BIHAREAN BIOLOGIST 13 (1): 39-41 ©Biharean Biologist, Oradea, Romania, 2019 Article No.: e181309 http://biozoojournals.ro/bihbiol/index.html
A new locality record of Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885 (Amphibia: Ranidae) in Western Anatolia, Turkey
Çetin ILGAZ1, Abdulmüttalip AKKAYA2 and Kerim ÇİÇEK3*
1. Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Buca-İzmir, Turkey. 2. Uludağ University, Faculty of Science and Arts, Department of Biology, Bursa-Turkey 3. Section of Zoology, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ege University, 35100, Izmir; Turkey. *Corresponding author, K. Çiçek, E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]
Received: 17. October 2018 / Accepted: 16. November 2018 / Available online: 19. November 2018 / Printed: June 2019
Abstract. The new locality for Rana macrocnemis is recorded from western Anatolia. Morphological characteristics of the mountain frogs were given in detail and compared with the specimens from Uludağ where the type locality of Rana macrocnemis.
Key words: Rana macrocnemis, new locality, distribution, Western Anatolia, Turkey
Introduction
Rana macrocnemis was first described from Uludağ, Bursa, Turkey (Boulenger 1885). Following year, another mountain frog (Rana camerani) was described from Georgia (Tabatskuri Lake and Akhalkalaki) (Boulenger 1886). The occurrence of the latter taxon in Anatolia (Erciyes Mountain, Kayseri) was given by Werner (1902). The distribution sites of the moun- tain frogs cover Anatolian and Caucasus Mountain chains with isolated population on the Strizhament Mountain in the Stavropolskii Region of Russia from sea level to 3.000 m a.s.l. (Kuzmin et al. 2009). The date they have been described until recently, various researchers (Boulenger 1898, Werner 1902, Lantz & Cyren 1913, Bodenheimer 1944, Mertens 1952, Başo- ğlu & Hellmich 1958, 1970, Eiselt 1965, Baran 1969, Eiselt & Schmidtler 1971, Ishchenko 1978, 1987, Baran & Atatür 1986, Tarknishvili et al. 1999, Tarknishvili & Gokhelashvili 1999, Picariello et al. 1999, Arıkan et al. 2001, Veith et al. 2003a, b, Çevik et al. 2006) expressed different opinions about the taxonomic status of the Anatolian and Caucasus mountain frogs. More recently, studies covering new locality records of the mountain frog were conducted in Turkey (Düşen et al. 2002, Baran et al. 2007, Afsar et al. 2013, Afsar et al. 2015). The main goal of this study is to present a detailed morpho- logical description of the specimens of mountain frog col- lected from new localities in the Western Anatolia. Figure 1. Distribution of Rana macrocnemis in western Turkey, show-
ing the known distribution according to literature, with a star for
Materials and Methods the new locality. Data from Baran (1969), Baran & Atatür (1986), Düşen et al. (2002), Afsar et al. (2013) (1. Uludağ, 2. Sündiken A total of six mountain frog specimens examined in present study Mountain, 3. Türkmen Mountain, 4. Emir Mountain, 5. Murat were collected from Eğrigöz Mountain, Emet, Kütahya (39°16’17”N; Mountain, 6. Fesleğen Plateu, Bey Mountains, 7. Bozdağ, 8. Alaçam 28°48’57’’E) inner part of western Anatolia at an altitude of 1.900 me- Mountain, 9. Eğrigöz Mountain). ters a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The specimens were caught by hand. The color- pattern characteristics of those specimens were noted, which were brought alive to the laboratory, and color photographs were taken. are as follows: snout-vent length (SVL), tibia length (TL), metatarsal The specimens were sexed by the presence/absence of a callus on tubercle length (CAL), head length (HL), head width (HW), orbito- the thumb. The materials were kept in the Zoology Museum of the tympanal distance (OTD), internarial distance (ID), external naris- Department of Biology at Science Faculty, Dokuz Eylül University, mouth slit distance (EMD), orbit diameter (OD) and tympanum di- Turkey. All specimens were anesthetized with ether, fixed with a ameter (TD). The indices [(TL/SVL)*100, (EMD/ID)*100, 96% ethanol injection and deposited in 96% ethanol as described in (OTD/TD)*100, (TD/HL)*100, (TD/ID)*100 and (MTL/TL)*1000] Başoğlu & Özeti (1973). were calculated from the morphological data. Comparative data 1-2♂♂, 3-6♀♀, Eğrigöz Mountain, Emet, Kütahya, Turkey, 30 July were obtained from specimens of the type localities of R. macrocnemis 2015, Leg. Abdulmüttalip Akkaya (Uludağ). In order to compare similarities and differences, inde- Morphologic data were recorded following the system of Ter- pendent samples t-test were applied to the morphometric characters entev & Chernov (1965), Baran (1969) and Baran & Atatür (1986). The of males and females. For statistical analyses, morphometric indices morphometric measurements were taken with dial calipers with an and ratios [(TL/SVL)*100, (EMD/ID)*100, (OTD/TD)*100, accuracy of 0.01 mm. The morphometric measurements used here (TD/HL)*100, (TD/ID)*100 and (MTL/TL)*1000] were used to test 40 Ç. Ilgaz et al. for similarities and differences. Indices and ratios were used due to an uncertainty regarding age groups and because it was not known whether growth was isometric or not. Data were examined for con- formation to assumption of normality (the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and homogeneity (Fmax). The morphometric indices that showed differences between sexes were excluded from further analysis. Later on, one-way ANOVA was applied to the morphomet- rics of the 2 populations according to morphometric indices and ra- tios that did not show sexual dimorphism between sexes.
Results
The specimens observed in presented study were collected from a small lake with a water surface of approximately 1 Figure 2. General view of specimen of Rana macrocnemis from ha. The lake was situated in the forest area with Oriental Eğrigöz Mountain, Emet, Kütahya. plane (Platanus orientalis) and savin juniper (Juniperus sabina). It includes dense vegetation. Sympatric amphibian species observed were Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771), Lissotriton foreleg in all of the male specimens. The morphometric vulgaris (Linnaeus, 1758) and Triturus ivanbureschi (Wielstra measurement data of the both sex were combined so the re- & Arntzen, 2014). sults of the independent-sample t test did not show signifi- The background coloration of the dorsum varied from light cant sexual dimorphism in any morphometric measurements brownish green to yellowish green color. The dorsolateral of the Eğrigöz Mountain and Uludağ populations. It was de- folds are well developed. While in 16.7% of the specimens termined differences in (OTD/TD)*100 and (MTL/TL)*1000 examined a vertebral stripe lighter than the dorsum was indices between the populations of Eğrigöz Mountain and clear, in 83.3% of the specimens a stripe on the dorsum was Uludağ (df = 16, p < 0.05, F = 5.638, and 18.131, respectively). absent. The throat comprises clearly visible dark spots in all In the population, the values for (OTD/TD)*100 is bigger specimens. The ventral side is pinkish gray in males and than in the Uludağ population (mean: 65.50), whereas those light pink in females without spots. The ground color of the for (MTL/TL)*1000 is smaller (mean: 93.58). Descriptive sta- underside of the femur is pinkish. On the back of the head, tistical data of the body measurements and indices are given there are two symmetrical dark spots which occasionally for both sexes collectively in Table 1. SVL ranged from 37.96 merge, forming a pattern like an inverted letter V. The spots to 63.50 mm (mean = 46.37 mm), TL ranged from 23.61 to are generally small and symmetrical (66.7% - 4 specimens), 36.98 mm (mean = 28.58 mm), MTL from 1.65 to 2.92 mm while there are also large and asymmetrical spots presents (mean = 2.16 mm), HL from 12.96 to 20.36 mm (mean = 15.60 on the back side of the specimens (33.3% - 2 specimens). Skin mm), HW from 13.46 to 23.86 (mean = 16.78 mm), OTD from of the dorsum was granulated (Fig. 2). 1.58 to 2.80 mm (mean = 2.15 mm), ID from 3.44 to 4.53 mm When the extended hind leg is bent forward, in the adult (mean = 4.13 mm), EMD from 2.61 to 4.60 mm (mean = 3.34 specimens, the tibiotarsal joint projects the tip of the snout in mm), OD from 4.48 to 7.83 mm (mean = 5.86 mm) and TD all specimens. There is a swelling on the first digit of the from 2.78 to 4.37 mm (mean = 3.31 mm) (Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the Rana macrocnemis specimens used in the present study (N: number of specimens; min: minimum value; max: maximum value; SD: standard deviation; SE: standard error of the mean; for other abbreviations see text).
Eğrigöz Mountain population Uludağ population N Mean Min. Max. SD SE N Mean Min. Max. SD SE SVL 6 46.37 37.69 63.50 10.20 4.17 11 54.21 36.52 67.77 9.91 2.99 TL 6 28.58 23.61 36.98 5.41 2.21 11 31.93 19.19 40.68 6.82 2.06 CAL 6 2.16 1.65 2.92 0.45 0.18 11 2.99 1.87 4.60 0.76 0.23 HL 6 15.60 12.96 20.36 3.01 1.23 11 17.44 12.74 20.95 2.60 0.78 HW 6 16.78 13.46 23.86 4.24 1.73 11 18.76 13.23 23.94 3.21 0.97 OTD 6 2.15 1.58 2.80 0.41 0.17 11 2.24 1.43 3.54 0.68 0.21 ID 6 4.13 3.44 4.53 0.40 0.16 11 4.65 3.62 6.03 0.88 0.26 EMD 6 3.34 2.61 4.60 0.80 0.33 11 3.75 2.83 4.89 0.43 0.13 OD 6 5.86 4.48 7.83 1.28 0.52 11 5.70 4.02 7.66 1.02 0.31 TD 6 3.31 2.78 4.37 0.66 0.27 11 3.63 2.38 4.89 0.82 0.25 (TL/SVL)*100 6 61.92 58.24 63.01 1.83 0.75 11 58.59 52.55 64.93 3.13 0.94 (EMD/ID)*100 6 81.33 59.05 105.75 19.31 7.88 11 82.49 61.86 106.20 14.58 4.40 (OTD/TD)*100 6 65.50 53.78 74.82 8.61 3.51 11 61.68 43.52 82.90 12.29 3.71 (TD/HL)*100 6 21.21 19.83 22.06 0.76 0.31 11 20.68 16.71 23.34 2.24 0.67 (TD/ID)*100 6 80.26 62.90 100.46 14.52 5.93 11 78.04 59.80 92.03 10.19 3.07 (MTL/TL)*1000 6 75.400 67.40 83.75 6.26 2.56 11 93.58 81.20 113.66 9.30 2.81
Distribution of Rana macrocnemis in Turkey 41
Discussion Arıkan, H., Olgun, K., Tok, C.V., Çevik, İ. E. (2001): Morphological and serological investigations on the Mountain frogs of the Mid-Taurus range between east longitudes 33° and 36°. Turkish Journal of Zoology 25: 141–145. Currently, the occurrence of three species of the mountain Baran, İ. (1969): Anadolu dağ kurbağaları üzerinde sistematik araştırma. Ege frog in Anatolia are assuming (Rana macrocnemis, R. holtzi Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi, İlmi Raporlar Serisi 80: 1–78. [in Turkish] and R. tavasensis), the debate on their taxonomic status has Baran, İ., Atatür, M.K. (1986): A taxonomical survey of the mountain frogs of Anatolia. Amphibia-Reptilia 7: 115–133. been still continued. Lantz & Cyren (1913) and Bodenheimer Baran, İ., Ilgaz, Ç., Kumlutaş, Y., Olgun, K., Avcı, A., İret, F. (2007): On new (1944) considered that Rana macrocnemis and R. camerani to populations of Rana holtzi and Rana macrocnemis (Ranidae: Anura). Turkish be identical. The detailed study including large number of Journal of Zoology 31: 1–7. Başoğlu, M., Hellmich, W. (1958): Auf herpetologischer forschungsfahrt in Ost- samples based on external morphology, three distinct moun- Anatolien. Die Aquarien- und Terrarien-zeitschrift 12: 118–121. tain frog species were accepted to inhabit in Anatolia: R. Başoğlu, M., Hellmich, W. (1970): Amphibien und Reptilien aus dem östlichen holtzi, R. macrocnemis and R. camerani (Baran 1969). In addi- Anatolien. Ege Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi, İlmi Raporlar Serisi, 93: 1–26. Başoğlu, M., Özeti, N. (1973): Türkiye Amphibileri. İzmir, Turkey, Ege tion to previously known localities, the specimens from new Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Kitaplar Serisi. [in Turkish] localities from different part of Anatolia was evaluated in Bodenheimer, F. S. (1944): Introduction into the knowledge of the Amphibia term of morphological characters and a new subspecies was and Reptilia of Turkey. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Mecmuası 9(1): described (R. macrocnemis tavasensis) from Mt. Akdağ, 1–110. Boulenger, G. A. (1885): Description of a new species of frog from Asia Minor. Denizli, western Anatolia by (Baran & Atatür 1986). Based Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1885: 22–23. on the morphological studies from Georgia, R. camerani was Boulenger, G. A. (1886): Note sur les Grenouilles rousses d´Asie. Bullettin accepted to subspecies of R. macrocnemis (Tarknishvili et al. Society Zoologie France 11: 595–600. Boulenger, G. A. (1898): The tailless batrachians of Europe. Part II. London, 1999). According to results of S1 satellite DNA and mor- United Kingdom, Ray Society. phology, three known mountain frog species was considered Çevik, İ. E., Arıkan, H., Kaya, U., Atatür, M. K. (2006): Comparative as single species (R. macrocnemis) (Picariello et al. 1999). Ex- morphological and serological studies of three Anatolian Mountain frogs, Rana macrocnemis, R. camerani and R. holtzi (Anura, Ranidae). Amphibia- cept some pattern and coloration difference, Arıkan et al. Reptilia 27: 63–71. (2001) stated that three populations from southern Anatolia Düşen, S., Öz, M., Tunç, M. R. (2002): A new locality for Rana camerani (Çamlıyayla, Bolkar Mountain and Aladağ Mountain) did Boulenger, 1886 (Anura: Ranidae) in Turkey. Russian Journal of Herpetology 9(2): 135–136. not show any difference except some pattern and coloration Eiselt, J. (1965): Einige Amphibien und Reptilien aus der nordöstlichen Türkei, according to results of external morphology and serology. gesammelt von Herrn h. Steiner. Annalen des naturhistorischen Museums Veith et al. (2003a, b) regarded that the mountain frog spe- Wien 68: 387–399. cies inhabiting in Anatolia (R. macrocnemis, R. camerani and Eiselt, J., Schmidtler, J. F. (1971): Vorläufige Mitteilung über zwei neue Subspezies von Amphibia salientia aus dem Iran. Annalen des R. holtzi) should be evaluated as conspecific and considered naturhistorischen Museums Wien 75: 383-385. the taxa tavasensis Baran & Atatür, 1986. Çevik et al. (2006) Ischchenko, V.G. (1978): Dynamic polymorphism of the brown frogs of USSR evaluated mountain frog specimens from Uludağ, Erciyes fauna. Moscow, Russia, Nauka. [in Russian] Ischchenko, V.G. (1987): The level of morphological similarity between the Mountain, and Karagöl using morphological features and populations of the Caucasus brown frog, Rana macrocnemis Blgr. Proceedings electrophoresis. They stated that R. camerani from Erciyes of the Zoological Institute158: 100-104 (In Russian). Mountain should be recognized as a synonym of R. mac- Kuzmin, S., Tarkhnishvili, D., Ischchenko, V.G., Ananjeva, N., Orlov, N., Tuniyev, B., Sparrebom, M., Uğurtaş, İ., Rastegar-Pouyani, N., Papenfuss, T., rocnemis. Anderson, S., Eken, G., Kılıç, T., Gem, E., Kaya, U. (2009): Rana macrocenmis. In the present study, the typical morphological charac- in: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2 teristics of mountain frog of the Eğrigöz Mountain are as fol-
group. Herpetologica 55 (3): 406–417. Tarkhnishvili, D., Gokhelashvili, R. K. (1999): The amphibians of the Caucasus. Sofia, Bulgaria, Pensoft Publications. Acknowledgment. The authors wish to acknowledge using of Terentev, P.V., Chernov, A.A. (1965): Key to amphibians and reptiles. 3rd Maptool program for analysis and graphics in this paper. Maptool is edition. Jersusalem, Israel, Israel Program for Scientific Translations Ltd. a product of Seaturtle.org (information is available at Veith, M., Kosuch, J., Vences, M. (2003a): Climatic oscillations triggered post- Messinean speciation of Western Palearctic brown frogs (Amphibia, Anura, www.seaturtle.org). Ranidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 26: 310–327. Veith, M., Schmidtler, J., Kosuch, J., Baran, I., Seitz, A. (2003b): Palaeoclimatic changes explain Anatolian mountain frog evolution. A test for alternating vicariance and dispersal events. Molecular Ecology 12: 185–199. References Werner, F. (1902): Die Reptilien- und Amphibienfauna von Kleinasien. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch- Afsar, M., Afsar, B., Arıkan, H. (2013): Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885, from Naturwissenschaftliche 111: 1057–1121. the Emir Mountains in western inner Anatolia (Turkey). Herpetozoa 26 (3/4): 115–123. Afsar, M., Afsar, B., Arıkan, H. (2015): Classification of the mountain frogs of the Berçelan Plateau (Hakkari), east Anatolia (Turkey). Herpetozoa 28 (1/2): 15–27.