Short Communication
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790
New regional record and notes on historical specimens of
Günther’s Toad Duttaphrynus hololius with comments on
other southeastern Indian congeners
Bhargavi Srinivasulu 1, S.R. Ganesh 2 & Chelmala Srinivasulu 3
Natural History Museum and Wildlife Biology and Taxonomy Lab, Department of Zoology, University College of
Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500007, India
2
Chennai Snake Park, Rajbhavan Post, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600022, India
1
bharisrini@gmail.com, 2 snakeranglerr@gmail.com, 3 hyd2masawa@gmail.com (corresponding author)
1,3
Abstract: We report on the finding of the Günther’s Toad Duttaphrynus
hololius from Visakhapatnam and discuss aspects of its distribution
based on our species distribution modeling. We also provide data
on historically collected specimens and refine its intra-specific
variation, provide an up-to-date chresonymy and comment on the
validity of earlier reported diagnosis. Lastly, we remark on some
misidentification-mediated dubious southern Indian records of
another, related congener, the Marbled Toad D. stomaticus and correct
some misallocations by referring them to another syntopic congener,
the Dwarf Toad D. scaber.
Keywords: Chresonymy, distribution, Duttaphrynus stomaticus, D.
scaber, D. hololius, misidentification, southern India, variation.
Recent studies on amphibians of southeastern India
are scarce, contrary to that happening in the Western
Ghats (Biju 2001; Gururaja 2012). The available
literature (Das 1991; Seshadri et al. 2012) is largely
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
pertaining to community and behavioural ecology, save
for a paper by Ganesh & Chandramouli (2011) that
was on polymorphism and phenotypic plasticity. Four
species of toads, namely, Duttaphrynus melanostictus
(Schneider, 1799), D. scaber (Schneider, 1799), D. cf.
stomaticus (Lütken, 1862) (Figs. 2 & 3) and D. hololius
(Günther, 1876) are known from eastern peninsular
India (Dutta 1997; Daniels 2005 in part; Srinivasulu & Das
2008 in part; Chandramouli et al. 2011). Duttaphrynus
melanostictus is a widespread species that is relatively
well known (Dutta 1997; Biju 2001). The remaining
species, D. scaber, D. cf. stomaticus and D. hololius are
still comparatively poorly known (Daniels 2005).
The Günther’s Toad Duttaphrynus hololius (Image
1) was originally described as Bufo hololius Günther,
1876 from “Malabar” which, as currently understood, is
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3621.4784-90 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:71521A55-F94C-4DBE-9AB5-4803BA89C046
Editor: Sanjay Molur, ZOO/WILD, Coimbatore, India.
Date of publication: 26 September 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # o3621 | Received 09 May 2013 | Final received 12 September 2013 | Finally accepted 13 September 2013
Citation: Srinivasulu, B., S.R. Ganesh & C. Srinivasulu (2013). New regional record and notes on historical specimens of Günther’s Toad Duttaphrynus hololius with
comments on other southeastern Indian congeners. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(13): 4784–4790; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3621.4784-90
Copyright: © Srinivasulu et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Surveys in Eastern Ghats of Andhra Pradesh were supported by grants from Department of Biotechnology, Government of India and University Grants
Commission, New Delhi.
Competing Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript writing.
Acknowledgements: We thank our respective organizations for supporting our research activities–BS and CS thank the Head, Department of Zoology, Osmania
University, for facilities; DBT, New Delhi and UGC-DRS SAP III Department of Zoology, Osmania University for research grants; Shri A.V. Joseph IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Andhra Pradesh Forest Department and the Andhra Pradesh State Biodiversity Board for encouragement; Mr. G. Chethan Kumar for
assistance in field survey. SRG is deeply grateful to Shri. B. Vijayaraghavan, Executive Chairman, Chennai Snake Park for the facilities provided; Dr. T.S. Sridhar
(Madras Govt. Museum) and Dr. K. Venkataraman (Zoological Survey of India) for permitting examination of material under their care; Dr. Barry Clarke and Dr.
Colin McCarthy (Natural History Museum, London) for providing the photographs of the holotype of D. hololius and Mr. S.R. Chandramouli for permitting the use
of his photograph of Marbled Toad.
4784
Regional record of Duttaphrynus hololius
Srinivasulu et al.
© Colin McCarthy
© Colin McCarthy
A
B
© Colin McCarthy
© S.R. Ganesh
C
© S.R. Ganesh
© S.R. Ganesh
D
E
F
G
H
© Bhargavi & Srinivasulu
© Bhargavi & Srinivasulu
© Bhargavi & Srinivasulu
© S.R. Ganesh
I
J
Image 1. Günther’s Toad Duttaphrynus hololius (top left to bottom right): A–C - Holotype BMNH 1947.2.20.50); D–G - historical nontypes MAD
unreg. & ZSIM A361; H–J - Visakhapatnam specimen NHM.OU.AMPHI.3/2012
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790
4785
Regional record of Duttaphrynus hololius
Srinivasulu et al.
erroneous with regards to the type locality (see Biju et al.
2004). Subsequently, this species was sighted/studied,
from drier, low-altitude places in eastern peninsular
India, namely, Nellore in the Coramandel coastal plains
and Chittoor, Bangalore, Gingee, Thommaguddai, Kundu
Reddiyur, Nagarjunasagar in the Eastern Ghats (Thurston
1888; Satyamurthi 1967; Pillai & Ravichandran 1991;
Daniels 1992; Chandramouli et al. 2011; Adimallaiah et
al. 2012; Kalaimani et al. 2012). Due to paucity of data
at that time and pending re-evaluation of specimens
assigned to this species in its geographic range (sensu
Dubois & Ohler 1999), Srinivasulu & Das (2008), followed
Dutta (1997) in considering the specimens from drier
habitats of Eastern Ghats (Thurston 1888; Satyamurti
1967; Pillai & Ravichandran 1991) to be of doubtful
identity needing clarifications.
However, recent studies on this species involving
both wild-caught and museum materials (Ganesh &
Asokan 2010; Chandramouli et al. 2011) have shed
light on its identity, in-life colouration and distribution.
Following these works, more sightings of D. hololius
were reported from other places adjoining the Eastern
Ghats (Adimallaiah et al. 2012; Kalaimani et al. 2012).
Only recently, has the larval characteristics of this
species been documented (Ganesh et al. 2013). In this
paper, we present a new regional record for D. hololius
and also discuss some unfortunate cases of published
misidentifications of other southeastern Indian toads.
Material and Methods
This work is based on examination of fresh, wildcaught collections (BS, CS), examination of historical
museum specimens and photographs of the holotype
of D. hololius (SRG). Museum abbreviations are as
follows: BMNH - Natural History Museum, London; FBS
- Freshwater Biology Station, Hyderabad; MAD - Madras
Govt. Museum, Chennai; ZSIM Zoological Survey of India,
Madras (Chennai); NHM.OU - Natural History Museum
of Osmania University, Hyderabad. Morphological
examination of toads follows Dutta & MananmendraArachchi (1996), and Dubois & Ohler (1999).
For the species distribution modeling we used the
maximum entropy (MaxEnt) model as it is not affected
by the limitation of the occurrence records and currently
regarded as the most robust (Phillips et al. 2006).
MaxEnt uses a maximum entropy approach to integrate
model covariate selection and controls for overfitting by
using smoothing and identifies how the covariates (i.e.,
spatial layers representing environmental variables or z)
contribute to the model (Phillips et al. 2006; Elith et al.
2011). We utilized 19 bioclimatic and one topographical
4786
variables obtained from the WorldClim database
(Hijmans et al. 2005) gridded to 30 arc-second (~1km)
resolution for 1950–2000 time period with the following
settings: Auto features (feature types are automatically
selected depending on the training sample size), perform
jackknife tests, logistic output format, random test
percentage = 25, regularisation multiplier = 1, maximum
iterations = 1000, convergence threshold = 0.0001 and
maximum number of background points = 10,000.
Taxonomy
Duttaphrynus hololius (Günther, 1876)
Bufo hololius - Thurston 1888; Satyamurti 1967; Pillai
& Ravichandran 1991
Bufo hololius - Dutta 1997 in part; Dubois & Ohler
1999 in part; Srinivasulu & Das 2008 in part.
Duttaphrynus hololius - van Bocxlaer et al. 2009;
Ganesh & Asokan 2010; Chandramouli et al. 2011;
Adimallaiah et al. 2012; Kalaimani et al. 2012.
Referred
material
(examined):
NHM.
OU.AMPHI/3.2012 coll. Bhargavi Srinivasulu from
Scindia, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh; MAD unreg.
coll. unknown, from Nellore, Andhra Pradesh; ZSIM
(ex. FBS) A361 don. Dr. Mahator, from Nagarjunasagar,
Andhra Pradesh.
Diagnosis: See Pillai & Ravichandran (1991), and
Chandramouli et al. (2011) for colouration in life.
Description of NHM.OU.AMPHI/3.2012: A smallsized toad (18.52mm); head wider (6.72mm) than long
(5.84mm); flat above; no cephalic ridges seen; canthus
rostralis sharp; nostrils circular and oriented laterally
situated closer to the tip of the snout (1.01mm) than to
the eye (1.31mm) with internarial distance of 1.67mm;
pupil horizontally oval; tympanum distinct about 28% of
the eye diameter (3.21mm); parotid glands flattened;
skin with numerous white dots and scattered scarlet
swollen granules; fingers without webbing and toes
webbed only at the base; two distinct palmar tubercles
seen.
Colour in life: Dorsum dark brownish-grey; skin
with numerous minute white dots and bulging scarlet
glandules scattered throughout the dorsum; a very
feeble vertebral line running from snout to vent; limbs
with minute white dots dorsally and also show the
presence of scattered bulging scarlet glandules; dorsal
surface of both the fore and hind limbs slightly pale
greyish to whitish in colour in comparison to the dorsum
and with 2–4 black cross bars; venter largely pale grey
and with numerous white granules throughout.
Measurements (in mm): Snout-vent length (SVL)
18.52, head width (HW) 6.72, head length (HL) 5.84,
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790
Regional record of Duttaphrynus hololius
at 12.30hr, in February 2012, from under the prop roots
of a large banyan tree abutting a tropical dry deciduous
hillock near Scindia (17.68N, 83.29E; 1.2m), ca. 200m
from the sea shore in Visakhapatnam (Image 2), Andhra
Pradesh State, India. This record is the northeastern
most locality and closest to the sea coast.
Furthermore, we provide additional data from
historically collected specimens that we studied to
establish conspecificity. Additional data on morphometry
from the two voucher specimens is as follows (in mm):
snout vent length 37.40–39.35; head length 10.48–
10.51; head width 13.72–14.26; head depth 5.44–6.19;
interorbital distance 7.95–9.55; internarial distance
3.05–4.42; upper eyelid width 3.60–3.75; eye diameter
(horizontal) 3.80–5.80; tympanum diameter (horizontal)
3.15–4.40; upper arm length 6.75–8.10; lower arm
length 8.50–10.35; palmar length 7.80–8.55; relative
finger lengths 3>4>1>2; femoral length 12.90–13.90;
tibio-tarsal length 12.90–14.35; metatarsal length 15.50–
18.65; relative toe lengths 4>3>5>2>1. Some observed
differences between our present measurements and
that reported earlier for the same specimens are
attributable to preservation artifact.
Discussion
Tympanum and eye relative sizes were considered to
be taxonomically meaningful (Daniel 1963) and hence
of diagnostic importance. Immature specimens, like
in most other animals, have larger eyes with respect
to tympanum. In adults, the eye diameter is slightly
lesser than the tympanum diameter. Although our
data from these old museum specimens is impacted by
preservation process, our conclusions on conspecificity
© Bhargavi Srinivasulu & G. Chethan Kumar
distance from back of mandible to nostril (MN) 5.52,
distance from back of mandible to front of eye (MFE)
3.21, distance from back of mandible to back of eye
(MBE) 1.39, distance between front of eyes (IFE) 3.13,
distance between back of eyes (IBE) 6.07, internarial
space (IN) 1.67, distance from nostril to tip of the snout
(NS) 1.01, distance from front of eye to nostril (EN) 1.31,
eye length (EL) 3.21, tympanum diameter (TYD) 0.91,
tympanum to eye distance (TYE) 0.48, minimum distance
between upper eyelids (IUE) 2.82, maximum width of
upper eyelid (UEW) 5.02, distance from anterior corner
of eye to tip of snout (SL) 2.41, forelimb length (from
elbow to base of outer palmar tubercle) (FLL) 5.98, hand
length (from base of outer palmar tubercle to tip of
third finger) (HAL) 4.84, length of third finger from basal
border or proximal subarticular tubercle (TFL) 3.82, tibia
length (TL) 7.23, Maximum tibia width (TW) 1.36, femur
length (from vent to knee) (FL) 7.39, length of tarsus
and foot (from base of tarsus of tip of fourth toe) (TFOL)
11.54, foot length (from base of outer palmar tubercle to
tip of third finger) (FOL) 7.06, length of fourth toe from
basal border of proximal subarticular tubercle (FTL) 4.26,
length of inner metatarsal tubercle (IMT) 0.80, inner toe
length (ITL) 0.81, distance from distal edge of metatarsal
tubercle to maximum incurvation of web between
fourth and fifth toe (MTTF) 3.66, distance from distal
edge of metatarsal tubercle to maximum incurvation of
web between third and fourth toe (MTFF) 4.21, distance
from maximum incurvation of web between third and
fourth toe to tip of fourth toe (TFTF) 2.33, and distance
from maximum incurvation of web between fourth and
fifth toe to tip of fourth toe (FFTF) 3.49.
Locality and natural history: The toad was collected
Srinivasulu et al.
Image 2. Habitat in Visakhapatnam, from where the new record is reported; showing the interface of the Eastern Ghats and the Coromandel
Coast.
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790
4787
Regional record of Duttaphrynus hololius
Srinivasulu et al.
and allometric variations are strongly supported by the
measurements of live, uncollected D. hololius gleaned
from recently published literature (Chandramouli et al.
2011).
Since Biju et al. (2004), Duttaphrynus hololius has
been reported from four locations in southern Eastern
Ghats [Devarabetta, Hosur District (Chandramouli et
al. 2011), Thommaguddai and Kundu Reddiyur, Vellore
District and Gingee, Villupuram District in Tamil Nadu
(Kalaimani et al. 2012)] and central Eastern Ghats
[Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh
(Adimallaiah et al. 2012)] (Image 3). The species
distribution model shows that the species might have a
broader distribution extent covering the southern parts
of peninsular India and the Deccan Plateau, including
those of southern Maharashtra bordering Karnataka;
most of Karnataka; Tamil Nadu (where the likelihood
of species occurrence is high); northern parts of Kerala
4788
© S.R. Chandramouli
Image 3. Global distribution range of Duttaphrynus hololius overlaid on Maximum Entropy Species Distribution Modeling (Phillips et al. 2006)
projection onto 19 bioclimatic environmental variables and one altitude variable (Hijmans et al. 2005). The MaxEnt modeling was conducted
by randomly selecting 75% of the points to generate the model and 25% to test, the area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating
characteristic of testing points is 0.962±0.009. Colours green to orange show predicted probability range of the species between 60 to 100
percent, turquoise 50 percent, and dark blue to light blue between 0 to 40 percent.
Image 4. Marbled Toad Duttaphrynus stomaticus a live uncollected
specimen from Dehradun, India
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790
© S.R. Ganesh
Regional record of Duttaphrynus hololius
Srinivasulu et al.
et al. 2013). We, herein, remove D. ‘stomaticus’ sensu
Gururaja (2012), Hegde (2012) and Seshadri et al. (2012)
from the chresonymy of D. stomaticus sensu stricto and
based on crown structure, densely warted and depressed
body (see Dubois & Ohler 1999 for more details) refer
them to that of D. scaber (Image 5), a species belonging
to a different species-group (after Dubois & Ohler 1999)
when compared with D. stomaticus and D. hololius (see
Dubois & Ohler 1999; Boxclaer et al. 2009 read with
Chandramouli et al. 2011).
REFERENCES
Image 5. Dwarf Toad Duttaphrynus scaber a live uncollected
specimen from Chennai, southeastern India
and all along the Eastern Ghats, the eastern coast of
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and southern parts
of Andhra Pradesh, contrary to what is documented
(Image 3). More dedicated surveys would yield a better
understanding of its range.
Status of other southeast Indian toads: Unfortunately,
there had been some issues on the identification of
other sympatric congeners as well. The Marbled Toad D.
stomaticus (Image 4), a predominantly northern Indian
species (Dutta 1997 in part; Daniels 2005 in part; Khan
2006) had been incorrectly reported from southern
India in recent times (e.g., Gururaja 2012; Hegde 2012;
Seshadri et al. 2012). Daniels (2005) in his treatment
of peninsular Indian amphibians, specifically mentions
the distribution of D. stomaticus to be from “Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Orissa, Bihar and West Bengal.” As Daniels
(2005) lists Bufo stomaticus peninsularis Rao, 1920 in
the synonymy of D. stomaticus, he had to include its
type locality Karnataka in the distribution too. This overcircumscribed concept of ‘D. stomaticus’ following the
‘conservative approach’ (as explained in Chandramouli
et al. 2011) with “conspecifics” sensu lato originating
from outside the known distribution of D. stomaticus
sensu stricto (e.g., southwestern Karnataka—after Rao
1920; southern Tamil Nadu—after Dutta 1997; Sondhi
2009) had probably resulted in such incorrect records.
Our critical examination of captioned-photographs of
southern Indian ‘D. stomaticus’ in such publications
revealed that these were cases of misidentification of
D. scaber (Schneider, 1799), which seem more widely
distributed in western region of peninsular India (Padhye
Adimallaiah, D., V.V. Rao & G. Surender (2012). Report of Günther’s
Toad Duttaphrynus hololius (Günther, 1876) from Nalgonda District,
Andhra Pradesh. Cobra 6(2): 8–11.
Biju, S.D. (2001). A synopsis to the frog fauna of Western Ghats, India.
Occasional Publication, Indian Society for Conservation Biology,
1–24 pp.
Biju, S.D., S.K. Dutta, K. Vasudevan, S.P. Vijaykumar, C. Srinivasulu &
G.D. Bhuddhe (2004). Duttaphrynus hololius. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. www.iucnredlist.
org. Downloaded on 16 April 2013.
Chandramouli, S.R., S.R. Ganesh & N. Baskaran (2011). On recent
sightings of a little known toad, Duttaphrynus hololius (Günther,
1876) with notes on its morphological characterization and ecology.
Herpetology Notes 4: 271–274.
Daniel, J.C. (1963). Field guide to the amphibians of western India. Part
1 and 2. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 60: 415–438,
690–702.
Daniels, R.J.R. (1992). Range extension in some south Indian
amphibians. Hamadryad 17: 40–42.
Daniels, R.J.R. (2005). Amphibians of Peninsular India. Universities
Press (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad, India, 141–160 pp.
Das, I. (1991). Trophic ecology of a community of south Indian anuran
amphibians. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, UK.
Dubois, A. & A. Ohler (1999). Asian and oriental toads of the Bufo
melanostictus, Bufo scaber and Bufo stejnegeri groups (Amphibia,
Anura): a list of available names and redescription of some namebearing types. Journal of South Asian Natural History 4(2): 133–180.
Dutta, S.K. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi (1996). The Amphibian Fauna
of Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka, Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka,
232pp.
Dutta, S.K. (1997). Amphibians of India and Sri Lanka (Checklist and
Bibliography). Bhubaneswar, India, Odyssey Publishing House,
India, xiii+342pp+xxii.
Elith, J., S.J. Phillips, T. Hastie, M. Dudík, Y.E. Chee & C.J. Yates
(2011). A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity
and Distributions 17: 43–57; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14724642.2010.00725.x
Ganesh, S.R. & J.R. Asokan (2010). Catalogue of Indian herpetological
specimens in the collection of the Government museum, Chennai,
India. Hamadryad 35(1): 46–63.
Ganesh, S.R. & S.R. Chandramouli (2011). Report of some noteworthy
specimens and species of Herpetofauna from South-east India.
Taprobanica 3(1): 5–10; http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/tapro.v3i1.3227
Ganesh, S.R., A. Kalaimani, A. Nath & R.B. Kumar (2013). First
observations on the larval characteristics of Günther’s Toad
Duttaphrynus hololius (Günther 1986). Herpetotropicos 9(1–2):
5–8.
Gururaja, K.V. (2012). Pictorial Guide to the Frogs and Toads of
the Western Ghats. Gubbi Labs Publications, Bangalore, India,
154+xviiipp.
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790
4789
Regional record of Duttaphrynus hololius
Srinivasulu et al.
Hegde, V.D. (2012). Amphibian fauna of arecanut plantation in
Kadatoka (Uttara Kannada) Western Ghats, Karnataka. Frog Leg 18:
10–20.
Hijmans, R.J., S.E. Cameron, J.L. Parra, P.G. Jones & A. Jarvis (2005).
Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land
areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965–1978; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276
Kalaimani, A., A. Nath & R.B. Kumar (2012). A note on the records of
rare and endemic Duttaphrynus hololius (Günther, 1876). Frog Leg
18: 27–30.
Khan, M.S. (2006). Amphibians and Reptiles of Pakistan. Kreiger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, USA, 311pp.
Padhye, A., R. Pandit, R. Patil, S. Gaikwad, N. Dahanukar & Y. Shouche
(2013). Range extension of Ferguson’s Toad Duttaphrynus scaber
(Schneider) (Amphibia: Anura: Bufonidae) up to the northern most
limit of Western Ghats, with its advertisement call analysis. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 5(11): 4579–4585; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o3345.4579-85
Phillips, S.J., R.P. Anderson & R.E. Schapire (2006). Maximum Entropy
modeling of species geographic distribution. Ecological Modeling
190: 231–259; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
Pillai, R.S. & M.S. Ravichandran (1991). On a rare toad Bufo hololius
4790
View publication stats
Günther from Nagarjunasagar, Andhra Pradesh. Records of the
Zoological Survey of India 88(1): 11–14.
Rao, C.R.N. (1920). Some South Indian Batrachians. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 27: 119–127.
Satyamurthi, S.T. (1967). The South Indian Amphibia in the collection
of the Madras Government Museum. Bulletin of the Madras
Government Museum new series Natural History Section 7(2): 1–90;
p 1. I-XIII.
Seshadri, K.S., C. Vivek & K.V. Gururaja (2012). Anurans from wetlands
of Puducherry, along the East Coast of India. Check List 8(1): 23–26.
Sondhi, S. (2009). Herpetofauna of Tuticorin. Publication of Forest
Research Institute, Dehradun, India.
Srinivasulu, C. & I. Das (2008). The herpetofauna of Nallamala
hills, Eastern Ghats India: an annotated checklist, with remarks
on nomenclature, taxonomy, habitat use, adaptive types and
biogeography. Asiatic Herpetological Research 11: 110–131.
Thurston, E. (1888). Catalogue of Batrachia, Salientia and Apoda
(Frogs, toads and caecilians) of southern India. The superintendent,
Government Press, Madras, 52pp+pl.13.
van Bocxlaer, I., S.D. Biju, S.P. Loader & F. Bossuyt (2009). Toad
radiation reveals into-India dispersal as a source of endemism in
the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. BMC Evolutionary
Biology 9: 131; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-131
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2013 | 5(13): 4784–4790