Rhacophorus helenae Rowley, Tran, Hoang & Le, 2012
Helen’s Tree Frog
|Species Description: Rowley JJL, Tran DTA, Hoang HD, Le DTT. 2012. A new species of large flying frog (Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from lowland forests in southern Vietnam. J Herpetology 46: 480-487.|
© 2013 Jodi J. L. Rowley (1 of 5)
Froglets have less developed webbing and only rudimentary skin flaps on the forearms (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
Rhacophorus helenae can be distinguished from most other large Rhacophorus species in Southeast Asia, except for R. burmanus, R. dennysi, R. duboisi, R. feae, R, kio, R. georgii, R. maximus, R. nigropalmatus, and R. norhayatii, by its predominantly or immaculate green dorsum. From R. burmanus, the focal species can be distingushed by the presence of a white underside, black patches on axilla, and tibiotarsal projections that are found in R. helenae. Rhacophorus helenae can be distinguished from R. dennysi by the white underside, black patches on the axilla, tibiotarsal projections, and a dermal ridge of R. helenae. Rhacophorus helenae is distinguished from R. duboisis by having a green dorsum, a white underside, a bluish-green background coloration with pale yellow marbling on the posterior region of thigh, black axillary patches, dermal ridge, and tibiotarsal dermal projection. Rhacophorus helenae is distinguished from R. feae by having black axillary patches, a dermal ridge, and tibiotarsal dermal projection. From R. georgii, the focal species is distinguished in having a green dorsum and a lack of optical knobs that are present in R. georgii. Rhacophorus helenae is distinguished from R. maximus by having a bluish-green background coloration with pale yellow marbling on the posterior region of thigh, black axillary patches, a dermal ridge, and tibiotarsal dermal projection. Rhacophorus helenae is distinguished from R. niropalmatus by having a green dorsum, a white underside, black axillary patches, and a bluish-green background coloration with pale yellow marbling on the posterior region of thigh. Rhacophorus helenae is distinguished from R. norhayatii by having a larger body size, a white underside, a single-lobed dermal ridge, and a bluish-green background coloration with pale yellow marbling on the posterior region of thigh. Rhacophorus helenae is distinguished from R. kio, its sister species, by having a white underside, a low single-lobed dermal ridge, a white eye sclera, pale green or yellow webbing, and a bluish-green background coloration with pale yellow marbling on the posterior region of thigh. Rhacophorus helenae is also generally larger than R. kio (Rowley et al. 2012). Tadpoles of R. helenae can be distinguished from most other Rhacophorus species by their range. However, from the sympatric R. annamensis, it can be distinguished by the labial tooth row formula. Tooth row formula also distinguishes R. helenae from the sympatric Polypedates megacephalus as do the features of the latter having a medial gap in the double row of papillae of the lower lip, laterally positioned eyes, and a silver spot on the snout tip (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
In life, the dorsum of adults is evenly green, but may have a scattering of small white spots. There is a large black splotch on the axilla. The flanks, upper arms, ventral side of the lower arms, and both the anterior and posterior sides of the thighs are bluish-green and marbled with pale yellow that appears as flecks on the flanks. The dermal projections on arms and legs and the supracloacal dermal ridge are lined with white. The background coloration of the dorsal surface of the digit webbing is pale green with pale yellow or green margins; there may be black pigmentation spreading from the base of the fingers that fades to pale green and yellow. The throat, chest, and belly are immaculately white with some pinkish tinge at the posteriorlateral edge. The ventral surfaces of the hands and feet are pinkish. The iris of the eyes is golden yellow with faint flecks of dark gold and a black periphery. The sclera is white. In preservative, specimens look similar to live coloration except that the green fades to violet and the yellow portions fade to white (Rowley et al. 2012).
In life, dorsal coloration of the tadpoles ranges from olive-yellow to dark brown depending on the lighting and water coloration. Tadpole coloration in preservative is a uniform yellowish-grey with more coloration on the dorsum and tail and a more transparent coloration on the belly. The tail has a fine marble-like pattern. The eyes and the mouthparts are black. Faint lines of neuromats are visible on the dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head and body (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
In life, the coloration of juveniles is light bluish-grey dorsally with fine, dark speckling and bright yellow ventrums. The dark spots on the flanks were absent (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
The type series for this species show sexual dimorphism and variation in patterning and coloration. Females are generally larger than males and have pale green rather than pale yellow margins on their digit webbing. There is slight variation in the location and concentration of white specks or spots found over the whole body. The amount of black coloration on webbing also varies slightly between individuals (Rowley et al. 2012).
Distribution and Habitat
Country distribution from AmphibiaWeb's database: Viet Nam
Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors
Males of R. helenae vocalize following rain events at sunset or early in the evening from 1 - 7 meters above the ground, sitting on trees and bushes adjacent to small pools of water. Calls can be divided into five main categories: 1) simple tonal, 2) tonal with pulses, 3) simple wideband, 4) wideband with pulses, and 5) pulsed. The call duration for each of the 5 groups is 39, 120, 90, 100, and 170 ms respectively. The pulse rate for groups 2, 4, and 5 is 42.8, 47.9, 52.6 pulses per second respectively. The frequency peak for each of the 5 groups is 875.7, 978, 960, 996.7, 1164.4 Hz respectively (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
Simple tonal calls are the most commonly expressed call out of the five different call groups, contributing 63% of total calls. While the great diversity of calls exhibited by R. helenae is not unheard of, it is quite surprising, as many other species within the Rhacophorus genus - and other related genera - are characterized by fairly simple, pulsed calls. Single males (not in choruses), exhibit only a single call; however, when males participate in choruses at breeding sites, each male exhibits many calls. In choruses, male call intensity and rate increase as a result of inter-male competition for females, since females prefer high call rates. Since there are so many different call types, it is thought that some call types function to communicate with females, while other calls function to communicate with other males, as is the case in Polypedates leucomystax, a tree frog in the Rhacophoridae family (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
Females lay eggs in foam nests on rocks or 10 - 12 m above ground on large, wide green leaves that slightly cover a non-permanent rain-filled pool/pond. This is so the larvae have easy access for the next stage. In captivity, two females laid clutches of about unfertilized 200 - 230 small eggs that had no pigment. The eggs measured 2.3 ± 0.1 mm in diameter (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
Tadpoles are found in temporary and seasonal ponds. Other species that can be found in the ponds are Polypedates megacephalus and Rhacophorus annamensis (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
Juveniles, in captivity, took 11 – 14 days to develop from stage 40 to stage 46 (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
Trends and Threats
Relation to Humans
Possible reasons for amphibian decline
General habitat alteration and loss
Based on uncorrected pairwise analysis of 16S ribosomal RNA, R. helenae and R. kio have a genetic distance of 4.38 – 4.74 % (Rowley et al. 2012). Further analysis of 843 bp of 16S ribosomal RNA using Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Inference supported the notion that R. helenae and R. kio are sister species with the next most closely related species being R. borneensis (Vassilieva et al. 2016).
The species epithet, ”helenae”, is in honor of Helen M. Rowley, mother of the first author of the species description, for the support Helen gave to Jodi Rowley in her career (Rowley et al. 2012).
IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2014. Rhacophorus helenae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T47144519A47144530.
Rowley, J.J.L., Tran, D.T.A, Hoang, H.D., Le, D.T.T. (2012). ''A New Species of Large Flying Frog (Rhacophoridae: Rhacophorus) from Lowland Forestsin Southern Vietnam.'' Journal of Herpetology, 46(4), 480-487.
Vassilieva, A.B., Gogoleva, S.S., Poyarkov Jr., N.A. (2016). ''Larval Morphology and Complex Vocal Repertoire of Rachophorus helenae (Anura: Rhacophoridae), a Rare Flying Frog from Vietnam.'' Zootaxa, 4127(3), 515-536.
Originally submitted by: Natali Camacho, Gabrielle Fuerst, and Lillian Schultz (first posted 2018-06-07)
Edited by: Ann T. Chang, Michelle S. Koo (2022-08-18)
Species Account Citation: AmphibiaWeb 2022 Rhacophorus helenae: Helen’s Tree Frog <https://amphibiaweb.org/species/7957> University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Accessed Mar 26, 2023.
Feedback or comments about this page.
Citation: AmphibiaWeb. 2023. <https://amphibiaweb.org> University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Accessed 26 Mar 2023.
AmphibiaWeb's policy on data use.