| Literature DB >> 32547290 |
Angelica Crottini1, Gonçalo M Rosa2,3, Samuel G Penny4, Walter Cocca1, Marc W Holderied5, Lovasoa M S Rakotozafy6, Franco Andreone7.
Abstract
A new species of the miniaturised microhylid frog genus Stumpffia, from north-western Madagascar, is described. Stumpffia froschaueri sp. nov. differs from all other described Stumpffia species in colouration and morphology and is genetically divergent (≥ 7% uncorrected p-distance to all other nominal species of the genus) in a fragment of the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene and in a segment of the nuclear Rag-1 gene. The new species is reliably known only from a few specimens collected in the Sahamalaza (and surroundings) region. Its known distribution is limited to three forest patches severely threatened by fire, drought and high levels of forest clearance, thus suggesting a classification of "Critically Endangered" according to IUCN Red List criteria. Angelica Crottini, Gonçalo M. Rosa, Samuel G. Penny, Walter Cocca, Marc W. Holderied, Lovasoa M. S. Rakotozafy, Franco Andreone.Entities:
Keywords: Amphibia ; Angorony Forest; Conservation; Stumpffia froschaueri sp. nov.; UNESCO Sahamalaza – îles Radama Biosphere Reserve
Year: 2020 PMID: 32547290 PMCID: PMC7285848 DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.933.47619
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Zookeys ISSN: 1313-2970 Impact factor: 1.546
Figure 1.Life colouration of sp. nov. A dorsolateral view of holotype ZSM 169/2019 (ACZCV 0940) from Anketsakely (Anabohazo Forest) B dorsolateral view of paratype ZSM 166/2019 (ACZCV 0939) from Ankarafa Forest C dorsolateral view of paratype ZSM 168/2019 (ACZCV 0966) from Ankarafa Forest D dorsolateral view of paratype ZSM 167/2019 (ACZCV 0968) from Ankarafa Forest. Pictures by Gonçalo M. Rosa
Morphometric measurements (in mm) and Institutional Catalogue number of the specimens of sp. nov. For abbreviations of variables, see methods. Key: F, female; na, not available.
| Species | Locality | Catalogue number | Sex |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sahamalaza, Anabohazo Forest, Anketsakely | F | 12.8 | 4 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 2.4 | 5.9 | 17.6 | 7.6 | 4.9 | |
| ( | ||||||||||||||||
|
| Sahamalaza, Ankarafa Forest | Undetermined | 8.9 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 12.4 | 6.1 | 3.9 | |
| ( | ||||||||||||||||
|
| Sahamalaza, Ankarafa Forest | Undetermined | 7.6 | 2.9 | 2.1 | na | 1.1 | na | na | na | 1.3 | 4.1 | 9.6 | 5 | 3.7 | |
| ( | ||||||||||||||||
|
| Sahamalaza, Ankarafa Forest | Undetermined | 7.8 | 2.7 | 1.8 | na | 1.4 | na | na | na | 1.2 | 4.5 | 10.9 | 4.7 | 2.8 | |
| ( |
Estimates of evolutionary divergence over sequence pairs of Clade A of the genus in the analysed 3-16S fragment. The number of base differences per site from averaging over all sequence pairs between groups is shown (p-distance transformed into percent). This analysis involved 24 nucleotide sequences. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). There were a total of 528 positions in the final dataset. Pairwise distances calculated for intra- (in bold) and inter-specific genetic divergence. n.c. (not calculated). Highlighted in grey, values above 8%. Analyses were conducted in MEGA 7.0.21 (Kumar et al. 2016).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
| 12.3% |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| 10.8% | 7.3% |
| ||||||||||||||||
|
| 11.1% | 8.5% | 3.8% |
| |||||||||||||||
|
| 11.2% | 8.6% | 4.9% | 3.7% |
| ||||||||||||||
|
| 10.1% | 10% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 10% |
| |||||||||||||
|
| 9.9% | 8.1% | 7.3% | 7.9% | 7.8% | 5.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| 8.8% | 8.4% | 7.4% | 8.3% | 8.4% | 5.6% | 4.4% |
| ||||||||||||
|
| 7.8% | 8.5% | 7.7% | 7.5% | 8.7% | 7.6% | 6.2% | 6.6% | |||||||||||
| 9.9% | 9.8% | 8.4% | 8.1% | 10.3% | 7.3% | 6.3% | 6.8% | 5.7% |
| ||||||||||
|
| 11.4% | 9.9% | 7.9% | 9.1% | 8.7% | 9.5% | 7.5% | 7.1% | 8.6% | 9.1% | |||||||||
|
| 10.5% | 10.0% | 9.1% | 9.2% | 9.1% | 10.0% | 8.9% | 7.9% | 8.3% | 10.5% | 7.9% |
| |||||||
| 9.3% | 8.4% | 7.9% | 8.4% | 7.9% | 8.6% | 6.9% | 7.2% | 7.0% | 8.0% | 6.0% | 8.5% |
| |||||||
|
| 9.1% | 9.4% | 9.1% | 7.9% | 9.3% | 9.4% | 8.4% | 8.0% | 7.9% | 9.4% | 7.2% | 7.3% | 6.9% |
| |||||
|
| 11.2% | 10.3% | 10.3% | 8.5% | 9.8% | 9.0% | 9.0% | 9.4% | 9.3% | 9.0% | 8.1% | 8.7% | 7.4% | 4.2% |
| ||||
|
| 11.1% | 10.5% | 10.4% | 10.4% | 11.1% | 10.3% | 10.0% | 8.9% | 9.9% | 11.0% | 8.5% | 8.5% | 8.5% | 5.1% | 6.6% |
| |||
|
| 9.6% | 9.9% | 9.5% | 10.5% | 9.7% | 9.7% | 8.7% | 8.6% | 9.1% | 10.6% | 7.4% | 7.1% | 6.9% | 6.5% | 6.9% | 5.5% |
| ||
|
| 8.9% | 8.6% | 7.7% | 8.1% | 8.6% | 8.3% | 7.9% | 6.5% | 8.2% | 9.0% | 6.2% | 7.5% | 6.9% | 4.6% | 5.3% | 2.8% | 3.7% |
| |
|
| 9.3% | 9.2% | 8.7% | 8.6% | 9.1% | 8.5% | 7.7% | 7.1% | 8.5% | 9.9% | 6.9% | 7.1% | 7.1% | 4.2% | 6.0% | 3.5% | 5.0% | 1.9% |
|
Figure 2.50% majority rule consensus tree; Phylogram from a Bayesian Inference analysis of all the available nominal species and candidate new species of Clade A of the genus . Based on 1149 bp of the mitochondrial 3-16S and 5-16S gene fragments. Asterisks mark posterior probabilities: (*) 0.85–0.94, * 0.95–0.98, ** 0.99–1. Scale bar: 0.01 substitutions per site.
Figure 4.Haplotype network reconstruction (based on 323 bp, haplotypes inferred using the Phase algorithm); all available Rag-1 sequences for the nominal and candidate new species of Clade A of the genus (sensuRakotoarison et al. 2017) were used. Small dots represent unsampled or extinct haplotypes, whereas bars represent mutational steps. Overlapping Rag-1 fragment of , and sp. Ca07 were not available.
Figure 3.Voucher colouration of sp. nov. A dorsal and B ventral views of the preserved holotype of (ZSM 169/2019; ACZCV 0940), and ventral surfaces of C hand and D foot. Scale bars: 10 mm; hand and foot not to scale.