DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity and Natural History of Amphibians and Reptiles in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity and Natural History of Amphibians and Reptiles in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL HISTORY OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN KERINCI SEBLAT NATIONAL PARK, SUMATRA, INDONESIA (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) Rhacophorus bifasciatus (Photograpg by H. Kurniati) By : HELLEN KURNIATI Research Center for Biology-LIPI, Widyasatwaloka Building-LIPI, Jalan Raya Cibinong km 46, Cibinong 16911, West Java, INDONESIA Phone : +62-21-8765056 Fax : +62-21-8765068 Email : <[email protected]> and <[email protected]> CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………. 5 SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………............................... 6 METHODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 A. Study Areas and Habitats ………………………………………………………............................... 7 A.1. Phase 1 (January-March 2005) ……………………………………………................................... 8 A.2. Phase 2 (February-March 2006) ………………………………………......................................... 11 A.3. Phase 3 (January-March 2007)…………………………………………….................................... 13 A.4. Phase 4 (February 2008) ................................................................................................................. 15 B. Survey Methods ………………………………………………………………….............................. 16 B.1. Lighting ………………………………………………………………………............................. 17 B.2. Hand Collection ………………………………………………………………............................. 17 B.3. Trapping ………………………………………………………………………............................ 17 C. Analysis ………………………………………………………………………….............................. 18 RESULTS ………………………………………………………………………………............................ 18 A. Phase 1 ………………………………………………………………………................................... 18 B. Phase 2 ……………………………………………………………………....................................... 20 C. Phase 3 ………………………………………………………………………................................... 21 D. Phase 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 22 GENERAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………........................... 22 SPECIES ACCOUNT ………………………………………………………………….............................. 37 AMPHIBIA ………………………………………………………………………….................................. 38 I. Family MEGOPHRYIDAE ………………………………………………………….............................. 38 Megophrys aceras ……………………………………………………………………........................... 38 Megophrys nasuta ……………………………………………………………………........................... 38 Megophrys paralella…………………………………………………………………………............................ 39 II. Family BUFONIDAE ………………………………………………………………............................. 39 Ansonia cf glandulosa ……………………………………………………………………..................... 39 Ansonia leptopus …………………………………………………………………................................. 40 Bufo asper ……………………………………………………………………………........................... 41 Bufo claviger…………………………………………………………………………………............................. 41 Bufo divergen…………………………………………………………………………….................................... 42 Bufo juxasper ……………………………………………………………………….............................. 43 Bufo melanostictus ………………………………………………………………….............................. 43 Bufo parvus …………………………………………………………………………............................. 44 Leptophryne borbonica ………………………………………………………………........................... 44 Pelophryne brevipes …………………………………………………………………............................ 45 III. Family MICROHYLIDAE …………………………………………………………............................ 45 Kalophrynus pleurostigma ………………………………………………………….............................. 45 Kaloula baleata ………………………………………………………………………........................... 46 Metaphrynella cf pollicaris…………………………………………………………………............................. 46 Metaphrynella sundana …………………………………………………………….............................. 47 Microhyla borneensis ……………………………………………………………….............................. 47 Microhyla heymonsi …………………………………………………………………............................ 48 Microhyla palmipes …………………………………………………………………............................ 49 Microhyla superciliaris ……………………………………………………………............................... 49 Microhyla sp ………………………………………………………………………............................... 50 Phrynella pulchra …………………………………………………………………............................... 50 IV. Family RANIDAE …………………………………………………………………............................. 51 Fejervarya cancrivora ………………………………………………………………............................ 51 Fejervarya limnocharis ……………………………………………………………............................... 51 Huia modiglianii………………………………………………………………………….................................. 52 Huia sumatrana …………………………………………………………………….............................. 52 Limnonectes acuticeps ………………………………………………………………............................ 53 Limnonectes barisani ……………………………………………………………….............................. 53 Limnonectes blythii …………………………………………………………………............................. 54 2 Limnonectes crybetus ……………………………………………………………….............................. 55 Limnonectes kuhlii ………………………………………………………………….............................. 55 Limnonectes laticeps ………………………………………………………………............................... 56 Limnonectes macrodon……………………………………………………………………................................ 56 Limnonectes microdiscus ……………………………………………………………............................ 57 Limnonectes paramacrodon …………………………………………………………............................ 58 Limnonectes prajatmoi ………………………………………………………………............................ 58 Limnonectes shompenorum …………………………………………………………............................. 59 Occidozyga laevis ……………………………………………………………………........................... 59 Occidozyga sumatrana ............................................................................................................................ 60 Rana chalconota ……………………………………………………………………............................. 60 Rana crassiovis ………………………………………………………………………........................... 61 Rana erythraea ………………………………………………………………………............................ 61 Rana hosii ……………………………………………………………………………........................... 62 Rana kampeni ……………………………………………………………………….............................. 62 Rana nicobariensis ………………………………………………………………….............................. 63 Rana nigrovittata ……………………………………………………………………............................ 64 Rana picturata ………………………………………………………………………............................ 64 Rana raniceps ………………………………………………………………………............................. 65 Rana siberu …………………………………………………………………………............................. 65 V. Family RHACOPHORIDAE …………………………………….......................................................... 66 Nyctixalus pictus ……………………………………………………………………............................. 66 Philautus aurifasciatus ………………………………………………………………........................... 67 Philautus cornutus ………………………………………………………………….............................. 67 Polypedates leucomystax ……………………………………………………………............................ 68 Polypedates macrotis ……………………………………………………………….............................. 68 Polypedates otilophus ………………………………………………………………............................. 69 Rhacophorus achantharrhena ………………………………………………………............................ 69 Rhacophorus angulirostris …………………………………………………………............................. 70 Rhacophorus appendiculatus ……………………………………………………….............................. 71 Rhacophorus barisani ………………………………………………………………............................. 71 Rhacophorus bifasciatus ……………………………………………………………............................. 72 Rhacophorus catamitus ………………………………………………………………........................... 72 Rhacophorus cyanopunctatus……………………………………………………………................................ 73 Rhacophorus modestus ………………………………………………………………........................... 73 Rhacophorus nigropalmatus …………………………………………………………........................... 74 Rhacophorus pardalis ………………………………………………………………............................. 74 Rhacophorus poecilonotus ………………………………………………………….............................. 75 Rhacophorus prominanus ……………………………………………………………........................... 75 Rhacophorus reinwardtii ……………………………………………………………............................ 76 Rhacophorus sp1 ……………………………………………………………………............................ 77 Theloderma licin ……………………………………………………………………............................. 77 REPTILIA ………………………………………………………………………………............................ 78 Order OPHIDIA …………………………………………………………………………........................... 78 Family COLUBRIDAE ………………………………………................................................................... 78 Ahaetulla prasina ……………………………………………………………………............................ 78 Aplopeltura boa …………………………………………………………………….............................. 78 Asthenodipsas malaccanus ..................................................................................................................... 79 Boiga dendrophila ………………………………………………………………….............................. 79 Boiga cynodon ………………………………………………………………………............................ 80 Chrysopelea paradisi…………………………………………………………………………........................... 80 Dendrelaphis pictus …………………………………………………………………............................ 81 Lepturophis borneensis …………………………………………………………………….............................. 81 Liopeltis baliodeirus …………………………………………………………………........................... 82 Ptyas korros …………………………………………………………………………............................ 82 Ptyas mucosus ………………………………………………………………………............................. 83 Rhabdophis chrysargus ………………………………………………………………........................... 83 Rhabdophis trianguligerus …………………………………………………………............................. 84 Family ELAPIDAE …………………………………………………………………….............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cfreptiles & Amphibians
    WWW.IRCF.ORG TABLE OF CONTENTS IRCF REPTILES &IRCF AMPHIBIANS REPTILES • VOL &15, AMPHIBIANS NO 4 • DEC 2008 • 189 27(2):288–292 • AUG 2020 IRCF REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS CONSERVATION AND NATURAL HISTORY TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURE ARTICLES . Chasing BullsnakesAmphibians (Pituophis catenifer sayi) in Wisconsin: of the Melghat, On the Road to Understanding the Ecology and Conservation of the Midwest’s Giant Serpent ...................... Joshua M. Kapfer 190 . The Shared History of TreeboasMaharashtra, (Corallus grenadensis) and Humans on Grenada: India A Hypothetical Excursion ............................................................................................................................Robert W. Henderson 198 RESEARCH ARTICLES Hayat A. Qureshi and Gajanan A. Wagh . Biodiversity Research Laboratory,The Texas Horned Department Lizard in of Central Zoology, and ShriWestern Shivaji Texas Science ....................... College, Emily Amravati, Henry, Jason Maharashtra–444603, Brewer, Krista Mougey, India and Gad (gaj [email protected]) 204 . The Knight Anole (Anolis equestris) in Florida .............................................Brian J. Camposano,Photographs Kenneth L. Krysko, by the Kevin authors. M. Enge, Ellen M. Donlan, and Michael Granatosky 212 CONSERVATION ALERT . World’s Mammals in Crisis ............................................................................................................................................................. 220 . More Than Mammals .....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Character Assessment, Genus Level Boundaries, and Phylogenetic Analyses of the Family Rhacophoridae: a Review and Present Day Status
    Contemporary Herpetology ISSN 1094-2246 2000 Number 2 7 April 2000 CHARACTER ASSESSMENT, GENUS LEVEL BOUNDARIES, AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF THE FAMILY RHACOPHORIDAE: A REVIEW AND PRESENT DAY STATUS Jeffery A. Wilkinson ([email protected]) and Robert C. Drewes ([email protected]) Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118 Abstract. The first comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the family Rhacophoridae was conducted by Liem (1970) scoring 81 species for 36 morphological characters. Channing (1989), in a reanalysis of Liem’s study, produced a phylogenetic hypothesis different from that of Liem. We compared the two studies and produced a third phylogenetic hypothesis based on the same characters. We also present the synapomorphic characters from Liem that define the major clades and each genus within the family. Finally, we summarize intergeneric relationships within the family as hypothesized by other studies, and the family’s current status as it relates to other ranoid families. The family Rhacophoridae is comprised of over 200 species of Asian and African tree frogs that have been categorized into 10 genera and two subfamilies (Buergerinae and Rhacophorinae; Duellman, 1993). Buergerinae is a monotypic category that accommodates the relatively small genus Buergeria. The remaining genera, Aglyptodactylus, Boophis, Chirixalus, Chiromantis, Nyctixalus, Philautus, Polyp edates, Rhacophorus, and Theloderma, comprise Rhacophorinae (Channing, 1989). The family is part of the neobatrachian clade Ranoidea, which also includes the families Ranidae, Hyperoliidae, Dendrobatidae, Arthroleptidae, the genus Hemisus, and possibly the family Microhylidae. The Ranoidea clade is distinguished from other neobatrachians by the synapomorphic characters of completely fused epicoracoid cartilages, the medial end of the coracoid being wider than the lateral end, and the insertion of the semitendinosus tendon being dorsal to the m.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Anuran Species in Loboc Watershed of Bohol Island, Philippines
    Vol. 3 January 2012Asian Journal of Biodiversity Asian Journal of Biodiversity CHED Accredited Research Journal, Category A Art. #86, pp.126-141 Print ISSN 2094-1519 • Electronic ISSN 2244-0461 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7828/ajob.v3i1.86 Distribution of Anuran Species in Loboc Watershed of Bohol Island, Philippines REIZL P. JOSE [email protected] Bohol Island State University, Bilar Campus, Bohol, Philippines +63 928-3285009 Date Submitted: Jan. 8, 2011 Final Revision Accepted: March 14, 2011 Abstract - The Philippines is rich in biodiversity and Bohol Island is among the many places in the country requiring attention for conservation efforts. For this reason, a survey o f anurans was conducted in Loboc Watershed, the forest reserve in the island. Different sampling techniques were used. Three transect lines was established and were positioned perpendicular to water bodies parallel to the existing trails. A 10x10 meter quadrat size was established along each transect line. A visual encounter technique was used along each established quadrat and identification was done using a field guide. Fifteen species of anurans were recorded. One species belongs to families Bufonidae (Bufo marinus) and Megophryidae (Megophryis stejnegeri); two to family Microhylidae (Kalophrynus pleurostigma and Kaluola picta); six family Ranidae (Fejervarya cancrivora, Limnonectes leytensis, Limnonectes magnus, Platymantis guentheri, Playmantis corrugatus, and Rana grandocula) and five Rhacophoridae (Nyctixalus spinosus, Polypedates leucomystax leucomystax, Polypedates leucomystax quadrilineatus, Rhacophorus appendiculatus and Rhacoporus pardalis). The disturbed nature of the area still recorded endemic and threatened species. This suggests that forests and critical habitats in the area need to be protected and conserved. 126 Distribution of Anuran Species in Loboc Watershed..
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania Regional Focus
    November 2011 Vol. 99 www.amphibians.orgFrogLogNews from the herpetological community Regional Focus Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania INSIDE News from the ASG Regional Updates Global Focus Recent Publications General Announcements And More..... Spotted Treefrog Nyctixalus pictus. Photo: Leong Tzi Ming New The 2012 Sabin Members’ Award for Amphibian Conservation is now Bulletin open for nomination Board FrogLog Vol. 99 | November 2011 | 1 Follow the ASG on facebook www.facebook.com/amphibiansdotor2 | FrogLog Vol. 99| November 2011 g $PSKLELDQ$UN FDOHQGDUVDUHQRZDYDLODEOH 7KHWZHOYHVSHFWDFXODUZLQQLQJSKRWRVIURP $PSKLELDQ$UN¶VLQWHUQDWLRQDODPSKLELDQ SKRWRJUDSK\FRPSHWLWLRQKDYHEHHQLQFOXGHGLQ $PSKLELDQ$UN¶VEHDXWLIXOZDOOFDOHQGDU7KH FDOHQGDUVDUHQRZDYDLODEOHIRUVDOHDQGSURFHHGV DPSKLELDQDUN IURPVDOHVZLOOJRWRZDUGVVDYLQJWKUHDWHQHG :DOOFDOHQGDU DPSKLELDQVSHFLHV 3ULFLQJIRUFDOHQGDUVYDULHVGHSHQGLQJRQ WKHQXPEHURIFDOHQGDUVRUGHUHG±WKHPRUH \RXRUGHUWKHPRUH\RXVDYH2UGHUVRI FDOHQGDUVDUHSULFHGDW86HDFKRUGHUV RIEHWZHHQFDOHQGDUVGURSWKHSULFHWR 86HDFKDQGRUGHUVRIDUHSULFHGDW MXVW86HDFK 7KHVHSULFHVGRQRWLQFOXGH VKLSSLQJ $VZHOODVRUGHULQJFDOHQGDUVIRU\RXUVHOIIULHQGV DQGIDPLO\ZK\QRWSXUFKDVHVRPHFDOHQGDUV IRUUHVDOHWKURXJK\RXU UHWDLORXWOHWVRUIRUJLIWV IRUVWDIIVSRQVRUVRUIRU IXQGUDLVLQJHYHQWV" 2UGHU\RXUFDOHQGDUVIURPRXUZHEVLWH ZZZDPSKLELDQDUNRUJFDOHQGDURUGHUIRUP 5HPHPEHU±DVZHOODVKDYLQJDVSHFWDFXODUFDOHQGDU WRNHHSWUDFNRIDOO\RXULPSRUWDQWGDWHV\RX¶OODOVREH GLUHFWO\KHOSLQJWRVDYHDPSKLELDQVDVDOOSUR¿WVZLOOEH XVHGWRVXSSRUWDPSKLELDQFRQVHUYDWLRQSURMHFWV ZZZDPSKLELDQDUNRUJ FrogLog Vol. 99 | November
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Anchored Phylogenomics and Taxon Sampling on Phylogenetic Inference in Narrow-Mouthed Frogs (Anura, Microhylidae)
    Cladistics Cladistics (2015) 1–28 10.1111/cla.12118 The impact of anchored phylogenomics and taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference in narrow-mouthed frogs (Anura, Microhylidae) Pedro L.V. Pelosoa,b,*, Darrel R. Frosta, Stephen J. Richardsc, Miguel T. Rodriguesd, Stephen Donnellane, Masafumi Matsuif, Cristopher J. Raxworthya, S.D. Bijug, Emily Moriarty Lemmonh, Alan R. Lemmoni and Ward C. Wheelerj aDivision of Vertebrate Zoology (Herpetology), American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA; bRichard Gilder Graduate School, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA; cHerpetology Department, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia; dDepartamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociencias,^ Universidade de Sao~ Paulo, Rua do Matao,~ Trav. 14, n 321, Cidade Universitaria, Caixa Postal 11461, CEP 05422-970, Sao~ Paulo, Sao~ Paulo, Brazil; eCentre for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; fGraduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan; gSystematics Lab, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India; hDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA; iDepartment of Scientific Computing, Florida State University, Dirac Science Library, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4120, USA; jDivision of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA Accepted 4 February 2015 Abstract Despite considerable progress in unravelling the phylogenetic relationships of microhylid frogs, relationships among subfami- lies remain largely unstable and many genera are not demonstrably monophyletic.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessments in the B+WISER Sites
    Ecological Assessments in the B+WISER Sites (Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, Upper Marikina-Kaliwa Forest Reserve, Bago River Watershed and Forest Reserve, Naujan Lake National Park and Subwatersheds, Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park and Mt. Apo Natural Park) Philippines Biodiversity & Watersheds Improved for Stronger Economy & Ecosystem Resilience (B+WISER) 23 March 2015 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. The Biodiversity and Watersheds Improved for Stronger Economy and Ecosystem Resilience Program is funded by the USAID, Contract No. AID-492-C-13-00002 and implemented by Chemonics International in association with: Fauna and Flora International (FFI) Haribon Foundation World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Ecological Assessments in the B+WISER Sites Philippines Biodiversity and Watersheds Improved for Stronger Economy and Ecosystem Resilience (B+WISER) Program Implemented with: Department of Environment and Natural Resources Other National Government Agencies Local Government Units and Agencies Supported by: United States Agency for International Development Contract No.: AID-492-C-13-00002 Managed by: Chemonics International Inc. in partnership with Fauna and Flora International (FFI) Haribon Foundation World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) 23 March
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    HAMADRYAD Vol. 27. No. 2. August, 2003 Date of issue: 31 August, 2003 ISSN 0972-205X CONTENTS T. -M. LEONG,L.L.GRISMER &MUMPUNI. Preliminary checklists of the herpetofauna of the Anambas and Natuna Islands (South China Sea) ..................................................165–174 T.-M. LEONG & C-F. LIM. The tadpole of Rana miopus Boulenger, 1918 from Peninsular Malaysia ...............175–178 N. D. RATHNAYAKE,N.D.HERATH,K.K.HEWAMATHES &S.JAYALATH. The thermal behaviour, diurnal activity pattern and body temperature of Varanus salvator in central Sri Lanka .........................179–184 B. TRIPATHY,B.PANDAV &R.C.PANIGRAHY. Hatching success and orientation in Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) at Rushikulya Rookery, Orissa, India ......................................185–192 L. QUYET &T.ZIEGLER. First record of the Chinese crocodile lizard from outside of China: report on a population of Shinisaurus crocodilurus Ahl, 1930 from north-eastern Vietnam ..................193–199 O. S. G. PAUWELS,V.MAMONEKENE,P.DUMONT,W.R.BRANCH,M.BURGER &S.LAVOUÉ. Diet records for Crocodylus cataphractus (Reptilia: Crocodylidae) at Lake Divangui, Ogooué-Maritime Province, south-western Gabon......................................................200–204 A. M. BAUER. On the status of the name Oligodon taeniolatus (Jerdon, 1853) and its long-ignored senior synonym and secondary homonym, Oligodon taeniolatus (Daudin, 1803) ........................205–213 W. P. MCCORD,O.S.G.PAUWELS,R.BOUR,F.CHÉROT,J.IVERSON,P.C.H.PRITCHARD,K.THIRAKHUPT, W. KITIMASAK &T.BUNDHITWONGRUT. Chitra burmanica sensu Jaruthanin, 2002 (Testudines: Trionychidae): an unavailable name ............................................................214–216 V. GIRI,A.M.BAUER &N.CHATURVEDI. Notes on the distribution, natural history and variation of Hemidactylus giganteus Stoliczka, 1871 ................................................217–221 V. WALLACH.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles in Indonesia: Issues and Problems
    Copyright: © 2006 Iskandar and Erdelen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro- Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 4(1):60-87. duction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016 (2329KB PDF) The authors are responsible for the facts presented in this article and for the opinions expressed there- in, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organisation. The authors note that important literature which could not be incorporated into the text has been published follow- ing the drafting of this article. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems DJOKO T. ISKANDAR1 * AND WALTER R. ERDELEN2 1School of Life Sciences and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 10, Jalan Ganesa, Bandung 40132 INDONESIA 2Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences, UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, FRANCE Abstract.—Indonesia is an archipelagic nation comprising some 17,000 islands of varying sizes and geologi- cal origins, as well as marked differences in composition of their floras and faunas. Indonesia is considered one of the megadiversity centers, both in terms of species numbers as well as endemism. According to the Biodiversity Action Plan for Indonesia, 16% of all amphibian and reptile species occur in Indonesia, a total of over 1,100 species. New research activities, launched in the last few years, indicate that these figures may be significantly higher than generally assumed. Indonesia is suspected to host the worldwide highest numbers of amphibian and reptiles species.
    [Show full text]
  • Di Hutan Harapan, Jambi the Anuran Species (Amphibia)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Jurnal Biologi UNAND Jurnal Biologi Universitas Andalas (J. Bio. UA.) 1(2) – Desember 2012 : 99-107 Jenis-Jenis Anura (Amphibia) Di Hutan Harapan, Jambi The Anuran species (Amphibia) at Harapan Rainforest, Jambi Irvan Fadli Wanda1), Wilson Novarino2) dan Djong Hon Tjong3)*) 1)Laboratorium Riset Taksonomi Hewan, Jurusan Biologi, Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, Universitas Andalas, Padang, 25163 2)Museum Zoologi, Jurusan Biologi, Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, Universitas Andalas, Padang, 25163 3)Laboratorium Riset Genetika,. Jurusan Biologi, Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, Universitas Andalas, Padang, 25163 *)Koresponden: [email protected] Abstract An inventarisation of the Anuran species (Amphibia) at Harapan Rainforest, Jambi has been done from October 2011 to July 2012. We collected 127 samples from the field and made identification based on morphological characteristics. We identified 19 sepcies in which belong to five families i.e. Bufonidae (Phrynoidis asper Gravenhorst., Ingerophrynus parvus Boulenger., I. divergens Peters. and Pelophryne signata Boulenger.), Microhylidae (Kalophrynus pleurostigma Tschudi.), Dicroglossidae (Occidozyga sumatrana Peters., Fejervarya cancrivora Gravenhorst., F. limnocharis Boie., Limnonectes paramacrodon Boulenger., L. malesianus Kiew.), Ranidae (Hylarana erythraea Schlegel., H. parvaccola Peters., H. glandulosa Boulenger., H. nicobariensis Stolizka.,
    [Show full text]
  • Chamber Music: an Unusual Helmholtz Resonator for Song Amplification in a Neotropical Bush-Cricket (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) Thorin Jonsson1,*, Benedict D
    © 2017. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Journal of Experimental Biology (2017) 220, 2900-2907 doi:10.1242/jeb.160234 RESEARCH ARTICLE Chamber music: an unusual Helmholtz resonator for song amplification in a Neotropical bush-cricket (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) Thorin Jonsson1,*, Benedict D. Chivers1, Kate Robson Brown2, Fabio A. Sarria-S1, Matthew Walker1 and Fernando Montealegre-Z1,* ABSTRACT often a morphological challenge owing to the power and size of their Animals use sound for communication, with high-amplitude signals sound production mechanisms (Bennet-Clark, 1998; Prestwich, being selected for attracting mates or deterring rivals. High 1994). Many animals therefore produce sounds by coupling the amplitudes are attained by employing primary resonators in sound- initial sound-producing structures to mechanical resonators that producing structures to amplify the signal (e.g. avian syrinx). Some increase the amplitude of the generated sound at and around their species actively exploit acoustic properties of natural structures to resonant frequencies (Fletcher, 2007). This also serves to increase enhance signal transmission by using these as secondary resonators the sound radiating area, which increases impedance matching (e.g. tree-hole frogs). Male bush-crickets produce sound by tegminal between the structure and the surrounding medium (Bennet-Clark, stridulation and often use specialised wing areas as primary 2001). Common examples of these kinds of primary resonators are resonators. Interestingly, Acanthacara acuta, a Neotropical bush- the avian syrinx (Fletcher and Tarnopolsky, 1999) or the cicada cricket, exhibits an unusual pronotal inflation, forming a chamber tymbal (Bennet-Clark, 1999). In addition to primary resonators, covering the wings. It has been suggested that such pronotal some animals have developed morphological or behavioural chambers enhance amplitude and tuning of the signal by adaptations that act as secondary resonators, further amplifying constituting a (secondary) Helmholtz resonator.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Kalophrynus (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae) from Southern Peninsular Malaysia
    Zootaxa 3155: 38–46 (2012) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) A new species of Kalophrynus (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae) from Southern Peninsular Malaysia MASAFUMI MATSUI1,5, KANTO NISHIKAWA1, DAICUS M. BELABUT2,3, AHMAD NORHAYATI3,4 & HOI SEN YONG2 1Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan 2Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 3Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI),Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia 4Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia 5Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract A new microhylid, Kalophrynus limbooliati sp. nov., is described from the state of Johor, in the southern part of Peninsular Malaysia. Morphologically, the new species differs from all known congeners in the combination of medium body size; short fourth finger; two subarticular tubercles on fourth finger and none on the fifth toe; presence of light lateral stripe and dark inguinal spot; absence of nuptial pads and outer metatarsal tubercles. Acoustically, the new species clearly differs from all congeners whose calls have been reported, and resembles a syntopic ranid Hylarana laterimaculata with a long series of high-pitched whistle like notes. Key words: Kalophrynus, advertisement call, cryptic species, new species, Southeast Asia, taxonomy Introduction The microhylid frog genus Kalophrynus Tschudi, 1838 has a wide range from Southern China to Java, the Philip- pines, and Assam, India (Matsui 2009). Peninsular Malaysia is situated in the center of this distribution and four species of Kalophrynus have been recorded from there (K.
    [Show full text]
  • Title a New Tiny Kalophrynus (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae
    A New Tiny Kalophrynus (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae) Title from Northern Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo Author(s) Matsui, Masafumi; Nishikawa, Kanto Citation Current Herpetology (2011), 30(2): 145-153 Issue Date 2011-12 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/216838 Right © 2011 by The Herpetological Society of Japan Type Journal Article Textversion publisher Kyoto University Current Herpetology 30(2): 145–153, December 2011 doi 10.5358/hsj.30.145 © 2011 by The Herpetological Society of Japan A New Tiny Kalophrynus (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae) from Northern Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo MASAFUMI MATSUI* AND KANTO NISHIKAWA Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606–8501, JAPAN Abstract: A new microhylid frog is described from Bario, Kelabit Highlands of the State of Sarawak, in the Eastern Malaysia of Borneo Island. Morphologi- cally, the new species differs from all known congeners in the combination of small body size; short fourth finger without subarticular tubercle; absence of subarticular tubercles on fifth toe, and usually on first finger; presence of light lateral stripe and dark inguinal spot; absence of nuptial pads and outer metatarsal tubercles. Acoustically, the new species differs from all congeners whose calls have been reported, except for K. baluensis and K. yongi, with short unpulsed notes emitted intermittently. Key words: Advertisement call; Borneo; Kalophrynus; New species; Taxonomy INTRODUCTION ever, indicated validity of some taxa that have been synonymized with the others. The Oriental microhylid genus Kalophrynus Inger (1966) revised the genus and listed five Tschudi, 1838, occurs widely from Southern species from Borneo. Four additional species China to Java, the Philippines, and Assam, have since been described (Dring, 1984; Kiew, India and consists of small-sized terrestrial 1984; Das and Haas, 2003; Dehling, 2011), frogs that inhabit among leaf litters of the forest but another, undescribed species is still present floor.
    [Show full text]