New frog species discovered

It's purple

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2003...og_india031015

Wow, that's crazy! How much do you think it's gonna go for on kingsnake.com???
Yeah, that was a cheap shot, I know.
Still, that's a really amazing find. It kinda almost looks like one of those softshell turtles with the funny snouts.

Yeah it's a pretty unique one!



(Message edited by Ed on February 18, 2006)

AHHHHH GREAT NOW I WANT ONE!!!

I know the feeling Duo.

dont see too many purple animals around. thats pretty unique. i dont think i like the pin-head look though

Has anybody here got the name of this frog, or the new family it has been placed in? Any additional information be be welcome. Thanks, Chris

Its not new at all. From what I have read its just been MIA since the 1920's.

Amphibia L., 1758
Lissamphibia Haeckel, 1866
Anura Rafinesque, 1815
Neobatrachia Reig, 1958
Nasikabatrachidae fam. nov.
Nasikabatrachus gen. nov.
Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis gen. et sp. nov.

This is interesting, methinks:

Sorry, bit of an anorak!

wow that is a COOL frog... i dig the snout looks almost like some kind of mole or something... very cool find or refind or whatever

Alan: In a case like this, it would be wise choice to do to mentioning of the references for your direct referrings. For the information of others, above represented phylogenetic tree is originally published from Nature: Biju, S.D. & Bossuyt, F., 2003. New frog family from India reveals an ancient biogeographical link with the Sheychelles. Nature, Vol. 425:711-714.

For the information of Duo and Elisabeth, I doubt that as a herpetocultural species, this species would never be a member of that group, since it is already under great threat in its natural surroundings (see e.g. Aggalwal, R.K., 2004. Ancient frog could... Nature, Vol. 428:467). Unfortunately, that is the situation right now...

However, it is still very fascinating and interesting species of Anura, indeed.

(Message edited by Ed on February 18, 2006)

Marie,

Is this your picture? If not it needs to be removed. You can post a link to the picture but to post the picture itself is a violation of the copyright agreements.

Ed

But so, why there is another picture posted above, which comes from a website ?

It's not the Member's Photo Gallery, and another pic was also published without problem, took from the information website, so why this one is a violation ?

Simply because I missed the other picture as it was posted in 2003 before I was a moderator....

Ed

(Message edited by Ed on February 18, 2006)