S
RA
G1
Tyr
PO
MC
Cor
nu
fer
hed
iger
iA
BT
C50
356
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Ch
oise
ul
Pro
vin
ceC
hoi
seu
lP
avor
aR
iver
KP
2981
04K
P29
8362
KP
2982
16C
orn
ufe
rla
tro
CC
A21
16S
AM
AR
6282
4P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaA
dmir
alty
Arc
hip
elag
o,M
anu
sP
rovi
nce
Man
us
Tin
gau
Vil
lage
,27
kmso
uth
-wes
tof
Lor
enga
u
KP
2981
13
Cor
nu
fer
mye
rsi
CC
A26
51L
SU
MZ
9378
4P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaN
orth
Sol
omon
sP
rovi
nce
Bou
gain
vill
eC
entr
alB
ouga
invi
lle
Toga
rau
Two
Vil
lage
,S
ES
lope
ofM
t.B
albi
KP
2981
21K
P29
8298
KP
2983
73K
P29
8231
Cor
nu
fer
pari
lis
CC
A26
29L
SU
MZ
9376
9P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaN
orth
Sol
omon
sP
rovi
nce
Bou
gain
vill
eC
entr
alB
ouga
invi
lle
Toga
rau
Two
Vil
lage
,S
ES
lope
ofM
t.B
albi
KP
2981
22K
P29
8299
KP
2983
74K
P29
8232
Cor
nu
fer
bou
len
geri
FK
1074
4B
PB
M22
329
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Bis
mar
ckA
rch
ipel
ago,
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
9km
NN
Wof
Mar
mar
(Cam
p1)
KP
2981
33K
P29
8309
KP
2983
85K
P29
8242
Cor
nu
fer
sch
mid
tiF
K10
897
BP
BM
2236
6P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaB
ism
arck
Arc
hip
elag
o,E
ast
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
New
Bri
tain
11.3
kmN
NW
ofM
arm
ar(P
oin
t15
)K
P29
8135
KP
2982
44
Cor
nu
fer
sp.
Hal
mah
era
BJE
1606
MZ
B.A
mph
.12
962
Indo
nes
iaE
aste
rnIn
don
esia
Hal
mah
era
Nor
thM
alu
kuP
rovi
nce
,Ja
ilol
o
KP
2981
40K
P29
8249
Cor
nu
fer
des
tica
ns
SJR
5363
SA
MA
R56
850
Sol
omon
Isla
nds
Isab
elP
rovi
nce
Bar
ora
Faa
Bar
ora
Faa
Isla
nd,
off
the
wes
tern
tip
ofIs
abel
KP
2981
45
Cor
nu
fer
web
eri
AB
TC
5049
3S
olom
onIs
lan
dsG
uad
alca
nal
Pro
vin
ceG
uad
alca
nal
Mt.
Au
sten
KP
2981
49K
P29
8394
KP
2982
54C
orn
ufe
rm
amu
sior
um
JF13
2U
PN
G99
92P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaA
dmir
alty
Arc
hip
elag
o,W
est
New
Bri
tain
Pro
vin
ce
New
Bri
tain
nor
ther
nN
akan
aiM
oun
tain
s
nor
ther
ned
geof
Nak
anai
Pla
teau
KP
2980
66
Cor
nu
fer
sp.
″arb
orea
l″S
JR26
39S
AM
AR
6353
3P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaA
dmir
alty
Arc
hip
elag
o,M
anu
sP
rovi
nce
Man
us
Man
us
Pro
vin
ceC
hac
hu
auC
amp
nea
rTu
lu1
Vil
lage
KP
2980
75K
P29
8270
KP
2983
42K
P29
8190
Cor
nu
fer
sp.A
″cli
cker
″S
JR26
27S
AM
AR
6352
8P
apu
aN
ewG
uin
eaA
dmir
alty
Arc
hip
elag
o,M
anu
sP
rovi
nce
Man
us
Man
us
Pro
vin
ceC
hac
hu
auC
amp
nea
rTu
lu1
Vil
lage
KP
2980
76K
P29
8191
Cor
nu
fer
sulc
atu
sS
JR51
25S
AM
AR
5125
Pap
ua
New
Gu
inea
Adm
iral
tyA
rch
ipel
ago,
Eas
tN
ewB
rita
inP
rovi
nce
New
Bri
tain
Wan
ui
Riv
erV
alle
yW
anu
iC
amp
KP
2981
47
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.43
AC
D20
33P
NM Un
nu
mbe
red
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Isab
ela
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
San
Mar
ian
oB
aran
gay
Dib
ulu
an,
Sit
ioA
paya
KP
2980
20K
P29
8260
KP
2981
55
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.31
AC
D24
31P
NM un
nu
mbe
red
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Isab
ela
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
San
Mar
ian
oB
aran
gay
Del
Pil
arK
P29
8054
KP
2982
64K
P29
8171
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.3
RM
B22
18F
MN
H25
9000
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Kal
inga
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Bal
bala
san
gB
aran
gay
Bal
bala
san
gK
P29
8055
KP
2982
65K
P29
8332
KP
2981
72
Pla
tym
anti
sco
rru
gatu
sR
MB
3605
TN
HC
6211
1P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Alb
ayP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofTo
baco
Bar
anga
yB
onga
bon
gK
P29
8058
KP
2982
67K
P29
8334
KP
2981
75
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.10
AC
D66
1P
NM
6521
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Isab
alea
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Pal
anan
Bar
anga
yD
idia
n,
Sit
ioN
atap
duka
nK
P29
8059
KP
2981
76
Pla
tym
anti
sh
azel
aeR
MB
3316
TN
HC
6216
0P
hil
ippi
nes
Wes
tV
isay
anPA
IC,
Neg
ros
Ori
enta
lP
rovi
nce
Neg
ros
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofV
alen
cia,
Sit
ioN
asu
ji,
Mt.
Tali
nis
ran
ge
KP
2980
61K
P29
8268
KP
2983
36K
P29
8178
Pla
tym
anti
sin
sula
tus
CD
S03
2K
U30
0338
Ph
ilip
pin
esW
est
Vis
ayan
PAIC
,Il
oilo
Pro
vin
ceG
igan
tes
Mu
nci
pali
tyof
Car
les
Gig
ante
Sou
thIs
lan
dK
P29
8062
KP
2983
37K
P29
8179
Pla
tym
anti
sis
arog
RM
B33
60P
NM
7273
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Cam
arin
esS
ur
Pro
vin
ce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofN
aga
Cit
yB
aran
gay
Pan
icu
ason
,M
t.Is
arog
KP
2980
63K
P29
8338
KP
2981
80
Pla
tym
anti
sm
onta
nu
sA
CD
1012
PN
M73
98P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofTa
yaba
sB
aran
gay
Lal
o,A
rea
=‘H
asaa
n’
KP
2980
67K
P29
8183
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.4
RM
B22
06F
MN
H25
9017
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Kal
inga
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Bal
bala
san
gB
aran
gay
Bal
bala
san
gK
P29
8073
KP
2982
69K
P29
8341
KP
2981
89
164 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.29
RM
B42
6F
MN
H26
6270
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Zam
bale
sP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofM
asin
loc
Mt.
Hig
hP
eak
KP
2980
85K
P29
8274
KP
2981
99
Pla
tym
anti
scf
.m
onta
nu
sA
CD
772
PN
M84
64P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofTa
yaba
sB
aran
gay
Lal
o,M
t.B
anah
aoK
P29
8086
KP
2982
00
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.15
GV
AG
303
FM
NH
2634
60P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,K
alin
gaP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofB
alba
lasa
ng
Bar
anga
yB
alba
lasa
ng,
Map
gaK
P29
8087
KP
2983
49K
P29
8201
Pla
tym
anti
sba
nah
aoR
MB
3713
TN
HC
6196
8P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofTa
yaba
sB
aran
gay
Lal
o,M
t.B
anah
aoK
P29
8089
KP
2983
51K
P29
8203
Pla
tym
anti
sba
yan
iC
DS
2757
KU
3092
52P
hil
ippi
nes
Min
dan
aoPA
IC,
Eas
tern
Sam
arP
rovi
nce
Sam
arM
un
icip
alit
yof
Taft
Bar
anga
yS
anR
afae
lK
P29
8091
KP
2982
76K
P29
8352
KP
2982
04
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.30
RM
B42
19P
NM
7497
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Cag
ayan
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Gat
tara
nG
atta
ran
For
est
Res
erve
KP
2980
93K
P29
8277
KP
2982
05
Pla
tym
anti
sca
gaya
nen
sis
RM
B42
31P
NM
7479
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Cag
ayan
Pro
vin
ceP
alau
iM
un
icip
alit
yof
San
taA
na
Bar
anga
yP
alau
iK
P29
8094
KP
2982
78K
P29
8353
KP
2982
06
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.9
RM
B36
01T
NH
C62
078
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,A
lbay
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Toba
coB
aran
gay
Bon
gabo
ng
KP
2980
95K
P29
8279
KP
2983
54K
P29
8207
Pla
tym
anti
sd
iesm
osi
RM
B35
25P
NM
8500
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,A
lbay
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Mal
inao
Bar
anga
y,S
ugc
ad,
area
know
nlo
call
yas
‘Su
gcad
Pla
za’
KP
2980
97K
P29
8280
KP
2983
56K
P29
8209
Pla
tym
anti
sd
orsa
lis
AC
D90
2P
NM un
nu
mbe
red
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Lag
un
aP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofL
osB
años
Bar
anga
yB
aton
gM
alak
e,M
t.M
akil
ing
KP
2980
98K
P29
8281
KP
2983
57K
P29
8210
Pla
tym
anti
sd
orsa
lis
CD
S17
08K
U30
4301
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Cat
andu
anes
Pro
vin
ce
Cat
andu
anes
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofS
anM
igu
elB
aran
gay
San
Roq
ue
KP
2980
99K
P29
8282
KP
2983
58K
P29
8211
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.6
JAM
967
TN
HC
5497
7P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
Pol
illo
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofP
olil
loB
aran
gay
Sib
uca
n,
Sit
ioW
ater
shed
-Tam
ban
gin
side
KP
2981
00K
P29
8283
KP
2983
59K
P29
8212
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.7
RM
B72
9C
MN
H81
28P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Au
rora
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
San
Lu
isB
aran
gay
Vil
laA
uro
raK
P29
8101
KP
2982
84K
P29
8360
KP
2982
13
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.24
FM
NH
2702
29P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,C
amar
ines
Nor
teP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofL
abo
Bar
anga
yTu
lay
na
Lu
ba,
Mt.
Lab
oK
P29
8102
KP
2982
85K
P29
8214
Pla
tym
anti
sgu
enth
eri
CD
S31
27K
U31
1022
Ph
ilip
pin
esM
inda
nao
PAIC
,L
eyte
Pro
vin
ceL
eyte
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofB
ayba
yB
aran
gay
Pil
im,
San
Vic
ente
KP
2981
03K
P29
8286
KP
2983
61K
P29
8215
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.27
RM
B40
63T
NH
C61
989
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Qu
ezon
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Ati
mon
anB
aran
gay
Mal
inao
Ilay
aK
P29
8105
KP
2982
87K
P29
8363
KP
2982
17
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.8
RM
B40
05T
NH
C62
018
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Sor
sogu
nP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofIr
osin
Bar
anga
yS
anR
ogu
e,M
t.B
ulu
san
,B
ulu
san
Lak
e
KP
2981
06K
P29
8288
KP
2983
64K
P29
8218
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.18
CD
S43
8N
ovo
uch
erP
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,M
asba
teP
rovi
nce
Tic
aoM
un
icip
alit
yof
San
Fer
nan
doK
P29
8107
KP
2982
89K
P29
8365
KP
2982
19
Pla
tym
anti
sin
dep
ren
sus
RM
B36
43T
NH
C61
956
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Qu
ezon
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Taya
bas
Bar
anga
yL
alo,
Mt.
Ban
ahao
KP
2981
08K
P29
8290
KP
2983
66K
P29
8220
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.21
CD
S29
06K
U31
0464
Ph
ilip
pin
esM
inda
nao
PAIC
,E
aste
rnS
amar
Pro
vin
ce,
Sam
arM
un
icip
alit
yof
Taft
Bar
anga
yS
anR
afae
lK
P29
8109
KP
2982
91K
P29
8367
KP
2982
21
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.14
AC
D78
3P
NM
8842
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Qu
ezon
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Lu
cban
Bar
anga
yS
amil
,M
t.B
anah
aoK
P29
8110
KP
2982
92K
P29
8222
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.19
AC
D85
5P
NM
8834
Ph
ilip
pin
esW
est
Vis
ayan
PAIC
,C
ebu
Pro
vin
ceC
ebu
Bar
anga
yTa
bun
an,
Tabu
nan
Nat
ion
alP
ark
KP
2981
11K
P29
8368
KP
2982
23
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.20
RM
B37
96P
NM un
nu
mbe
red
Ph
ilip
pin
esM
inda
nao
PAIC
,D
avao
Cit
yP
rovi
nce
Min
dan
aoM
un
icip
alit
yof
Cal
inan
Bar
anga
yM
alag
os,
Mal
agos
Eag
leS
tati
on
KP
2981
12K
P29
8224
Pla
tym
anti
sla
wto
ni
RM
B88
36K
U31
5281
Ph
ilip
pin
esR
ombl
onIs
lan
dG
rou
p,R
ombl
onP
rovi
nce
Tabl
asM
un
icip
alit
yof
Cal
atra
vaB
aran
gay
Bal
ogo:
Sit
ioP
iqu
eno
KP
2981
14K
P29
8293
KP
2983
69K
P29
8293
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 165
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
AP
PE
ND
IXC
onti
nu
ed
Gen
us
Spe
cies
Fie
ldN
o.C
atal
ogN
o.C
oun
try
Reg
ion
/Sta
teIs
lan
dG
ener
allo
cali
tyS
peci
fic
loca
lity
12S
–16S
RA
G1
Tyr
PO
MC
Pla
tym
anti
sle
viga
tus
RM
B51
69K
U30
4548
Ph
ilip
pin
esR
ombl
onIs
lan
dG
rou
p,R
ombl
onP
rovi
nce
,
Sib
uya
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Mag
diw
ang
Bar
anga
yTa
laba
,M
oun
tG
uit
ing-
Gu
itin
gN
atu
ral
Par
k
KP
2981
15K
P29
8294
KP
2983
70K
P29
8225
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.33
RM
B53
07K
U30
4973
Ph
ilip
pin
esM
indo
roPA
IC,
Occ
iden
tal
Min
doro
Pro
vin
ce
Lu
ban
gM
un
icip
alit
yof
Lu
ban
gB
etw
een
Bar
anga
ysB
inak
yas
and
Agk
away
an
KP
2981
16K
P29
8295
KP
2982
26
Pla
tym
anti
slu
zon
ensi
sC
DS
1712
KU
3045
05P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,C
atan
duan
esP
rovi
nce
Cat
andu
anes
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofS
anM
igu
elB
aran
gay
San
Roq
ue
KP
2981
17K
P29
8371
KP
2982
27
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.22
CD
S75
2K
U30
4386
Ph
ilip
pin
esR
ombl
onIs
lan
dG
rou
p,R
ombl
onP
rovi
nce
Tabl
asM
un
icip
alit
yof
Mag
diw
ang
Bar
anga
yP
obla
cion
KP
2981
18K
P29
8296
KP
2983
72K
P29
8228
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.35
EL
R37
6P
NM un
nu
mbr
edP
hil
ippi
nes
Min
doro
PAIC
,O
ccid
enta
lM
indo
roP
rovi
nce
Min
doro
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofS
abla
yan
Bar
anga
yB
aton
gB
uh
ay,
Bat
ula
i,M
t.S
ibu
ran
KP
2981
19K
P29
8229
Pla
tym
anti
sm
imu
lus
RM
B41
87P
NM
7453
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Nu
eva
Eci
jaP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Dal
ton
Pas
sK
P29
8120
KP
2982
97K
P29
8230
Pla
tym
anti
sn
egro
sen
sis
CD
S91
3K
U30
0442
Ph
ilip
pin
esW
est
Vis
ayan
PAIC
,N
egro
sO
rien
tal
Pro
vin
ce
Neg
ros
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofV
alen
cia,
Sit
ioN
asu
ji,
Mt.
Tali
nis
ran
ge
KP
2981
23K
P29
8300
KP
2983
75K
P29
8233
Pla
tym
anti
sn
aom
iiR
MB
3662
PN
M73
56P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
,L
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Taya
bas
Bar
anga
yL
alo,
Mt.
Ban
ahao
KP
2981
24K
P29
8301
KP
2983
76K
P29
8234
Pla
tym
anti
spa
engi
CD
S15
37P
NM
9241
Ph
ilip
pin
esW
est
Vis
ayan
PAIC
,A
nti
que
Pro
vin
ce,
Pan
ayM
un
icip
alit
yof
Pan
dan
Bar
anga
yD
uyo
ng
KP
2981
25K
P29
8302
KP
2983
77K
P29
8235
Pla
tym
anti
spa
nay
ensi
sH
631
CM
NH
4117
Ph
ilip
pin
esW
est
Vis
ayan
PAIC
,A
nti
que
Pro
vin
ce,
Pan
ayM
un
icip
alit
yof
Cu
lasi
Mt.
Mad
ja-a
sK
P29
8126
KP
2983
03K
P29
8378
KP
2982
36
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.34
RM
B79
52K
U30
9728
Ph
ilip
pin
esM
inda
nao
PAIC
,C
amig
uin
Pro
vin
ceC
amin
guin
Su
rM
un
icip
alit
yof
Mam
baja
oB
aran
gay
Pan
dan
,S
itio
Kam
pan
aK
P29
8127
KP
2983
04K
P29
8379
KP
2982
37
Pla
tym
anti
spo
lill
ensi
sR
MB
8887
KU
3260
63P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
Pol
illo
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofB
urd
eos
Bar
anga
yA
luyo
n,
Sit
ioM
alin
aoK
P29
8128
KP
2983
05K
P29
8380
Pla
tym
anti
sps
eud
odor
sali
sA
CD
826
PN
M66
90P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Q
uez
onP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofL
ucb
anB
aran
gay
Sam
il,
Mt.
Ban
ahao
KP
2981
29K
P29
8381
KP
2982
38
Pla
tym
anti
spy
gmae
us
AC
D20
67P
NM
6456
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Isab
alea
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Pal
anan
Bar
anga
y.D
idia
n,
Sit
io.N
atap
duka
nK
P29
8130
KP
2983
06K
P29
8382
KP
2982
39
Pla
tym
anti
sra
bori
CD
S28
74K
U30
9123
Ph
ilip
pin
esM
inda
nao
PAIC
,E
aste
rnS
amar
Pro
vin
ce
Sam
arM
un
icip
alit
yof
Taft
Bar
anga
yS
anR
afae
lK
P29
8131
KP
2983
07K
P29
8383
KP
2982
40
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.12
RM
B36
41T
NH
C62
070
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Qu
ezon
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Taya
bas
Bar
anga
yL
alo,
Mt.
Ban
ahao
KP
2981
32K
P29
8308
KP
2983
84K
P29
8241
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.5
RM
B46
25F
MN
H26
6271
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Zam
bale
sP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofM
asin
loc
Mt.
Hig
hP
eak
KP
2981
34K
P29
8386
KP
2982
43
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.25
EL
R23
4P
NM un
nu
mbe
red
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Nu
eva
Viz
caya
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Qu
ezon
Bar
anga
yM
addi
anga
t,M
oun
tP
alal
iK
P29
8136
KP
2983
10K
P29
8387
KP
2982
45
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.23
RM
B42
20P
NM
7561
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Cag
ayan
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Gat
tara
nG
atta
ran
For
est
Res
erve
KP
2981
37K
P29
8311
KP
2982
46
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.2
RM
B95
7P
NM
5780
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,A
uro
raP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofS
anL
uis
Bar
anga
yV
illa
Au
rora
KP
2981
38K
P29
8312
KP
2983
88K
P29
8247
Pla
tym
anti
ssi
erra
mad
ren
sis
RM
B97
3C
MN
H59
04P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Au
rora
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
San
Lu
isB
aran
gay
Vil
laA
uro
raK
P29
8139
KP
2983
89K
P29
8248
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.40
RM
B10
235
KU
3152
14P
hil
ippi
nes
Min
dan
aoPA
IC,
Zam
boan
gaC
ity
Pro
vin
ce
Min
dan
aoM
un
icip
alit
yof
Pas
onan
caK
P29
8141
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.42
EL
R11
47K
U30
8682
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Nu
eva
Viz
caya
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Qu
ezon
Bar
anga
yM
addi
anga
t,M
oun
tP
alal
iK
P29
8142
KP
2982
50
166 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
elae
us
CD
S26
5K
U30
0435
Ph
ilip
pin
esW
est
Vis
ayan
PAIC
,N
egro
sO
rien
tal
Pro
vin
ce
Neg
ros
Bar
anga
yC
auay
anK
P29
8143
KP
2983
13K
P29
8390
KP
2982
51
Pla
tym
anti
ssp
.36
RM
B57
64K
U30
4644
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Cag
ayan
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Cal
ayan
Bar
anga
yB
alat
abat
;L
ocal
area
nam
e=
‘Lim
ando
k’
KP
2981
44K
P29
8314
KP
2983
91K
P29
8252
Pla
tym
anti
ssu
bter
rest
ris
RM
B31
86F
MN
H25
9594
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Kal
inga
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Bal
bala
san
gB
aran
gay
Bal
bala
san
g,M
apga
KP
2981
46K
P29
8315
KP
2983
92K
P29
8253
Pla
tym
anti
sta
ylor
iA
CD
1931
PN
M65
24P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,Is
abel
aP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofP
alan
an,
Bar
anga
yD
idia
n,
Sit
ioN
atap
duka
nK
P29
8148
KP
2983
16K
P29
8393
Inge
ran
ate
nas
seri
men
sis
CA
S20
5064
Mya
nn
mar
Rak
hin
eS
tate
Indo
chin
aG
wa
Tow
nsh
ip,
ca0.
5m
iS
ofP
leas
ant
Bea
chR
esor
t
DQ
3470
30A
Y32
2308
San
guir
ana
luzo
nen
sis
RM
B31
60F
MH
H25
9478
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Kal
inga
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Bal
bala
san
gB
aran
gay
Bal
bala
san
g,M
apga
KF
4776
36
San
guir
ana
san
guin
eaR
MB
3075
KU
3294
84P
hil
ippi
nes
Pal
awan
PAIC
Pal
awan
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofB
rook
e’s
Poi
nt
Bar
anga
yM
ain
it,
Mai
nit
Fal
lsK
P29
8051
DQ
3472
73D
Q34
7180
Hop
loba
trac
hu
sru
gulo
sus
AC
D91
2P
NM
7827
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Lag
un
aP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofL
osB
años
Bar
anga
yB
aton
gM
alak
e,M
t.M
akil
ing
AY
3136
85
Hu
iam
ason
iiR
MB
2124
TN
HC
5991
4In
don
esia
Su
nda
lan
d,W
est
Java
Pro
vin
ceJa
vaK
ecam
atan
Kad
uda
mpi
tK
abu
pate
nG
ede
Pan
agra
ngo
Kel
ura
han
Pan
gran
go,
Cig
un
un
gR
iver
,6
kmN
Cis
aat
EF
0882
47E
U07
6770
Hyl
aran
agr
and
ocu
laR
MB
2842
PN
M75
88P
hil
ippi
nes
Eas
tern
Vis
ayan
Isla
nds
Boh
olB
ohol
Pro
vin
ce,
Mu
nic
ipal
ity
ofA
tequ
era
Bar
anga
yP
obla
cion
KF
4776
75K
F47
7546
KF
4778
14
Hyl
aran
am
oell
end
orffi
RM
B30
77P
NM
7598
Ph
ilip
pin
esP
alaw
anPA
ICP
alaw
anM
un
icip
alit
yof
Bro
oke’
sP
oin
tB
oun
dary
ofB
aran
gay
Sam
arin
ana
and
Sau
log:
Mt.
Man
tali
nga
han
Ran
ge
KF
4776
99K
F47
7569
KF
4778
36
Hyl
aran
an
icob
arie
nsi
sR
MB
2086
TN
HC
5985
6In
don
esia
Wes
tJa
vaP
rovi
nce
Java
Su
nda
lan
dD
epok
Cit
y;U
niv
ersi
tyof
Indo
nes
iaca
mpu
sA
Y32
6062
DQ
3471
81
Kal
oula
pict
aD
LS
UD
021
DL
SU
D02
1P
hil
ippi
nes
Lu
zon
PAIC
,C
avit
eP
rovi
nce
Lu
zon
Mt.
Pal
ay-p
alay
Nat
ion
alP
ark
KC
8225
53
Lim
non
ecte
sm
icro
tym
pan
um
RM
B15
59T
NH
C59
256
Indo
nes
iaE
aste
rnIn
don
esia
,S
ula
wes
iTe
nga
hP
rovi
nce
Su
law
esi
Kab
upa
tan
Ban
ggai
Kec
amat
anB
agim
ana,
Des
aS
iun
a,D
usu
nS
atu
,K
ampu
ng
Siu
na,
4km
Eof
tow
nat
base
ofM
t.To
mpo
tika
AY
3137
45
Lim
non
ecte
sw
ood
wor
thi
AC
D94
9P
NM Un
nu
mbe
red
Ph
ilip
pin
esL
uzo
nPA
IC,
Qu
ezon
Pro
vin
ceL
uzo
nM
un
icip
alit
yof
Ati
mon
an,
Bar
anga
yM
alin
aoIl
aya
AY
3137
12
PHYLOGENY OF CERATOBATRACHIDAE 167
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web-site:
Figure S1. Partitioned Bayesian analyses (letters denote nodes of interest; see text and Figs. 2 and 3). Strong-ly supported conflict between nuclear [left; four partitions: recombinase activating gene 1 (RAG1), tyrosinase(Tyr), proopiomelanocortin (POMC), third codon positions combined) and mitochondrial (right; two partitions:12S and 16S) gene partitions is most probably an artefact of missing 12S data.
168 R. M. BROWN ET AL.
© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 174, 130–168