Megophrys (Xenophrys) medogensis Fei, Ye and Huang 1983

Megophrys (Xenophrys) medogensis Fei, Ye and Huang, 1983

(Figure 13)

Megophrys omeimontis medogensis Fei, Ye and Huang 1983:49 In: Two new subspecies of Megophrys omeimontis Liu from China (Amphibia, Pelobatidae). Acta Herpetologica Sinica, New Series, 2(2): 49–52.

Holotype. Adult male (CIB 73 II0015: Figure 13), from “Motuo, Xizang, alt. 1000m ” (= Medog [or Motuo] town [~ 29°19'56"N, 95°20'27"E], Medog County, Nyingtri Prefecture, Tibet [or Xizang] Autonomous Region, China), collectors presumably Fei, Hu, Ye and Wu on 17 July 1973 (Fei et al. 1977).

Paratypes [not examined]. 16 adult males, one juvenile and some tadpoles (CIB specimen numbers not provided), “collected from the same locality, alt. 850–1350m ”, collectors as above, including Huang, on 17–24 July 1973 and 21 July–5 August 1977 (Fei et al. 1977).

Examined specimens. Adult male (CIB 73II 0015: images only: Figure 13), holotype.

Holotype description. Refer to Fei et al. 1983 for the holotype description. For additional details of colouration and markings, see figures in Zhao et al. (2005), Fei et al. (2010, 2012) and Li et al. (2010) of specimens from the type locality.

Systematic position. Refer to the Systematic position section above for M. robusta.

Morphological comparison. Adult body size ranges provided for M. medogensis are from Fei et al. (2009) (adult males, N =16).

Megophrys medogensis differs from M. monticola and M. zhangi by its much larger adult body size, male SVL 57.2–68.0 mm (vs. male SVL 38.2–49.5 mm, N =17; male SVL 32.5–37.2 mm, N =3, respectively); differs from M. mangshanensis by absence of white upper lip stripe (vs. present); differs from M. robusta by its smaller adult male size, SVL 57.2–68.0 mm (vs. male SVL 73.5–83.1 mm, N =6). For comparisons with additional species covered in this study, refer to relevant morphological comparison sections for those species.

Etymology. The specific epithet “ medogensis ” is a toponym, derived from the type locality of Medog county.

Suggested common name: Medog Horned Frog.

Distribution. Megophrys medogensis is currently known with certainty from the type locality (Figure 8A) “Medog”, between 850 and 1350 m elevation (Fei et al. 1983, 2012). This species has also been reported from the southern slopes of Mt. Namjagbarwa (or Namcha Barwa) adjacent to Medog town (Zhao & Li 1987). Additional localities in Yunnan Province, China on the distribution map provided by Fei et al. (2009) are erroneous (see Remarks below). The type locality is situated near to the northern border of the Upper Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh state, Northeast India, where this species is likely to be present at similar elevation.

Habitat and natural history. At the type locality, males were reported to frequent leaf litter and small streams in forests, and were heard vocalising especially on nights with clear skies (14 July–08 August). Tadpoles allocated to this species were collected from amongst rocks at the base of a waterfall of a small stream (Fei et al. 2009), but the authors did not justify how they identified the tadpoles.

Remarks. In the English abstract of the original description, Fei et al. (1983) only provided a brief comparison of this species with M. omeimontis Liu, 1950 and M. jingdongensis Fei and Ye, 1983 (in Fei et al. 1983), congeners that they determined to be morphologically most similar to M. medogensis. The abstract provided the name as “ Megophrys omeimontis motuoensis ”, but elsewhere in the text the name was provided as “ Megophrys omeimontis medogensis ”, indicating that the name in the abstract was an accidental erroneous spelling (also noted by Zhao & Adler 1993). Fei et al. (1983) provided a line drawing of the profile view of the head and ventral view of the foot, but not measurements of specimens. Fei et al. (2009) provided a table of measurements for the type series, and Fei et al. (2010) provided low-resolution photos of the holotype in preservation. Zhao et al. (2005), Fei et al. (2010, 2012), and Li et al. (2010) provided images of live individuals.

Fei et al. (2009) included a distribution map showing several localities in Yunnan province for Megophrys medogensis but did not provide their source (neither publications nor specimens) for these additional localities. In Fei et al. ’s (2009) book, the species Megophrys jingdongensis is accompanied by a distribution map that is identical to the one provided for M. medogensis, but without the locality “Medog” marked. Thus it is likely that the Yunnan localities for M. medogensis are the result of printing error, and should not be considered for this species’ distribution. Fei et al. (2012) provided a map for this species including only the type locality, indirectly correcting the error of Fei et al. (2009).