identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
830106F4986C5C3EACC30877509FDA7D.text	830106F4986C5C3EACC30877509FDA7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glyphoglossus Guenther 1869	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> 
Glyphoglossus 
Guenther
, 1869
</p>
            <p>Synonymy</p>
            <p>(fide Frost 2020).</p>
            <p> Glyphoglossus Günther , 1869  “1868” . Type species:  Glyphoglossus molossus Günther , 1869  “1868,” by monotypy. </p>
            <p> Calluella Stoliczka, 1872. Type species:  Megalophrys guttulata Blyth, 1856  “1855,” by original designation. </p>
            <p> Colpoglossus Boulenger, 1904. Type species:  Colpoglossus brooksi Boulenger, 1904, by monotypy. </p>
            <p> Dyscophina Van Kampen, 1905. Type species:  Dyscophina volzi Van Kampen, 1905, by monotypy. </p>
            <p> Calliglutus Barbour &amp; Noble, 1916. Type species:  Calliglutus smithi Barbour &amp; Noble, 1916, by monotypy. </p>
            <p> Kalluella Gee &amp; Boring, 1929. Ex errore. </p>
            <p>Etymology.</p>
            <p> The genus name is derived from the Ancient Greek  γλυφή (  gluphé ), meaning "a carving," and Greek  γλῶσσα (glossa), meaning  “tongue.”</p>
            <p>Common name.</p>
            <p>Balloon Frogs.</p>
            <p>Taxonomic content.</p>
            <p> Nine species, including:  G. brooksii (Boulenger, 1904);  G. capsus (Das, Min, Hsu, Hertwig &amp; Haas, 2014);  G. flavus (Kiew, 1984);  G. guttulatus (Blyth, 1856);  G. minutus (Das, Yaakob &amp; Lim, 2004);  G. molossus Günther , 1869;  G. smithi (Barbour &amp; Noble, 1916);  G. volzi (Van Kampen, 1905); and  G. yunnanensis (Boulenger, 1919). </p>
            <p>Revised diagnosis.</p>
            <p> Glyphoglossus Günther , 1869 differs from other  Microhylinae genera by the combination of the following osteological characters: (1) frontoparietals separated from exoccipitals (fused to them in  G. molossus ); (2) exoccipitals separated from each other; (3) neopalatines obscured by a postchoanal portion of vomers; (4) sphenethmoids separated from parasphenoid; (5) crista parotica ossified; (6) otic ramus of squamosal well-developed; (7) tympanic annulus well-developed; (8) orientation of transverse processes of presacral vertebrae as follows: IV and V posterolateral, II, VII and VIII anterolateral, III and VI at right angle to body axis (in  G. molossus IV posterolateral, II, VI-VIII anterolateral, III and V at right angle to body axis); (9) clavicles present (absent in  G. molossus ); (10) omosternum absent; (11) prehallux ossified; (12) terminal phalanges of the longest finger and toe simple. The combination of diagnostic external morphological characters includes: (13) large to medium-sized frogs (adult SVL 30.9-94.9 mm); (14) snout rounded or bluntly flattened; (15) supratympanic fold present; (16) ridge on posterior margins of choanae poorly developed or absent; (17) first finger (FI) length greater than  ½ FII; (18) discs on digits absent; (19) two metatarsal tubercles; (20) dorsomedial line absent; (21) superciliary tubercles absent; (22) tibiotarsal articulation of the adpressed hindlimb reaching eye or shorter; (23) toe webbing moderately developed (at least one-third webbed, in  G. molossus three-quarters webbed); (24) skin on dorsum from feebly granular to tubercular; (25) external tympanum invisible; (26) fossorial microhabitat preference. </p>
            <p>Phylogenetic definition.</p>
            <p> The genus  Glyphoglossus includes all species sharing a more recent common ancestor with  Glyphoglossus molossus than with  Microhyla achatina and  Nanohyla annectens . </p>
            <p>Distribution.</p>
            <p>From south-western China across Indochina to Myanmar, Thai-Malay Peninsula, islands of Sumatra and Borneo (Fig. 1).</p>
            <p>Taxonomic comment.</p>
            <p> Until recently  Glyphoglossus was considered to be a monotypic genus, until it was synonymized with  Calluella based on phylogenetic data of Peloso et al. (2016). However, available phylogenetic studies (Tu et al. 2018; Garg and Biju 2019; Gorin et al. 2020) have not all included comprehensive sampling of Sundaland species (e.g.,  C. volzi ,  C. smithi ,  C. flavus , and  C. brooksi ). In our opinion, the variable taxonomic sampling included in previous analyses (Matsui et al. 2011; Peloso et al. 2016; Tu et al. 2018; Garg and Biju 2019; Gorin et al. 2020) creates uncertainty which, along with the significant morphological disparity among  G. molossus and the other species of  Glyphoglossus examined (Parker et al. 1934), suggests that the generic taxonomy of the group may not be fully resolved. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/830106F4986C5C3EACC30877509FDA7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Gorin, Vladislav A.;Scherz, Mark D.;Korost, Dmitriy V.;Poyarkov, Nikolay A.	Gorin, Vladislav A., Scherz, Mark D., Korost, Dmitriy V., Poyarkov, Nikolay A. (2021): Consequences of parallel miniaturisation in Microhylinae (Anura, Microhylidae), with the description of a new genus of diminutive South East Asian frogs. Zoosystematics and Evolution 97 (1): 21-54, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.97.57968, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.97.57968
045DB91529295F338B0E0D7FF04A2884.text	045DB91529295F338B0E0D7FF04A2884.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microhyla Tschudi 1838	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Microhyla Tschudi, 1838</p>
            <p>Synonymy</p>
            <p>(fide Frost 2020).</p>
            <p> Microhyla Tschudi, 1838. Type species. "  Hylaplesia achatina Boie, 1827" (nomen nudum) (=  Microhyla achatina Tschudi, 1838), by monotypy. </p>
            <p> Micrhyla Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1841. Ex errore. </p>
            <p> Siphneus Fitzinger, 1843. Type species:  Engystoma ornatum Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1841. </p>
            <p> Dendromanes Gistel, 1848. Nomen substitutum for  Microhyla Tschudi, 1838. </p>
            <p> Diplopelma Günther , 1859. Nomen substitutum for  Siphneus Fitzinger, 1843. </p>
            <p> Scaptophryne Fitzinger, 1861  “1860.” Type species:  Scaptophryne labyrinthica Fitzinger, 1861  “1860” (nomen nudum). </p>
            <p> Copea Steindachner, 1864. Type species:  Copea fulva Steindachner, 1864. </p>
            <p> Ranina David, 1872  “1871” . Type species:  Ranina symetrica David, 1871, by monotypy. Junior homonym of  Ranina Lamarck, 1801. </p>
            <p>Etymology.</p>
            <p> The genus name is derived from the Greek  μικρός (mikros), meaning  “small,” and " Hylas " (for origin of this name see above). </p>
            <p>Common name.</p>
            <p>Narrow-mouthed Frogs.</p>
            <p>Taxonomic content.</p>
            <p> 42 species:  M. achatina Tschudi, 1838;  M. aurantiventris Nguyen, Poyarkov, Nguyen, Nguyen, Tran, Gorin, Murphy &amp; Nguyen, 2019;  M. beilunensis Zhang, Fei, Ye, Wang, Wang &amp; Jiang, 2018;  M. berdmorei (Blyth, 1856);  M. borneensis Parker, 1928;  M. butleri Boulenger, 1900;  M. chakrapanii Pillai, 1977;  M. darevskii Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova &amp; Geissler, 2014;  M. darreli Garg, Suyesh, Das, Jiang, Wijayathilaka, Amarasinghe, Alhadi, Vineeth, Aravind, Senevirathne, Meegaskumbura &amp; Biju, 2019;  M. eos Biju, Garg, Kamei &amp; Maheswaran, 2019;  M. fanjingshanensis Li, Zhang, Xu, Lv &amp; Jiang, 2019;  M. fissipes Boulenger, 1884;  M. fodiens Poyarkov, Gorin, Zaw, Kretova, Gogoleva, Pawangkhanant &amp; Che, 2019;  M. gadjahmadai Atmaja, Hamidy, Arisuryanti, Matsui &amp; Smith, 2018;  M. heymonsi Vogt, 1911;  M. irrawaddy Poyarkov, Gorin, Zaw, Kretova, Gogoleva, Pawangkhanant &amp; Che, 2019;  M. karunaratnei Fernando &amp; Siriwardhane, 1996;  M. kodial Vineeth, Radhakrishna, Godwin, Anwesha, Rajashekhar &amp; Aravind, 2018;  M. laterite Seshadri, Singal, Priti, Ravikanth, Vidisha, Saurabh, Pratik &amp; Gururaja, 2016;  M. malang Matsui, 2011;  M. mantheyi Das, Yaakob &amp; Sukumaran, 2007;  M. mihintalei Wijayathilaka, Garg, Senevirathne, Karunarathna, Biju &amp; Meegaskumbura, 2016;  M. minuta Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova &amp; Geissler, 2014;  M. mixtura Liu &amp; Hu in Hu et al. 1966;  M. mukhlesuri Hasan, Islam, Kuramoto, Kurabayashi &amp; Sumida, 2014;  M. mymensinghensis Hasan, Islam, Kuramoto, Kurabayashi &amp; Sumida, 2014;  M. nepenthicola Das &amp; Haas, 2010;  M. nilphamariensis Howlader, Nair, Gopalan &amp;  Merilä , 2015;  M. okinavensis Stejneger, 1901;  M. orientalis Matsui, Hamidy &amp; Eto, 2013;  M. ornata (  Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1841);  M. palmipes Boulenger, 1897;  M. picta Schenkel, 1901;  M. pineticola Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova &amp; Geissler, 2014;  M. pulchra (Hallowell, 1861);  M. rubra (Jerdon, 1854);  M. sholigari Dutta &amp; Ray, 2000;  M. superciliaris Parker, 1928;  M. taraiensis Khatiwada, Shu, Wang, Thapa, Wang &amp; Jiang, 2017;  M. tetrix Suwannapoom, Pawangkhanant, Gorin, Juthong &amp; Poyarkov, 2020;  M. zeylanica Parker &amp; Osman-Hill, 1949; and, tentatively,  M. maculifera Inger, 1989. </p>
            <p>Revised diagnosis.</p>
            <p> Microhyla s. str. differs from all other  Microhylinae genera by the following combination of osteological characters: (1) frontoparietals generally separated from exoccipitals (partially fused in  M. mukhlesuri ,  M. picta and  Microhyla sp. 2); (2) exoccipitals separate; (3) neopalatines present (in  M. berdmorei ,  M. butleri ,  M. minuta ,  M. orientalis ,  M. pineticola ,  M. superciliaris and  M. tetrix ) or absent (in  M. achatina ,  M. heymonsi ,  M. fissipes ,  M. malang ,  M. mukhlesuri ,  M. nepenthicola ,  M. nilphamariensis ,  M. okinavensis ,  M. picta ,  M. pulchra and  Microhyla sp. 2); (4) sphenethmoids not fused to parasphenoid; (5) crista parotica ossified posteriorly; (6) otic ramus of squamosal poorly developed; (7) tympanic annulus well-developed (reduced in  M. heymonsi ,  M. nepenthicola ,  M. nilphamariensis ,  M. orientalis ,  M. pineticola ,  M. superciliaris and  M. tetrix ); (8) orientation of transverse processes of presacral vertebrae VI-VIII anterolateral, other vertebrae with inconsistent orientation; (9) clavicles absent; (10) omosternum absent (cartilaginous omosternum present only in  M. pulchra ); (11) prehallux cartilaginous; (12) terminal phalanges of the longest fingers T-shaped (in  M. achatina ,  M. berdmorei ,  M. butleri ,  M. fissipes ,  M. heymonsi ,  M. malang ,  M. minuta ,  M. nepenthicola ,  M. nilphamariensis and  M. pineticola ), knobbed (in  M. minuta ,  M. mukhlesuri ,  M. nilphamariensis ,  M. superciliaris and  M. tetrix ), or simple (in  M. okinavensis ,  M. orientalis ,  M. picta and  M. pulchra ), terminal phalanges of the longest toe T-shaped (in  M. achatina ,  M. berdmorei ,  M. butleri ,  M. heymonsi ,  M. malang ,  M. nepenthicola and  M. pineticola ), knobbed (in  M. minuta ,  M. mukhlesuri ,  M. nepenthicola ,  M. superciliaris and  M. tetrix ), or simple (in  M. fissipes ,  M. okinavensis ,  M. orientalis ,  M. picta ,  M. pulchra and  Microhyla sp. 2). The combination of diagnostic external morphological characters includes: (13) body size medium to extremely miniaturized (adult SVL 12.8-45.8 mm); (14) snout rounded or pointed in profile; (15) supratympanic fold present; (16) ridge on posterior margins of choanae absent; (17) FI length greater than  ½ FII; (18) discs present on every finger, only FII-FIV, or absent; (19) dorsomedial grooves on fingers present or absent; (20) toe discs present or absent; (21) dorsomedial grooves on toes present or absent; (22) two metatarsal tubercles (except  M. maculifera with a single metatarsal tubercle); (23) dorsomedial line present or absent; (24) superciliary tubercles present (  M. palmipes and  M. superciliaris ) or absent (all remaining species); (25) tibiotarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (in  M. berdmorei ,  M. darevskii ,  M. mantheyi and  M. tetrix ) or less; (26) toe webbing from basal to developed to discs; (27) skin on dorsum from smooth to tubercular; (28) tympanum externally indistinct; (29) terrestrial or subfossorial microhabitat preference. </p>
            <p>Phylogenetic definition.</p>
            <p> The genus  Microhyla s. str. includes all species that share a more recent common ancestor with  Microhyla achatina than with  Nanohyla annectens and  Glyphoglossus molossus . </p>
            <p>Distribution.</p>
            <p> Frogs of the genus  Microhyla are widely distributed across the East (southern China, including Taiwan and Hainan islands, and Ryukyu Archipelago of Japan), Southeast (Myanmar and Indochina, Malayan Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Bali, and Borneo), and South Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, Indian subcontinent to north-eastern Pakistan in the west and Sri Lanka in the south) (Fig. 1). </p>
            <p>Taxonomic comment.</p>
            <p> In the last phylogenetic revision of  Microhyla , Gorin et al. (2020) included all species of the genus in their analysis, except  M. darevskii ,  M. fusca Andersson, 1942, and  M. maculifera .  Microhyla darevskii was described from five formalin-fixed specimens and morphologically appears to be very close to the members of  M. berdmorei species complex (Poyarkov et al. 2014). Although the phylogenetic position of  M. darevskii is not known, this species can be confidently assigned to the genus  Microhyla s. str. based on morphological data.  Microhyla fusca was described from a single specimen collected from southern Vietnam (Andersson 1942), and was recently demonstrated to be a junior synonym of  M. butleri (Poyarkov et al. 2020a). </p>
            <p> Microhyla maculifera remains the most enigmatic species of the group due to the lack of molecular data and uncertainties regarding morphological characters. This species was described from only two specimens (Inger 1989), and no additional specimens have been reported since that time, despite numerous field survey efforts. This small-sized species is unique among its congeners in having comparatively short hindlimbs, large and wide head, less triangular than in other  Microhyla , comparatively stout body habitus (Fig. 12), and a single metatarsal tubercle (vs two).  Microhyla maculifera is different from the members of the genus  Nanohyla gen. nov. by having FI longer than  ½ of FII (vs FI shorter than  ½ of FII or reduced to a nub), lack of discs on fingers and rudimentary discs on toes (vs digital discs well-developed), absence (vs presence) of dorsal median grooves on tips of fingers and toes, having comparatively short hindlimbs with tibiotarsal articulation reaching to snout (vs to well beyond snout), and toe webbing being basal (vs well-developed; Inger 1989). Due to the lack of molecular data, the phylogenetic position and generic placement of "  Microhyla "  Microhyla maculifera remains uncertain; we tentatively retain this species  Microhyla s. str. pending data or future phylogenetic studies, which might suggest another arrangement. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/045DB91529295F338B0E0D7FF04A2884	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Gorin, Vladislav A.;Scherz, Mark D.;Korost, Dmitriy V.;Poyarkov, Nikolay A.	Gorin, Vladislav A., Scherz, Mark D., Korost, Dmitriy V., Poyarkov, Nikolay A. (2021): Consequences of parallel miniaturisation in Microhylinae (Anura, Microhylidae), with the description of a new genus of diminutive South East Asian frogs. Zoosystematics and Evolution 97 (1): 21-54, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.97.57968, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.97.57968
C444A1B69DF558E6B6CCBE2DA94E5A81.text	C444A1B69DF558E6B6CCBE2DA94E5A81.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nanohyla Poyarkov, Gorin & Scherz 2021	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Nanohyla Poyarkov, Gorin &amp; Scherz gen. nov. Figs 10, 11; Suppl. material 5: Table S5 </p>
            <p>Chresonymy.</p>
            <p> Microhyla (partim)- Boulenger 1900; Smith 1923; Inger and Frogner 1979; Inger 1989; Bain and Nguyen 2004; Poyarkov et al. 2014; Hoang et al. 2020. </p>
            <p> Microhyla (Microhyla) (partim)- Dubois 1987 (as a part of the subgenus  Microhyla Microhyla ). </p>
            <p>Type species.</p>
            <p> Microhyla annectens Boulenger, 1900. </p>
            <p>Etymology.</p>
            <p> The genus name is derived from the Greek  νᾶνος (nanos), meaning  “dwarf” ,  “pygmy” , and the mythological figure, Hylas (Ancient Greek:  Ὕλας ), which is probably derived from the Ancient Greek verb "  ὕλαω " meaning "to bark" (Bourret 1942). In classical mythology, Hylas, son of King Theiodamas, was a youth who served as  Heracles’ companion, lover, and servant. Heracles took Hylas with him on the  Argonauts’ expedition, during which Hylas was kidnapped by nymphs of the spring in Pegae, Mysia, and turned into an echo. Heracles left the ship and was searching for Hylas for a great length of time, calling his name: " His adjunxit Hylan nautae quo fonte relictum / Clamassent ut littus Hyla! Hyla! omne sonaret " ("The mariners cried on Hylas till the shore / Then Re-echoed Hylas! Hylas! soothed..."; Virgil 1916, Ecl. 6, 43). The genus name refers to the small body size (&lt;25 mm) of all known  Nanohyla species, while maintaining resemblance to its sister genus  Microhyla , from which it is separated herein. The new genus name is feminine in gender. </p>
            <p>Suggested common name.</p>
            <p>Pygmy Narrow-mouthed Frogs.</p>
            <p>Taxonomic content.</p>
            <p> Nine species, including:  Nanohyla annamensis comb. nov. (Smith, 1923);  Nanohyla annectens comb. nov. (Boulenger, 1900);  Nanohyla arboricola comb. nov. (Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova &amp; Geissler, 2014);  Nanohyla hongiaoensis comb. nov. (Hoang, Nguyen, Luong, Nguyen, Orlov, Chen, Wang &amp; Jiang, 2020);  Nanohyla marmorata comb. nov. (Bain &amp; Nguyen, 2004);  Nanohyla nanapollexa comb. nov. (Bain &amp; Nguyen, 2004);  Nanohyla petrigena comb. nov. (Inger &amp; Frogner, 1979);  Nanohyla perparva comb. nov. (Inger &amp; Frogner, 1979); and  Nanohyla pulchella comb. nov. (Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova &amp; Geissler, 2014). Photos of  Nanohyla gen. nov. members are presented in Fig. 11. </p>
            <p>Diagnosis.</p>
            <p> The new genus is assigned to the subfamily  Microhylinae on the basis of phylogenetic affinities and the following combination of morphological character states: vomers small, confined to the anterior and medial margins of choanae; clavicles and, in most cases, procoracoids absent, maxillary arcade edentate (Parker 1934).  Nanohyla gen. nov. differs from other  Microhylinae genera by the following combination of osteological character states: (1) frontoparietals fused with exoccipitals; (2) exoccipitals fused with each other (incomplete fusion in  N. pulchella ); (3) neopalatines present; (4) sphenethmoids completely fused with parasphenoid (incomplete fusion in  N. pulchella ); (5) crista parotica entirely cartilaginous; (6) otic ramus of squamosal well-developed; (7) tympanic annulus well-developed; (8) transverse processes of presacral vertebrae with the following orientation: IV and V posterolaterally, II, VII and VIII anterolaterally, III and VI at right angle to body axis; (9) clavicles absent; (10) omosternum present, cartilaginous; (11) prehallux cartilaginous; (12) terminal phalanges of longest fingers and toes T-shaped. The combination of diagnostic external morphological characters includes: (13) small to extremely small frogs (adult SVL 11.8-25.8 mm); (14) snout rounded or pointed in profile; (15) supratympanic fold present; (16) ridge on posterior sides of choanae absent; (17) first finger (FI) length less than  ½ FII or reduced to a nub; (18) finger discs present, at least on FII-FIV; (19) dorsal median longitudinal grooves on finger discs generally present (with the exception of  N. perparva ); (20) toes dorsolaterally flattened, prominent discs present; (21) dorsal median longitudinal grooves on toe discs present; (22) metatarsal tubercle single (inner metatarsal tubercle present, outer absent); (23) dorsomedial line absent; (24) superciliary tubercles absent; (25) tibiotarsal articulation of adpressed hindlimb reaching well beyond snout; (26) toe webbing well-developed (at least one-half webbed); (27) skin on dorsum feebly granular to tubercular; (28) tympanum externally distinct at least in males (  N. annamensis ,  N. annectens ,  N. arboricola ,  N. marmorata ,  N. nanapollexa ,  N. pulchella ) or barely distinct (  N. hongiaoensis ,  N. perparva ,  N. petrigena ); (29) terrestrial or scansorial semi-arboreal microhabitat preference. </p>
            <p>Phylogenetic definition.</p>
            <p> The genus  Nanohyla gen. nov. includes all species sharing a more recent common ancestor with  Nanohyla annectens than with  Microhyla achatina and  Glyphoglossus molossus . </p>
            <p>Distribution.</p>
            <p> The distribution area of  Nanohyla gen. nov. covers montane forests of the Annamite (Truong Son) Mountains in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and north-eastern Cambodia, the Titiwangsa Mountain Range in the southernmost Thailand and peninsular Malaysia, mountains of Borneo (including Sabah and Sarawak of Malaysia, Brunei, and Kalimantan of Indonesia) and the Sulu Archipelago of the Philippines (see Fig. 1). The occurrence of  Nanohyla gen. nov. in Cardamom Mountains in eastern Thailand (the record of "  M. annamensis " from Khao Sebab by Taylor [1962], see Fig. 1) is questionable (see Poyarkov et al. 2014, 2020a). </p>
            <p>Morphological comparison.</p>
            <p> The new genus  Nanohyla gen. nov. differs from its sister genus  Microhyla Tschudi, 1838 s. str. by the well-developed (vs poorly-developed) otic ramus of the squamosal, frontoparietals and exoccipitals fused (vs separated or slightly fused), exoccipitals fused with each other (vs always separated), omosternum present (vs usually absent), sphenethmoid and parasphenoid fused completely or partially (vs separated), cartilaginous crista parotica (vs mineralized posteriorly), cartilaginous prehallux (vs mineralized), tympanum externally visible or barely visible (vs concealed beneath skin), inner metatarsal tubercle well-developed, outer generally absent (vs two metatarsal tubercles well-developed), and in having digits dorso ventrally flattened, FI often reduced to a nub or shortened (vs variably longer). The new genus differs from the closely related genus  Glyphoglossus Günther , 1869 by its smaller adult size with SVL &lt;25mm (vs SVL&gt; 25mm), skull longer than wide or almost equal (vs wider than long), alary process of premaxilla oriented slightly anteriorly (vs posteriorly), neopalatines present (vs obscured by vomers), vomers small, indistinct (vs large, well-developed), omosternum present (vs absent), terminal phalanges T-shaped (vs simple), tibio-tarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs to the anterior border of the eye, or less), by body habitus short, triangular-shaped (vs stout, balloon-shaped), and by inner metatarsal tubercle not enlarged (vs enlarged, shovel-shaped).  Nanohyla gen. nov. differs from  Kaloula Gray, 1831 by its much smaller adult body size SVL &lt;25 mm (vs SVL&gt; 38 mm), procoracoids absent (vs present), postchoanal portion of vomer absent (vs present), neopalatines present (vs obscured), prehallux formed by two elements (vs one), tibio-tarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs to shoulder), absence (vs presence) of ridge on posterior margin of choanae, inner metatarsal tubercle not enlarged (vs enlarged and spatulate), and by body habitus short, triangular-shaped (vs robust). The new genus can be distinguished from  Uperodon Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1841 by its smaller adult size, SVL &lt;25 mm (vs SVL&gt; 34 mm), postchoanal portion of vomer absent (vs present), neopalatines present (vs obscured), tibio-tarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs posterior border of eye, or less), absence (vs presence) of ridge on posterior margins of choanae, inner metatarsal tubercle not enlarged (vs enlarged or spatulate), and by body habitus short, triangular-shaped (vs robust and globular).  Nanohyla gen. nov. differs from  Phrynella Boulenger, 1887 by its smaller adult size, SVL &lt;25 mm (vs SVL&gt; 30 mm), medial process of the prechoanal part of vomer absent (vs present), neopalatines present (vs absent), procoracoids absent (vs present), vertebral column diplasiocoelus (vs procoelus), metatarsal tubercules separate (vs united), by tibio-tarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs to tympanic region), by body habitus short, triangular-shaped (vs robust and flattened), and by generally dull brownish coloration of inguinal and dorsal surfaces (vs greenish coloration of dorsum and bright-red coloration of inguinal area, and ventral surfaces of limbs). The new genus further differs from  Metaphrynella Parker, 1934 by its smaller adult size, SVL &lt;25 mm (vs SVL&gt; 25 mm), skull longer than wide or almost equal (vs wider than long), neopalatines present (vs absent), omosternum present (vs absent), vertebral column diplasiocoelus (vs procoelus), tibio-tarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs to tympanic region), absence (vs presence) of a ridge on posterior margins of choanae, metatarsal tubercules separate (vs united and enlarged), and by finger webbing absent (vs present). The new genus differs from  Mysticellus Garg &amp; Biju, 2019 by its short triangular-shaped body habitus (vs slender), supratympanic fold present (vs absent), finger and toe tips enlarged with prominent discs (vs slightly enlarged), toe webbing well-developed (vs rudimentary), supernumerary carpal tubercles absent (vs prominent subarticular tubercles alternating with additional smaller tubercles), and the two prominent blackish-brown  ‘false-eye’ inguinal spots absent (vs present).  Nanohyla gen. nov. differs from  Micryletta Dubois, 1987 by its snout longer than eye diameter, and having eye less (vs more) prominent in lateral and dorsal aspects, finger and toe tips enlarged with prominent discs (vs slightly enlarged), toe webbing well-developed (vs rudimentary or absent), supernumerary carpal tubercles absent (vs present), omosternum present (vs absent), neopalatines present (vs absent), tibio-tarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs to anterior border eye, or less), supratympanic fold present (vs absent), and body habitus short, triangular-shaped (vs slender). Finally, the new genus is distinguished from  Chaperina Mocquard, 1892 by clavicles and procoracoids absent (vs present), postchoanal portion of vomer absent (vs present), omosternum present (vs absent), terminal phalanges T-shaped (vs simple), tibiotarsal articulation reaching well beyond snout (vs anterior border of eye), belly dull-colored (vs bright saffron-yellow belly with dark pattern), and by absence of spine-like projections on limbs (vs a long, narrow dermal spine projecting from calcaneus). </p>
            <p>Larval morphology.</p>
            <p> Description of the larval stages of the  Nanohyla gen. nov. members are sparse and often not detailed. Poyarkov et al. (2014) provided descriptions, photos and illustrations of tadpole morphology for  N. annamensis ,  N. arboricola and  N. pulchella . Vassilieva et al. (2017) provided a detailed description of development, larval morphology and anatomy for  N. arboricola . Le et al. (2016) provided a brief description of tadpole morphology of  N. marmorata . Leong (2004) provided a short description and photographs of larval and metamorph morphology for  N. annectens . Brief descriptions and figures depicting larvae of  N. petrigena and  N. perparva are found in the original description of these species by Inger and Frogner (1979), as well as in Inger and Steubing (2005) and Haas et al. (2020). Larval stages of  N. hongiaoensis and  N. nanapollexa remain unknown. </p>
            <p> As with almost all larvae in  Microhylidae , labial teeth and mandibles are absent from the oral discs of  Nanohyla tadpoles. Most species of  Nanohyla have larval morphology resembling that of many pond-breeding  Microhyla species (Poyarkov et al. 2014) with rather short-tailed transparent or semi-transparent  Orton’s type II tadpoles (Orton 1953), that are mid-water column (neustonic) feeders with comparatively unexpanded lower labium and anteriorly directed terminal mouths, lateral orientation of eyes, spiraculum located in a medial position on the venter, spiracular flap with crenulate margins, and tail lacking terminal filament (Altig and Johnston 1989; Donnelly et al. 1990; Leong 2004). In contrast, many species of  Microhyla s. str. are surface suspension feeders, and demonstrate greatly expanded lower labium and dorso-terminal mouth orientation; they may have terminal filament on tail and smooth margins of spiracular flap (e.g., Leong 2004; Hendrix et al. 2008; Poyarkov et al. 2014). </p>
            <p> A peculiar exception is the case of  N. arboricola , which is an obligate phytotelm-breeding species that reproduces in water-filled tree hollows (Vassilieva et al. 2017). The oophagous tadpoles of this species differ from larvae of pond-dwelling  Microhyla and  Nanohyla species in many aspects, including external morphology (extremely long tails, dorsolateral position of the eyes, dark pigmentation), morphology of digestive tract (large, extensible stomach with comparatively short intestine), and characteristic oral morphology (Vassilieva et al. 2017).  Nanohyla nanapollexa was suggested as phytotelm-breeder as a single specimen of this species was recorded in a water-filled tree hollow (Gorin et al. 2020), although the details of reproductive biology and tadpole morphology of this species are still unknown. </p>
            <p>Taxonomic comment.</p>
            <p> Microhyla pulverata Bain &amp; Nguyen, 2004 was considered a junior synonym of  N. marmorata based on the phylogenetic results of Gorin et al. (2020); the same study also reported on three putative candidate species within  N. arboricola ,  N. perparva , and  N. petrigena , indicating that our knowledge on diversity of  Nanohyla is still incomplete. </p>
            <p> Certain variation in diagnostically important characters of  Nanohyla gen. nov. requires further comments. Bain and Nguyen (2004) reported on significant variation in size and shape of the outer metatarsal tubercle in  N. marmorata which was reported to vary from almost indistinct to  “conical.” We have examined a large series of  N. marmorata (see Poyarkov et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2019) and found that in this species the outer metatarsal tubercle usually is not discernable or is indistinct; we assume that this discrepancy might be explained with the differences in preservation of specimens examined by us and by Bain and Nguyen (2004). Hoang et al. (2020) reported two metatarsal tubercles in their diagnosis of  N. hongiaoensis , however in the holotype description they refer to the outer metatarsal tubercle as  “indistinct;” it is also not discernable in their photo of  holotype’s foot (Hoang et al. 2020:fig. 3F). In all the remaining species of  Nanohyla gen. nov. it is absent, and we therefore consider this state to be diagnostic for the genus (in comparison to  Microhyla s. str., which has two metatarsal tubercles in all species but  M. maculifera , see comment below). It is not clear why Bain and Nguyen (2004), or Poyarkov et al. (2014; and other preceding studies) did not recognize the presence of externally visible tympanum in most of species of the genus (Fig. 11). In species of  Nanohyla gen. nov., smaller tubercles and other dermal structures of the skin become flattened and less distinct after fixation and preservation; this has also been reported in other anurans (Poyarkov et al. 2015, 2017, 2019; Nguyen et al. 2018, 2019, 2020). It is likely that the presence of the tympanum was artifactually concealed from Bain and Nguyen (2004), since their description was based exclusively on museum specimens. In some species of  Nanohyla gen. nov., we were not able to detect an externally visible tympanum (  N. hongiaoensis ,  N. perparva ,  N. petrigena ). It is not clear whether this reflects an actual character state in these species, or if this apparent state relates to the small sample size of specimens and photographs available to us. Further studies are needed to clarify variation of the external tympanum in  Nanohyla gen. nov. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C444A1B69DF558E6B6CCBE2DA94E5A81	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Gorin, Vladislav A.;Scherz, Mark D.;Korost, Dmitriy V.;Poyarkov, Nikolay A.	Gorin, Vladislav A., Scherz, Mark D., Korost, Dmitriy V., Poyarkov, Nikolay A. (2021): Consequences of parallel miniaturisation in Microhylinae (Anura, Microhylidae), with the description of a new genus of diminutive South East Asian frogs. Zoosystematics and Evolution 97 (1): 21-54, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.97.57968, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.97.57968
