Integrative taxonomy helps to reveal the mask of the genusGynandropaa(Amphibia: Anura: Dicroglossidae)

Abstract

Species of the genus Gynandropaa within the family Dicroglossidae are typical spiny frogs whose taxonomic status has long been in doubt. We used integrative methods, involving morphological and molecular analyses, to elucidate the phylogenetic relationships, and to determine identities and the geographic distribution of each valid species. We obtained DNA sequence data of 5 species of Gynandropaa (complete sequences of the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 [ND2] gene, and 890 bp of 12S rRNA and 16S rRNA partial sequences) from 37 localities (including the topotypes of 5 described species) and constructed Bayesian and maximum-likelihood trees to examine the patterns of phylogeography. A total of 28 morphological variables were taken on 624 specimens. Three clades with clear geographic patterns were recognized: clade C (from south-western Sichuan Province and central Yunnan Province), clade E (western Guizhou Province and eastern to central Yunnan Province) and clade W (western to southern Yunnan Province). Integrating morphological characteristics and distribution information, the clades W, E and C represent Gynandropaa yunnanensis, G. phrynoides and G. sichuanensis, respectively. We draw the following conclusions: (i) the taxon G. phrynoides, formerly evaluated as a junior synonym of G. yunnanensis, is revalidated herein at the rank of species; (ii) G. liui is a junior synonym of G. sichuanensis; and (iii) G. yunnanensis is a valid species while G. bourreti is probably a subspecies of G. yunnanensis, with the distribution range from Vietnam to southern Yunnan Province. This study clears up the taxonomic status of Gynandropaa and provides important information for understanding the evolution and conservation of these spiny frogs. Zoobank registration: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0772D78D-E5C4-4D05-9154-38B155C09948

Niche conservatism in Gynandropaa frogs on the southeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau

“…All these frogs had been classified under the genus Paa and/or Rana for decades2635; thereafter, Che et al 36. suggested to categorize them into the genus Nanorana that has been adopted by Frost35; while recently, the genus Gynandropaa is more widely accepted26273738. Additionally, due to high similarity in morphology (e.g.…”

“…body size), the taxonomic recognitions of species in this genus are controversial, involving six named species (i.e. yunnanensis, phrynoides, liui, sichuanensis, bourreti and feae )262735 (see also Table S1 in Huang et al 38…”

“…categorized all taxa in this genus into a single species, but they identified three major independent evolutionary clades called W (western), C (central), and E (eastern) based on genealogical analyses of mitochondrial DNA (see also Wang27). Integrating morphological characteristics, phylogenetic relationships (inferred by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference methods) and geographical distribution patterns, Huang et al 38. proposed that the clades W, C and E correspond to Gynandropaa yunnanensis, G. sichuanensis and G. phrynoides , respectively38.…”

“…Integrating morphological characteristics, phylogenetic relationships (inferred by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference methods) and geographical distribution patterns, Huang et al 38. proposed that the clades W, C and E correspond to Gynandropaa yunnanensis, G. sichuanensis and G. phrynoides , respectively38. To avoid potential debate in classification, we use the generic taxonomy of Gynandropaa 37, and the three deep-divergent clades rather than the newly recognized species252738.…”

“…proposed that the clades W, C and E correspond to Gynandropaa yunnanensis, G. sichuanensis and G. phrynoides , respectively38. To avoid potential debate in classification, we use the generic taxonomy of Gynandropaa 37, and the three deep-divergent clades rather than the newly recognized species252738. According to previous studies on the phylogeography of Gynandropaa 2527, long-term geographic isolation among clades being formed in the Early Pliocene and Early Pleistocene promoted allopatric speciation in this genus.…”