PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vol. 48, No. 10, pp. 185-220, 6 figs., 5 tables August 16, 1994 PHILIPPINE FROGS OF THE FAMILY RHACOPHORIDAE By Walter C. Brown Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118 and WoodMi Xf*' Labo "*W a ,r 4i , °««noerapWc Institution Angel C. Alcala Department of Environment and Natural Resources* ,, ~, _ f Republic of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines U U 6 <d ^ Hole. MA o**3 Abstract: Philippine rhacophorid frogs include 18 species assigned to four genera. None of the genera but 12 of the species are endemic. Two species, Philautus poecilus and P. surrufus, are described as new. The distribution and ecology of the Philippine rhacophorids are discussed. Received June 25, 1993. Accepted December 15, 1993. Introduction Dring (1 987) reexamined the Bornean Philautus, ~ fl , ™., describing several new species and establishing The most recent systematic review of the Phil-. e ., . ^, ™ i. • /mo-7\ , , ... ., ri ,.„,.> species groups within the genus. Dubois (1987) ippine rhacophond frogs is that of Inger (1954). J_ .^ £_ „„ U _J^ D i..-y«^. B ™.,i ♦„,„ He referred the then known species to two gen-era, Rhacophorus (nine species) and Philautus (eight species). He did note, however, that the recognized three subgenera of Philautus and two subgenera of Rhacophorus. As to Philautus, we have followed Dring's Group classification; and as to Rhacophorus, we have not placed the R. diagnoses of the genera were arbitrary and in-, . , >, \. c -, T . / 1Q -7n\ ^ ^ +u ♦ ki bunaculatus Group in a separate subgenus. Since adequate. Liem (1970) addressed that problem, providing a clearer understanding of the evolu-tionary trends within the Rhacophoridae and much more satisfactory diagnoses of the genera 1954, extensive field surveys by the authors and others have greatly expanded the sample sizes for some of the Philippine species and have also provided samples from previously unknown based on adult morphology. He assigned the ,. . -. , , T c „,,.. . j. , j. A ., populations on a number of islands. In view ol these, a review of the Philippine rhacophorids is Materials and Methods Philippine species to four genera and redistrib-uted some species between Rhacophorus and Philautus. Inger (1985b) reported that differences pp in the morphology and development of larvae further supported Liem's recognition of the gen-era Hazelia (= Nyctixalus) and Philautus, but Type material, if available, has been exam-that larval similarities only reaffirmed the close ined. The largely unreported, extensive collec-relationship of Polypedates and Rhacophorus. tions made by the authors over the past four [185]
BioStor
