The east Asian Asiatic toad (also known by the latin name Bufo gargarizans) lives in a wide range of habitats across East Asia including forests, meadows and cultivated land. However, it remains unclear how these toads evolved and became so widespread – partly because it has proved difficult for researchers to clearly define the species and what distinguishes it from other closely-related species of toads (collectively known as Bufo toads).

Othman et al. combined several bioinformatics techniques to study Asiatic toads and 38 other species of bufonid toads from across the globe. This approach found that Bufo toads first emerged in eastern Asia between 14 and 10 million years ago. This coincides with a point in time when large swathes of land in central Asia turned from adequate to sustain toad populations into desert, suggesting the change in climate prompted the toads to migrate eastwards from central Asia. The Bufo toads then divided into two groups of species: one in mainland East Asia and the other in Japan.

Furthermore, the study revealed there is more genetic diversity – that is, more variety in the DNA of individuals – in Asiatic toads than previously thought. The findings also help to define several other species of Bufo toads more clearly and describe a new toad species restricted to the Korean Peninsula, northeastern China and the Russian Primorye region: the Sakhalin toad (Bufo sachalinensis).

This work demonstrates that a large-scale study of many species across the globe can be used to understand how the species evolved and more clearly distinguish one species from another. The findings of Othman et al. will be of interest to both professional and citizen scientists interested in the natural history of Asia. Furthermore, as several species of Bufo toads are in decline in the wild, they provide evidence that may aid future efforts to conserve them.

Evolutionary history is critical in explaining the diversification within and between species, and the dynamics between species and environments in ecological zones (Ricklefs, 2006). Factors such as past geological events, natural dispersion, and anthropogenic changes (Dufresnes et al., 2020; Othman et al., 2020) can drive and induce different evolutionary scenarios such as physiological adaptation, genetic variability, and phenotypic divergence (Luquet et al., 2015). However, understanding phylogeography and the processes contributing to genetic divergence can be more challenging in taxonomic groups distributed across vast ranges. This difficulty results from the ecological responses to variability in environmental conditions and geographical features (Zhao and Yu, 2012). Thus, integrating macroevolution of species groups and microevolution within populations is necessary to understand the evolutionary mechanisms of complex study systems (Li et al., 2018).

Amphibians are an excellent model for studying the factors affecting distribution and evolution. Specifically, true toads in the family Bufonidae (bufonids) are well suited to this area of study due to their high species diversity (Rojas et al., 2018) and adaptive response to past climate change that led to an evolutionary-recent global radiation (Van Bocxlaer et al., 2010). Numerous phylogeographic and systematic studies have characterized the evolutionary diversifications of bufonids, notably in the Holarctic (Dufresnes et al., 2019; Garcia-Porta et al., 2012; Pauly et al., 2004; Recuero et al., 2012; Stöck et al., 2006), the Neotropics (Pramuk, 2006), and in the Western Ghats (Van Bocxlaer et al., 2009). However, Asian Bufo is generally used as an outgroup (Garcia-Porta et al., 2012; Recuero et al., 2012) resulting in only a few studies focusing on the spatiotemporal origin of Bufo in the Eastern Palearctic. Consequently, the resolution of evolutionary diversification patterns in Asian Bufo lineages is limited, and the existing phylogenetic studies are generally geared toward regional sampling and mitochondrial markers (Borzée et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2000; Macey et al., 1998; Yu et al., 2014). Although some recent taxonomic revisions have used multi-locus data (Fong et al., 2020; Zhan and Fu, 2011), the lack of primary fossils calibrations has resulted in molecular dating estimates that mostly depend on paleogeological events and secondary calibrations. Perhaps as a result, contradicting biogeographical hypotheses have been posited regarding the Asian lineage of Bufo (Borzée et al., 2017; Fu et al., 2005; Igawa et al., 2006; Macey et al., 1998) and inconsistent phylogenetic species boundaries have been proposed (Macey et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2000; Fu et al., 2005; Pyron and Wiens, 2011; Zhan and Fu, 2011).

To date, three biogeographical hypotheses relevant to the initial emergence of the Bufo genus in the Eastern Palearctic have been proposed: (hypothesis 1) the split between a Western and Eastern lineage due to the desertification of Central Asia during the Middle Miocene, c. 12.00 Mya (Garcia-Porta et al., 2012); (hypothesis 2) vicariant speciation at the time of the earliest emergence of a high-altitude Bufo group distributed in Eastern Tibet, followed by a subsequent dispersal to low elevations in the Late Miocene, c. 10.00–5.00 Mya (Macey et al., 1998); and (hypothesis 3) the isolation of an insular endemic clade on the Japanese Archipelago following the drift of the archipelago away from the Eurasian continent in the Late Miocene, c. 6.00 Mya (Igawa et al., 2006). Although differing in the details, the hypotheses proposed here agree on the Miocene paleogeological events as key factors in the segregation of the Eastern lineage of Bufo.

Comparable to the Western Bufo, two or more species of Eastern Palearctic Bufo form species complexes with similar morphologies and unclear taxonomic boundaries, such as the B. gargarizans and B. japonicus complexes (Matsui, 1986; Zhan and Fu, 2011; Arntzen et al., 2013). The divergence of B. gargarizans and B. japonicus complexes from the other Bufo in East Asia, and the radiations within each species complex coincide with the Plio-Pleistocene climatic oscillations (Fu et al., 2005), sea-level fluctuations, and ice age glaciations (Borzée et al., 2017), and selection pressure in the Anthropocene (Hase et al., 2013). Most Bufo species distributed on the East Asian mainland are restricted to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) and adjacent high-altitude areas. The major exception to this is the B. gargarizans complex that is widely distributed in Northeast Asia. The species colonized its current range from a single source through long dispersal on the Asian mainland (Fu et al., 2005; Zhan and Fu, 2011). Concomitantly, the species expanded and formed a continental lineage of Bufo in septentrional East Asia, here defined as the northern-most range of current ‘B. gargarizans,’ including clades distributed in the Korean Peninsula and the Russian Far East (Matsui, 1986; Maslova, 2016). In contrast to the Asian mainland clades, Bufo septentrional East Asian clades show a marked impact of Pleistocene glaciations on range shifts (Borzée et al., 2017), and possible ice age refugia on the Korean Peninsula, and in the southernmost Amur River Basin (Borzée et al., 2017; Fong et al., 2020). One of the clades is also likely to have been isolated on the Korean Peninsula since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with limited genetic exchange with other clades. This is plausible because of the Yellow Sea level rise during the LGM (Li et al., 2016), as reflected by the monophyly of the Korean B. gargarizans clade (Borzée et al., 2017).

The taxonomic assignment of East Asian toads using their morphometric and geographic distribution included up to 11 distinctive species in the past (see the chronology of taxonomic updates in Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Seven recognized taxa within Bufo were assigned to East Asia, ranging from western People’s Republic of China (hereafter China) to continental East Asia and associated islands on the continental shelf, and the Amur River Basin. Additionally, four taxa were specific to the Japanese archipelago (Matsui, 1986). A systematics revision based on mitochondrial markers then simplified the East Asian mainland Bufo to five members, with synonimization of some monophyletic groups and invalidation of paraphyletic taxa (Liu et al., 2000). In a more recent multi-locus study (Pyron and Wiens, 2011), 10 species were considered valid, although some under sampled taxa remain unresolved (see the type locality distributions and chronology of systematic revision in Supplementary file 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

Clade sorting based on morphological and life-history characteristics also influences the tree topology of Asian Bufo. Stream-breeders such as B. andrewsi, B. torrenticola, B. stejnegeri, and the former ‘Torrentophryne’ all demonstrate adaptation to the lotic ecosystem and high-altitude environment (Liao et al., 2016). For instance, adults lack tympanums (Tsuji and Kawamichi, 1996). Ancestral state reconstruction indicates that the semi-aquatic natural histories of East Asian Bufo likely arose independently (Fong et al., 2020). Arguably, life-history characteristics may not reflect a phylogenetic relationship, however, such adaptive traits may still help offer explanations in the role of morphological and ecological characters on the systematics of Asian Bufo, and help revisit previous studies in cases of convergence.

Other factors to consider are anthropogenic activities as they have also impacted the current distribution and phylogeny of bufonids, especially in insular regions (Othman et al., 2020). An example is an intergradation between the two B. j. japonicus subspecies in Japan that were originally geographically isolated from each other. Historically, B. j. formosus occurred in the east and B. j. japonicus occurred in the west (Miura, 1995). This was followed by the invasion of northern Japan (i.e., Hokkaido and Sado) by the former after anthropogenic introductions (Hase et al., 2013; Suzuki et al., 2020). The distribution of B. gargarizans has similarly been strongly influenced by human activities, particularly through the traditional medicine trade (Zhan et al., 2020). As a result, contemporary genetic patterns in the species complex show muddled genetic signals (Lee et al., 2021). From this, it can be inferred that the past and ongoing trade may lead to the reduction in local diversity within the B. gargarizans complex.

The issues related to the taxonomic groupings in the B. gargarizans complex are majorly rooted in the inconsistency of the hierarchical systematic ranks used. For instance, the validity of the endemic Taiwan toad, also called Central Formosa toad, B. bankorensis as a species was inconsistent across taxonomic revisions despite its position within the B. gargarizans clade (Matsui, 1986; Liu et al., 2000; Yu et al., 2014). These inconsistencies confuse not only the interpretations of evolutionary history, but also the ecology. For instance, ecologists have regarded B. andrewsi as a species of its own with life-history traits related to adaptation to high altitude (Liao et al., 2016), but systematists considered B. andrewsi as a junior synonym of B. gargarizans (Fu et al., 2005). Clearly, an integrative re-evaluation of East Asian Bufo species is required. Species delimitation via coalescent methods is a promising tool for addressing these inconsistencies, and a notable improvement to conventional molecular phylogenetic analysis. This methodology has been used to untangle taxonomic issues linked to phenotypic variations and cryptic lineages in other Asian toads such as Ingerophrynus celebensis (Evans et al., 2008). Additionally, the inclusion in our species tree topology of some previously undersampled bufonids from the eastern tip of Tibet to the northern South East Asia such as B. pageoti, B. tuberculatus, a high elevation-restricted B. gargarizans subspecies, and B. gargarizans minshanicus (hereafter B. minshanicus), may increase the robustness of our analyses and resolve the inconsistent placement of these clades within the nomenclature.

The spatiotemporal origin of the East Asian Bufo lineage is uncertain and characterized by a limited understanding of the evolutionary processes involved. In addition, species delimitations present a serious taxonomic discrepancy within the B. gargarizans complex, resulting in repeated calls for taxonomic clarification at a fine scale. This manuscript is structured into two sections, with different taxonomic and geographic scales (Figure 1). The first section focuses on resolving the biogeography of Holarctic bufonid species, following the Bufonidae lineage since the breakdown of the West Gondwana. We use a combination of fossilized birth-death calibrations and multi-locus coalescent-based species tree methods to estimate the most probable time and routes of colonization of bufonids into the Palearctic (Figure 1). In the second section, we elucidate the biogeographic pattern of the East Palearctic Bufo and resolve the taxonomy of the B. gargarizans complex. Here, we evaluate the best species tree topology by testing five alternative hypotheses to recover the taxonomic relationship between Asian species of Bufo. We rely on an intensive and widespread sampling, integrated biogeographical analyses, niche differentiation between divergent clades, and model-based species delimitation approach to resolve the taxonomic boundaries of the B. gargarizans species complex, including the recently expanded septentrional East Asian clade (Figure 1).

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Our study addresses biogeographic scenarios explained in two different sections: (1) the biogeography of Holarctic bufonids and (2) the biogeography of Eastern Palearctic Bufo and the taxonomic revision of the species complexes.

Biogeography of Holarctic bufonids

The goal was to refine the time estimates of the split between clades of Holarctic bufonids, in coherence with fossil data (Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 1 and Supplementary file 1B).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Fossilized birth death dating

The dated species tree using fossilized birth-death showed that following the split of West Gondwana, bufonids first diverged into American clades and African-Eurasian clades. The subsequent splits of genera of both ancestors followed a contemporary timeline, with the first divergence dating from the Early Oligocene to Middle Miocene (Figure 2).

In Eurasia, radiations between the Oligocene and Early Miocene resulted in the segregation of the clades of North African origin c. 26.08 Mya (95% highest posterior density [HPD 95%]/Mya for all dating estimates in Table 1; Figure 2). The emergence of the main extant clade was dated from the Early to Middle Miocene. The monophyletic Bufotes emerged c. 21.72 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2) with the North African-Eurasian group diverging from the Western Himalayan Bufotes c. 19.81 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2). Later, the Iberian Epidalea and its sister genus the Eurasian Strauchbufo emerged c. 10.88 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2). The Palearctic Bufo split into two clades, the Western and the Eastern Palearctic Bufo between the Early and the Middle Miocene c. 14.49 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2). The credible interval showed a considerable overlap in the timing of radiations within Bufo during the Middle Miocene (10.00–15.00 Mya), indicated by the isolation of the European Bufo clade c. 11.03 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2), and a subsequent emergence of the Asian Bufo clade c. 9.99 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2).

Table 1

Clade	Key nodes	Dating analysis methods
		Fossilized birth-death (median [HPD 95%]/Mya)	Yule (median [HPD 95%]/Mya)
i	North Africa-Eurasia origin	26.08 [22.54‒32.51]	25.88 [22.55‒31.81]
ii	Neotropical origin	24.25 [13.21–39.07]	23.40 [13.10–35.61]
a (1)	Emergence of Bufotes (West Himalaya)	21.72 [18.90–25.25]	21.67 [19.63–27.68]
a (2)	Emergence of Bufotes (North Africa-Eurasia)	20.42 [18.10‒23.28]	20.37 [18.79–25.02]
c	Emergence of Palearctic Bufo	14.49 [9.76‒22.70]	14.52 [9.83‒22.58]
d	Radiation of western Palearctic Bufo	11.03 [9.14‒15.42]	11.04 [9.12–15.37]
e	Emergence and early radiation of eastern Palearctic Bufo	9.99 [4.66‒16.57]	10.11 [4.58–6.34]
b	Emergence of Epidalea and Strauchbufo (Eurasia)	10.88 [7.11‒17.78]	10.87 [7.03‒17.51]
h	Emergence of Rhinella (South America)	14.16 [11.16‒22.24]	14.00 [11.15–21.54]
g	Emergence of Incilius (Central America)	11.90 [7.15‒22.40]	11.80 [7.16–21.52]
f	Emergence of Anaxyrus (Nearctic)	9.56 [6.16‒18.14]	9.53 [6.13–17.58]

The earliest split among the American bufonids segregated the Neotropical clades predominantly during the Early Miocene c. 24.25 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2). The most basal divergence was Rhinella in the southern continent c. 14.16 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2), from which the younger Central American Incilius c. 11.90 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2), and Nearctic Anaxyrus may have diverged c. 9.56 Mya (Table 1; Figure 2). The alternative calibrated time tree analysis under a Yule speciation model resulted in a topology and time estimates that generally corresponded to that of the fossilized birth-death analysis (Table 1).

Evolutionary diversification of Eastern Palearctic Bufo

Here, we focused on reconstructing the historical biogeography of Eastern Palearctic Bufo and resolving the taxonomic boundaries of the species complex within the genus. The vast distribution and taxonomic inconsistencies in Eastern Palearctic Bufo warrant a careful examination of the hypotheses proposed by previous studies.

Optimum species tree topology for Palearctic Bufo

The vast distribution range of the Bufo genus in the Eastern Palearctic resulted in cryptic diversity. Hence, we aimed to resolve the topology of Palearctic Bufo lineages (N species =26) following five hypotheses (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 1). We derived these hypotheses from ranges, life histories, geological events, and the likelihood of single or multiple origins. Here, our focal taxa included the Palearctic Bufo species and three group members of the ‘Torrentophryne’ genus, a clade paraphyletic to Bufo, to elucidate the validity of the genus and determine its relationship with Asian Bufo (Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 1). The nested sampling analyses supported an optimum tree topology for the Eastern Palearctic Bufo linked to Miocene geological events with the highest Marginal Likelihood estimation (MLE; Model C: Supplementary file 1C, Figure 3), followed in likelihood by the topology of a single origin for the East Asian Bufo clade (Model E: Supplementary file 1C, Figure 3). Whereas, the topologies structured by life history and morphological trait recovered the lowest likelihoods, and did not favor the monophyly of ‘Torrentophryne’ (Model B: Supplementary file 1C, Figure 3). The best-fit topology of Model C supported three well-resolved monophyletic clades, a Bufotes (PP: 1.0; Figure 3), a Western Palearctic Bufo clade (PP: 0.90; Figure 3), and an Eastern Palearctic Bufo clade (PP: 1.0; Figure 3). Despite weakly recovering the East Asian mainland Bufo clade, the species tree strongly supported the distinction of the Japanese Bufo subclades (PP: 1.0; Figure 3). The alternative topologies from the four suboptimum models (Models A, B, D, and E) were qualified by lower MLE values than that of Model C (details in Supplementary file 1C and Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Phylogeny and population structure of East Asian Bufo

We first inferred the haplotype network of both mtDNA and nuclear data using the median-joining method. The haplotype of the concatenated mtDNA resulted in 98 haplotypes (see genetic diversity and neutrality tests in Supplementary file 1D; Figure 4A). The AMOVA based on the six monophyletic clades (N populations =8) recovered from the mtDNA phylogenetic analyses supported the population structure and showed that 55.48% of the molecular variance was attributed to differences among clades (df =5). We found 22.08% of the molecular variance among populations within clades (df =7) and 22.44% of the variance was found within individuals (df =213; Supplementary file 1E). The average fixation index over all the loci tested showed that F_SC =0.50, F_ST =0.78, and F_CT =0.55, and that there was a negative correlation between geographical distance and genetic differentiations (N populations =13; Pearson’ r=–0.059, Figure 4—figure supplement 1). The analysis of the nuclear data (POMC-RAG-1-Rho) from eight populations resulted in a single group of haplotypes (N=54) with a haplotype diversity (Hd) of 0.972 (Figure 4B), an average pairwise difference of 7.667 (±4.533), and a nucleotide diversity of 0.007 (±0.005). Additionally, the Mantel test for nuclear data revealed a low correlation between the geographic distance and genetic variation for the diploid populations of the East Asian Bufo (N population=8; Pearson’s r=0.072, Figure 4—figure supplement 1).

Figure 4 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To increase the phylogenetic resolution of Bufo across East Asia, we enlarged the sampling range to septentrional Eastern Asia where it covered the distributions of B. sachalinensis sachalinensis in the Amur River Basin and the B. sachalinensis cf. sachalinensis subclade restricted to the Korean Peninsula (currently ‘B. gargarizans’). We also conducted two independent molecular phylogenetic analyses using concatenated mtDNA fragments of the control region (CR) and NADH dehydrogenase 2 (ND2); and concatenated the nuDNA of the gene fragments proopiomelanocortin (POMC), recombination activating gene 1 (RAG-1) and rhodopsin (Rho). The phylogenetic trees derived from the mtDNA (N taxa =221) and nuDNA data (N=44) inferred six monophyletic clades, respectively. The mtDNA and nuDNA trees recovered discordant topologies, and they resulted in different composition of clades (Figure 4C and D). We found B. gargarizans from the Asian mainland to be segregated into multiple clades scattered across the nuDNA tree (see details in Table 2, Figure 4). We highlighted other discordance found between the monophyletic B. j. formosus and B. j. japonicus in the mtDNA tree (Clades 1 and 2; Figure 4C), in which both Japanese B. japonicus clustered in a clade based on the nuDNA tree (Clade 4; Figure 4D). In addition, nuDNA resolved B. bankorensis and the septentrional East Asia clades of B. sachalinensis as monophyletic (Figure 4D). Despite these inconsistencies, we found both mtDNA and nuDNA trees to similarly manifest a segregation between the septentrional East Asian clades of B. sachalinensis and B. gargarizans (Figure 4).

Table 2

Distribution range	Clade	Description of cladistics
		Concatenated mtDNA (CR-ND2)	Concatenated nuDNA (POMC-RAG1-Rho)
Japanese Archipelago	Bufo japonicus formosus	Monophyletic (Clade 1)	Grouped together in a clade of Japanese Bufo
Japanese Archipelago	Bufo japonicus japonicus	Monophyletic (Clade 2)
Korean Peninsula	Bufo stejnegeri	Monophyletic (Clade 3)	B. stejnegeri were grouped with Korean B. gargarizans in a nested clade of southeastern mainland and septentrional East Asian B. gargarizans (Clade 3)
Northeastern Mainland Asia	Bufo gargarizans	Monophyletic (Clade)	Contained multiple clades of B. gargarizans restricted to the southeastern and northeastern Asian mainland
Eastern Mainland	Bufo gargarizans	Polyphyletic with a clade of B. bankorensis distributed in Taiwan Island(Clade 5)	Formed multiple clades across Eastern Asian Bufo lineages. A clade grouped with northeastern B. gargarizans. Another clade is polyphyletic with of B. bankorensis of Taiwan Island and B. gargarizans distributed in septentrional East Asia (Clade 3).
Taiwan Island	Bufo bankorensis
Central Mainland	Bufo gargarizans		Formed two distinctive clades: A clade that restricted to western Mainland (Clade 2). Belonged to monophyletic groups of southeastern, western, and northeastern Mainland B. gargarizans
Septentrional East Asia (Korean Peninsula)	Bufo sachalinensis cf. sachalinensis	Monophyletic (Clade 6)	Monophyletic (Clade 3)
Septentrional East Asia (Amur River Basin)	Bufo sachalinensis sachalinensis	Monophyletic (Clade 6)	Monophyletic (Clade 3)

Additionally, we reconstructed a 16S rRNA only tree to include an individual B. gargarizans from Vietnam. The individual did not cluster with East Asian lowlands B. gargarizans, rather it was nested inside a clade of high elevation-restricted species including B. andrewsi and B. tibetanus (Clade C: Figure 4—figure supplement 2).

Diploid genotype clusters

The structure analysis based on the 1030 bp of multilocus POMC-RAG-1-Rho supported two clusters (K=2) within East Asian Bufo, with Mean (LnProb) equal to –827.838 and mean (similarity score) among 10 runs equal to 0.974 (Figure 4D). The first cluster included the populations of Bufo in the western, central, southeastern, and northeastern Asian mainland along with the Japanese Bufo (Figure 4D). We recorded a negligible amount of admixture between population clusters of B. gargarizans in the western mainland, eastern mainland, and the Japanese Archipelago (see admixture portions in Supplementary file 1F and Figure 4D). However, we found significant amounts of admixture in the central and southeastern mainland Asia (Supplementary file 1F, Figure 4D). The second cluster was restricted to B. sachalinensis of septentrional East Asia with significant admixture, ranging from the Korean Peninsula to the Amur River Basin and Sakhalin Island (Supplementary file 1F, Figure 4D). This cluster also included the population of B. bankorensis distributed in Taiwan Island (Figure 4D).

The effect of introgression

The cytonuclear discrepancy (Figure 4) may be the result of introgression or/and incomplete lineage sorting. Thus, we further evaluated the pattern of introgression in our nuclear data (POMC-RAG1-Rho, N=44, nucleotide length =1030 bp) using ABBA or BABA test. To do so, we employed Patterson’s D-statistic to compare the number of allelic ABBA and BABA sites. Here, the D-statistic value we obtained was equal to 1, with the ABBA-BABA pattern calculated among the sites failing to reach equal frequencies (50:50). The probability of specific sites carring the allelic patterns of ABBA or BABA was equivalent to 1, and the number of segregating sites that fit the pattern of ABBA or BABA in at least one population was equivalent to 0. The unsymmetrical frequencies violate the assumption that only incomplete lineage sorting affects the Bufo nuclear tree, and showed the possibility of introgression as a significant factor in shaping the nuclear genetic structure.

Molecular dating and ancestral range

Despite topological discordance, all nuDNA and mtDNA trees consistently revealed a distinction between the clades of Eastern Central Asia and septentrional East Asia in the B. gargarizans complex. Thus, we also provided dating estimates using the nuDNA data set as an alternative to the mtDNA estimates (Table 3). In the context of dating estimates, we considered mtDNA estimates more informative than nuclear estimates based on two factors: (1) the higher number of taxa in the mtDNA tree than in the nuDNA tree resulting to a clearer phylogeographic structure with higher support values for the clades recovered and (2) the clades recovered from the mtDNA tree highly matched the best-supported topology of species tree of Eastern Palearctic Bufo (Figure 2). Overall dating for the major B. gargarizans clades from the nuDNA data set (especially the 95% HPD ranges) were in agreement with the mitochondrial estimates, with nuDNA ingroup nodes slightly younger than mtDNA (Table 3).

Table 3

Key events (node number)	mtDNA (CR-ND2)			nuDNA (POMC-RAG-1-Rho)
	Relaxed molecular clock			Strict molecular clock
	Yule prior (median [HPD 95%]/Mya)	Birth-death prior (median [HPD 95%]/Mya)	Mean(median [HPD 95%]/Mya)	Birth-death prior(median [HPD 95%]/Mya)
Root age of East Asian Bufo	10.47 [7.88‒13.40]	17.93 [11.81‒26.63]	14.20 [9.46‒20.02]	10.12 [6.60‒12.77]
Emergence of Japanese Bufo (A1)	7.75 [5.98‒9.52]	8.70 [6.97‒10.44]	8.23 [6.48‒9.98]	7.64 [4.99‒8.92]
Crown clade of B. j. formosus	3.71 [1.71‒5.92]	4.15 [2.38‒6.13]	3.93 [2.05‒6.03]	‒
Crown clade of B. j. japonicus	2.24 [0.72‒4.33]	1.58 [0.57‒2.84]	1.91 [0.65‒3.59]	‒
Crown clade of B. stejnegeri	3.32 [1.54‒5.24]	2.22 [0.72‒4.12]	2.77 [1.13‒4.68]	4.09 [1.46‒5.43]
MRCA of East Asian mainland Bufo (A2)	8.38 [6.13‒10.88]	14.25 [9.67‒19.44]	11.32 [7.90‒15.16]	‒
Crown clade of B. tibetanus ‒ B. andrewsi	5.21 [3.25‒7.45]	5.26 [3.01–7.66]	5.24 [3.13‒7.55]	‒
Stem node of B. gargarizans complex (A3)	6.85 [4.70‒9.32]	11.25 [7.28‒16.08]	9.04 [5.99‒12.70]	‒
Stem clade of Chinese mainland of B. gargarizans	5.19 [3.16‒6.72]	5.34 [3.45‒7.83]	5.27 [3.31‒7.28]	‒
Segregation between B. gargarizans inhabiting high (B. minshanicus) and low elevation (B. g. gargarizans)	4.70 [3.23‒6.53]	2.68 [1.82‒3.26]	3.69 [2.53‒4.90]	3.77 [2.39‒3.83]
Crown clade of B. andrewsi and B. gargarizans inhabiting high elevated range (B. minshanicus)	2.89 [2.18‒3.54]	2.55 [1.86‒3.28]	2.72 [2.02‒3.41]	2.79 [1.18‒3.10]
Crown clade of B. g. gargarizans in the southeastern Mainland	3.14 [1.92‒4.49]	2.56 [1.48‒3.86]	2.85 [1.70‒4.18]	3.05 [1.04‒3.45]
Nested clades of B. gargarizans popei and B. g. gargarizans in the Central, southeastern and northeastern Mainland	2.21 [1.37‒3.20]	1.28 [0.71‒1.95]	1.85 [1.04‒2.58]	3.65 [1.18‒5.28]
Crown clade of B. bankorensis	1.34 [0.74‒1.94]	1.28 [0.72‒1.84]	1.31 [0.73‒1.89]	1.80 [0.50‒1.80]
Stem clade of septentrional East Asian B. sachalinensis	1.95 [1.55‒2.34]	1.81 [1.38‒2.28]	1.88 [1.47‒2.31]	2.21 [0.93‒2.16]
Crown clade of Korean B. sachalinensis cf. sachalinensis	1.58 [1.18‒1.93]	1.22 [0.82‒1.61]	1.40 [1.00‒1.77]	‒
Crown clade of Russian B. sachalinensis sachalinensis	1.06 [0.62‒1.53]	0.46 [0.19‒0.79]	0.76 [0.41‒1.16]	‒

Here, we compared the three hypotheses related to the phylogeography of the B. gargarizans complex, explained by: QTP vicariance and dispersal (Macey et al., 1998), dominance of long dispersals (Fu et al., 2005), and ice-age refugia (Borzée et al., 2017). Our dating and ancestral range estimates supported the contribution of vicariance and dispersal to the earliest diversification of the East Asian Bufo. We dated the events concerning the basal clade of Eastern Asian Bufo from the Early to Late Miocene c. 14.20 Mya (see HPD 95% in Table 3; Figure 5). The events were subsequently followed by the emergence and isolation of the Japanese Bufo from the Eastern Asian lineage in Late Miocene (Figure 5A1), the Japanese Bufo group then splitting into two distinct species, B. j. formosus and B. j. japonicus, c. 8.23 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5). These events were followed by the radiations within the East Asian Bufo lineage resulting in the independent divergence of B. stejnegeri in the Korean Peninsula, c. 8.90 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5) and a split between the high altitudes East Asian clades: B. tibetanus, B. andrewsi, and B. gargarizans c. 11.32 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5). These East Asian clades are present in the areas of the QTP and likely to have dispersed from high elevation areas (Figure 5A2), resulting in the divergence between B. tibetanus and B. andrewsi, dated between the Pliocene and the Late Miocene c. 5.24 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5).

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

We found the combined effects of long dispersal and ice-age refugia to contribute equally to the radiation of the B. gargarizans complex in the Plio-Pleistocene, although the trade of the species over the last millennium has muddled the genetic signature (Figure 5A3). The deepest split within the B. gargarizans complex is estimated to have occurred around the same timeframe and at high elevation, delineating the B. minshanicus clade (B. gargarizans subspecies) in the southwestern to central mainland Asia (i.e., Sichuan and Shaanxi) c. 5.27 Mya (Table 3; Figure 5). Later, B. gargarizans may have dispersed to lower latitudes with the splitting from the monophyletic clade of B. gargarizans gargarizans ranging from southeastern to northeastern mainland Asia (i.e., Shanghai, Zhejiang, Hubei, Jinan, and Shenyang) c. 2.85 Mya (Table 3; Figure 5). A widely dispersed B. gargarizans clade further diverged in the central, southeastern, and northeastern mainland Asia (i.e., Sichuan, Shaanxi, Hubei, and Jiangsu, Dalian) c. 1.85 Mya (Table 3; Figure 5), nested within the B. g. popei clade (Figure 5). The B. bankorensis clade is a more recent divergence c. 1.31 Mya (Table 3; Figure 5), sharing a common ancestor with the southeastern B. g. gargarizans (Table 3, Supplementary file 1G, Figure 5).

We estimate the emergence of B. j. formosus in Japan to have occurred between the Early Pleistocene and the Late Miocene c.3.93 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5), followed by a recent divergence of B. j. japonicus between the Pleistocene and the Pliocene c. 1.91 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5). In Northeast Asia, the B. stejnegeri clade may have independently emerged at the Plio-Pleistocene boundary c. 2.77 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5). Finally, the B. gargarizans clade dispersed and diverged eastward of the Yellow Sea during the Pleistocene c. 1.88 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5), established a population on the Korean Peninsula c. 1.40 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5) and expanded further to the Amur River Basin c. 0.76 Mya (Table 3, Figure 5).

LGM population expansion

We tested the ice-age refugia hypothesis to infer the impact of past Yellow Sea fluctuations on the East septentrional Bufo clades. We demonstrated that the rise in the past Yellow Sea level resulted in population expansions for the Korean and Russian Bufo clades, as showed by significantly negative values of Tajima’s D and Fu’s Fs (refer to Clade 6; Supplementary file 1D). The results were consistent with the Bayesian Skyline Plot, which indicated a recent population expansion in the Amur River Basin clade c. 0.48 Mya (effective population size trajectory (mean [HPD]/Ne) 1.18 [0.30–2.94]) until present (Ne =3.73 [0.23–20.64]) with a mean likelihood: –1930.53 [HPD: −1942.89, –1918.43], Figure 6. In comparison, the populations of the Bufo distributed on the southwestern margin of Yellow Sea consistently declined since the Late Pleistocene c. 0.55 Mya (Ne =5.34 [13.46–1.124]) until present (Ne =3.43 [0.48–11.84]) with a mean of likelihood: –2954.63 [HPD: −2969.60, –2941.08], Figure 6.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Ecological niche modeling

To clarify the divergence in ecological requirements between B. gargarizans and B. sachalinensis, we examined the niche overlap between the two clades (Figure 7). The habitat suitability model for B. gargarizans (Figure 7A) was characterized by an AUC of 0.9239±0.0185 and a TSS of 0.6741±0.0408, while the model for the B. sachalinensis (Figure 7B) was characterized by an AUC of 0.9632±0.0043 and a TSS of 0.8723±0.0115. The ‘I’ niche overlap statistic between the two models was 0.4198, while the ‘D’ statistic was 0.1566. These values were significantly lower than the average values of the null distribution, with the mean of ‘I’ in the null distribution being 0.9788 (p<0.0001) and the mean of ‘D’ in the null distribution being 0.8546 (p<0.0001). Here, our result showed the overlap to be significantly less than expected, and therefore supporting the segregation in environmental requirements between the two East Asian Bufo clades.

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Population migration in septentrional East Asia

We then examined the impact of gene flows and migration on local adaptation of the focal B. sachalinensis clades. Along the latitudinal gradient, our results suggested a weak gene flow outwards from the Amur River Basin and B. s. sachalinensis, in comparison with the symmetrical gene flow between the subspecies of B. sachalinensis restricted to the Korean Peninsula and B. gargarizans (Figure 8). This limited gene flow did not hinder the local adaptation of B. sachalinensis clade distributed at northern latitudes.

Figure 8

Download asset Open asset

In particular, the migration trajectory obtained from the unlinked multi-locus data showed a lack of gene flow with a symmetrical pattern of gene exchange between the populations of Bufo distributed on the northeastern mainland and populations distributed on the Korean Peninsula (refer to migration rates and theta (Θ) estimates: Supplementary file 1H, Figure 8). We demonstrated a comparable and moderate gene flow when focused on the average population migration rate (M) of haploids (2 N m) and diploids (4 N m) of the two populations. The gene flow rate from the northeastern mainland toward the Korean Peninsula (M₁–M₃; Figure 8) was 0.106, and in the opposite direction (M₃–M₁; Figure 8) was 0.214 (Supplementary file 1H). Contrary to the symmetrical migration patterns between the northeastern mainland and Korean Peninsula, we estimated an asymmetrical migration pattern toward septentrional Eastern Asian B. s. sachalinensis in the Amur River Basin (Supplementary file 1H, Figure 8). We detected a higher rate of gene flow into the Amur River Basin, transferred from the eastern mainland and from the Korean Peninsula (Supplementary file 1H, Figure 8). However, we found a lower rate of gene flow from the Amur River Basin toward the northeastern mainland and the Korean Peninsula (Supplementary file 1H, Figure 8).

Additionally, the migration pattern between the two subpopulations of B. stejnegeri in Korea was also symmetrical, with a negligibly low rate of gene flow from the northern toward the southern population, and vice-versa (Supplementary file 1H, Figure 8).

Species boundaries and taxonomy updates

Here, we provided support to delimit the cryptic B. s. sachalinensis distributed in septentrional Eastern Asia (Amur River Basin). The path sampling and Bayes factor analyses generally supported lineage-splitting as the best speciation pattern as opposed to the lumping of the clades of East Asian Bufo (Supplementary file 1I, Figure 9). Out of the eight species delimitation models tested (models A–H; Supplementary file 1I, Figure 9), Bayes factors determined Model A to be the most favorable alternative, receiving the highest support out of all scenarios determined by the path sampling analyses (Supplementary file 1I, Figure 9). Our model supported the split of the East Asian Bufo genus into seven independent taxonomic units (Model A; MLE: –502.801, Bayes factor: 3.198; Supplementary file 1I, Figure 9). These correspond to B. j. japonicus, B. j. formosus, B. andrewsi, B. gargarizans, B. stejnegeri, B. bankorensis, and the clade we refer to as B. sachalinensis (see justification below). Model A also supported a species-level boundary between the two subspecies of B. japonicus: B. j. japonicus and B. j. formosus. The species delimitation model suggested the taxonomic merging of B. sachalinensis cf. sachalinensis clade in the Korean Peninsula with the B. s. sachalinensis clade in the Amur River Basin (Supplementary file 1I, Figure 9). Moreover, Model A validated the split between the clades distributed in septentrional East Asia from B. g. gargarizans clades in East Asia (Model A; Supplementary file 1I, Figure 9).

Figure 9

Download asset Open asset

Following multiple calls for a taxonomic revision and the various species descriptions and synonimization (Matsui, 1986; Igawa et al., 2006; Borzée et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2021), we suggest the following updates to the taxonomy. It is to be noted that we do not describe any new species as a long list of valid former names is available (Supplementary file 1I, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). We provided the taxonomy updates on the basis of species delimitation analysis (Figure 9), and the following recommendations were corroborated by the allopatric distribution of the delineated clades (Figure 9) and the differentiation in niche requirements (Figure 8). Thus, we presented the most robust taxonomic framework applied to this group since the description of B. gargarizans.

Here, we refer to Bufo gargarizans Cantor, 1842 (see Cantor, 1842) type locality in Supplementary file 1A and Figure 1—figure supplement 1 as B. gargarizans gargarizans (the Zhoushan toad based on the type locality) following the literature (Dubois and Bour, 2010). The subspecies is currently geographically widespread, a consequence of its synonimization with several clades of taxonomically unstable Bufo in the East Asian mainland, including the intergraded subspecies B. gargarizans popei Matsui, 1986, two high elevation-restricted Bufo species described under the epithets of B. andrewsi Schmidt, 1925, and B. minshanicus Stejneger, 1926 (see type localities and ranges in Supplementary file 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Here, we provide evidence for the independent evolution of B. andrewsi (Figure 9) and therefore the validity of B. andrewsi at the species level, against the previous synonimization (Fu et al., 2005). The distinction between B. bankorensis and B. gargarizans (Figure 8) is supported by the polyphyletic structure in their mtDNA lineage (Figures 4B and 5), further reinforced by the independent evolutionary lineage as shown by the multilocus BFD tree (Figure 9). Hence, we support the species status of B. bankorensis and reject their synonimization (Liu et al., 2000). The species was described under the epithet B. bankorensis Barbour, 1908 (Supplementary file 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

Most notably, we propose to redefine the Bufo clades in septentrional East Asia (Figure 9), which includes the clades referred to as B. sachalinensis cf. sachalinensis and B. s. sachalinensis in the analysis section. We therefore recommended the elevation of the septentrional East Asia clade currently named B. gargarizans to the species level, under the taxonomic epithet Bufo sachalinensis (Life Science identifier LSID urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:14938673-9CEB-4325-BDBC-83A0AC85B8A7, accessible at http://zoobank.org/References/14938673-9CEB-4325-BDBC-83A0AC85B8A7) and under the common name Sakhalin toad. We suggest the Chinese common name Dōng Běi Chán Chú for this species. The species was described under the name B. vulgaris sachalinensis Nikolsky, 1905 (Type locality: Sakhalin Island, Russia, syntypes ZISP 1934–1936 and MNKNU 26290; Supplementary file 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). We dated the split within B. gargarizans from the Middle Pleistocene (Figure 5), and the two species segregated along a diversity of ecological requirements (Figure 9). We then propose the assignment of clades in the Korean Peninsula and the Amur River Basin to different subspecies under B. sachalinensis to reflect evident geographic and genetic distinction. This framework aligns with the lineage-splitting pattern suggested by Model B in the nuDNA species delimitation analysis which provides a model support value only marginally lower than that of Model A (Figure 9), while our mtDNA phylogeny provides robust support for subspecies-level differentiation of these groups. The population on the Korean Peninsula does not have precedence in the taxonomy and it is not the type locality to any Bufo that is not synonymous with B. stejnegeri (Supplementary file 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Hence, we refer to this evolutionarily significant unit as B. s. cf. sachalinensis.

Our reconstruction of the Holarctic bufonids biogeography using species tree with fossilized birth-death calibration and phylogenetic hypotheses testing verified that the earliest split between Western and Eastern Palearctic Bufo occurred during the Middle Miocene (c. 14.46–10.00 Mya; Table 1), temporally matching with the maximum dust outflows in the deserts of Central Asia (Guo et al., 2002). Subsequently, we retraced the single-origin Asian Bufo in eastern Asia before the split between the continental and Japanese lineages, corroborated by the two Miocene paleogeological events: the rapid uplifts of regions adjacent to the QTP (Hengduan mountains; Xing and Ree, 2017) and the drift of the Japanese Archipelago (Barnes, 2003).

Our revisit of the three phylogeography hypotheses did not favor any specific hypothesis explaining the present geographic distribution of eastern Palearctic Bufo, in disagreement with the long colonization hypothesis (Zhan and Fu, 2011). Instead, our results provided support to the combination of the three elements: vicariance of the western mainland clade, followed by long dispersal, and possible refugia in northeastern Asia during the last ice age. We detected a loss of genetic structure within B. gargarizans clades, possibly due to introgression resulting from the trade of the species over a millennium (Lee et al., 2021). The recent segregation around the Yellow Sea, as shown by the species distribution models and migration pattern, also provides support to the delineation of a septentrional Asian Bufo clade associated with range shift toward northern latitudes. We therefore resurrect the previously described B. sachalinensis and elevate it to the species level. Our findings resolved the taxonomic boundaries in the B. gargarizans complex, and redefine the taxonomic and conservation units: B. g. gargarizans, B. s. sachalinensis, and B. sachalinensis cf. sachalinensis, with the latter waiting for a subspecies description.

This supplementary text includes the supportive information of materials and methods and results used to build our conclusion, such as the extended population genetic analyses, and the details of calibration points used for molecular dating estimation. We include the assessment of model selections for the species tree topology and species delimitation modeling. We also include the detailed information of all data sets used for the reconstruction of the paleogeographic maps for the molecular dating analyses.

All data generated or analysed during this study are either included in the manuscript and supporting files, or submitted online depositories. All Sequences generated in the present study were deposited to the Genbank database [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 927 genbank/] under the accession number MW081664- MW081847 (CR), MW467646-MW467777 (ND2), MW489915-MW489964 (POMC), MW489986-MW490035 (RAG-1), MW507752-MW507780 (Rho). Input files in the form of BEAST XML generated for all molecular dating analyses and species delimitation modelling are available from the Mendeley Data repository http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/wdtw6kn2t4.1 (Othman et al., 2021).

1. 1. Othman SN
   2. Litvinchuk SN
   3. Maslova I
   4. Dahn H
   5. Messenger KR
   6. Andersen D
   7. Jowers MJ
   8. Kojima Y
   9. Yasumiba K
   10. Chuang MF
   11. Chen YH
   12. Bae Y
   13. Hoti J
   14. Jang Y
   15. Borzée A

   (2021) Mendeley Data

   From Gondwana to the Yellow Sea: evolutionary diversifications of true Toads (Bufo sp.) in the Eastern Palearctic and species boundaries revisit for Asian lineages.

   https://doi.org/10.17632/wdtw6kn2t4.1

1. 1. Allouche O
   2. Tsoar A
   3. Kadmon R

   (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS)

   Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1223–1232.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Arntzen JW
   2. Recuero E
   3. Canestrelli D
   4. Martínez-Solano I

   (2013) How complex is the Bufo species group?

   Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 69:1203–1208.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.07.012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bailon S
   2. Hossini S

   (1990)

   The oldest European Bufonidae (Amphibia, Anura): miocene species from France

   Annales de Paleontologie 76:121–132.

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bandelt HJ
   2. Forster P
   3. Röhl A

   (1999) Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies

   Molecular Biology and Evolution 16:37–48.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026036

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barbour T

   (1908)

   Some new reptiles and amphibians

   Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 51:315–325.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Barnes GL

   (2003) Origins of the Japanese Islands: the new “big picture

   Japan Review 15:3–50.

   https://doi.org/10.2307/25791268

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Beerli P
   2. Mashayekhi S
   3. Sadeghi M
   4. Khodaei M
   5. Shaw K

   (2019) Population genetic inference with migrate

   Current Protocols in Bioinformatics 68:e87.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cpbi.87

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bell RC
   2. Irian CG

   (2019) Phenotypic and genetic divergence in reed frogs across a mosaic hybrid zone on São Tomé Island

   Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 128:672–680.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz131

   • Google Scholar
9. Website

   1. Böhme M
   2. Ilg A

   (2003) fosFARbase

   Accessed June 1, 2020.

   https://www.wahre-staerke.com/
10. 1. Borzée A
    2. Santos JL
    3. Sánchez-RamÍrez S
    4. Bae Y
    5. Heo K
    6. Jang Y
    7. Jowers MJ

    (2017) Phylogeographic and population insights of the Asian common toad (Bufo gargarizans) in Korea and China: population isolation and expansions as response to the ice ages

    PeerJ 5:e4044.

    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Borzée A
    2. Messenger KR
    3. Chae S
    4. Andersen D
    5. Groffen J
    6. Kim YI
    7. An J
    8. Othman SN
    9. Ri K
    10. Nam TY
    11. Bae Y
    12. Ren JL
    13. Li JT
    14. Chuang MF
    15. Yi Y
    16. Shin Y
    17. Kwon T
    18. Jang Y
    19. Min MS

    (2020) Yellow sea mediated segregation between North East Asian Dryophytes species

    PLOS ONE 15:e0234299.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234299

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Borzée A
    2. Kielgast J
    3. Wren S
    4. Angulo A
    5. Chen S
    6. Magellan K
    7. Messenger KR
    8. Hansen-Hendrikx CM
    9. Baker A
    10. Santos MMD
    11. Kusrini M
    12. Jiang J
    13. Maslova IV
    14. Das I
    15. Park D
    16. Bickford D
    17. Murphy RW
    18. Che J
    19. Van Do T
    20. Nguyen TQ
    21. Chuang MF
    22. Bishop PJ

    (2021) Using the 2020 global pandemic as a springboard to highlight the need for amphibian conservation in eastern Asia

    Biological Conservation 255:108973.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108973

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bouckaert RR

    (2010) DensiTree: making sense of sets of phylogenetic trees

    Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 26:1372–1373.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Bouckaert R
    2. Vaughan TG
    3. Barido-Sottani J
    4. Duchêne S
    5. Fourment M
    6. Gavryushkina A
    7. Heled J
    8. Jones G
    9. Kühnert D
    10. De Maio N
    11. Matschiner M
    12. Mendes FK
    13. Müller NF
    14. Ogilvie HA
    15. du Plessis L
    16. Popinga A
    17. Rambaut A
    18. Rasmussen D
    19. Siveroni I
    20. Suchard MA
    21. Wu CH
    22. Xie D
    23. Zhang C
    24. Stadler T
    25. Drummond AJ

    (2019) BEAST 2.5: an advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis

    PLOoS Computational Biology 15:e1006650.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006650

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Bryant D
    2. Bouckaert R
    3. Felsenstein J
    4. Rosenberg NA
    5. RoyChoudhury A

    (2012) Inferring species trees directly from biallelic genetic markers: bypassing gene trees in a full coalescent analysis

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 29:1917–1932.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss086

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cantor T

    (1842) LIII.—General features of Chusan, with remarks on the flora and fauna of that Island

    Annals and Magazine of Natural History 9:481–493.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/03745484209445368

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Cao Y
    2. Cui K
    3. Pan H
    4. Wu J
    5. Wang L

    (2019) The impact of multiple climatic and geographic factors on the chemical defences of Asian toads (Bufo gargarizans Cantor)

    Scientific Reports 9:17236.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52641-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chen CC
    2. Li KW
    3. Yu TL
    4. Chen LH
    5. Sheu PY
    6. Tong YW
    7. Huang KJ
    8. Weng CF

    (2013) Genetic structure of Bufo bankorensis distinguished by amplified restriction fragment length polymorphism of cytochrome b

    Zoological Studies 52:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1810-522X-52-48

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Darriba D
    2. Taboada GL
    3. Doallo R
    4. Posada D

    (2015) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and high- performance computing

    Europe PMC Funders Group 9:6–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Donoghue PCJ
    2. Yang Z

    (2016) The evolution of methods for establishing evolutionary timescales

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 371:20160020.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Drummond AJ
    2. Rambaut A
    3. Shapiro B
    4. Pybus OG

    (2005) Bayesian coalescent inference of past population dynamics from molecular sequences

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 22:1185–1192.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msi103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dubois A
    2. Bour R

    (2010) The nomenclatural status of the nomina of amphibians and reptiles created by by Garsault

    Zootaxa 2447:1–52.

    https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2447.1.1

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Dufresnes C
    2. Mazepa G
    3. Jablonski D
    4. Oliveira RC
    5. Wenseleers T
    6. Shabanov DA
    7. Auer M
    8. Ernst R
    9. Koch C
    10. Ramírez-Chaves HE
    11. Mulder KP
    12. Simonov E
    13. Tiutenko A
    14. Kryvokhyzha D
    15. Wennekes PL
    16. Zinenko OI
    17. Korshunov OV
    18. Al-Johany AM
    19. Peregontsev EA
    20. Masroor R
    21. Betto-Colliard C
    22. Denoël M
    23. Borkin LJ
    24. Skorinov DV
    25. Pasynkova RA
    26. Mazanaeva LF
    27. Rosanov JM
    28. Dubey S
    29. Litvinchuk S

    (2019) Fifteen shades of green: the evolution of Bufotes toads revisited

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 141:106615.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106615

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Dufresnes C
    2. Berroneau M
    3. Dubey S
    4. Litvinchuk SN
    5. Perrin N

    (2020) The effect of phylogeographic history on species boundaries: a comparative framework in Hyla tree frogs

    Scientific Reports 10:5502.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62382-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Earl DA
    2. vonHoldt BM

    (2012) Structure harvester: a website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the Evanno method

    Conservation Genetics Resources 4:359–361.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Estes R
    2. Wassersug RJ

    (1963)

    A miocene toad from Colombia, South America

    Breviora 193:1–13.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Evanno G
    2. Regnaut S
    3. Goudet J

    (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study

    Molecular Ecology 14:2611–2620.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Evans BJ
    2. McGuire JA
    3. Brown RM
    4. Andayani N
    5. Supriatna J

    (2008) A coalescent framework for comparing alternative models of population structure with genetic data: evolution of celebes toads

    Biology Letters 4:430–433.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0166

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Excoffier L
    2. Lischer HEL

    (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows

    Molecular Ecology Resources 10:564–567.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Fong JJ
    2. Yang BT
    3. Li PP
    4. Waldman B
    5. Min MS

    (2020) Phylogenetic systematics of the water toad (Bufo stejnegeri) elucidates the evolution of semi-aquatic toad ecology and pleistocene Glacial Refugia

    Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:523.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00523

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Frazão A
    2. da Silva HR
    3. Russo CDM

    (2015) The Gondwana breakup and the history of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans Unveils two new clades for early neobatrachian diversification

    PLOS ONE 10:e0143926.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143926

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Fu J
    2. Weadick CJ
    3. Zeng X
    4. Wang Y
    5. Liu Z
    6. Zheng Y
    7. Li C
    8. Hu Y

    (2005) Phylogeographic analysis of the Bufo gargarizans species complex: a revisit

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:202–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.03.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Garcia-Porta J
    2. Litvinchuk SN
    3. Crochet PA
    4. Romano A
    5. Geniez PH
    6. Lo-Valvo M
    7. Lymberakis P
    8. Carranza S

    (2012) Molecular phylogenetics and historical biogeography of the West-Palearctic common toads (Bufo bufo species complex)

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 63:113–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.12.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Grummer JA
    2. Bryson RW
    3. Reeder TW

    (2014) Species delimitation using bayes factors: Simulations and application to the Sceloporus scalaris species group (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae)

    Systematic Biology 63:119–133.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt069

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Guo ZT
    2. Ruddiman WF
    3. Hao QZ
    4. Wu HB
    5. Qiao YS
    6. Zhu RX
    7. Peng SZ
    8. Wei JJ
    9. Yuan BY
    10. Liu TS

    (2002) Onset of Asian desertification by 22 Myr ago inferred from loess deposits in China

    Nature 416:159–163.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/416159a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hase K
    2. Nikoh N
    3. Shimada M

    (2013) Population admixture and high larval viability among urban toads

    Ecology and Evolution 3:1677–1691.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.578

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Heath TA
    2. Huelsenbeck JP
    3. Stadler T

    (2014) The fossilized birth-death process for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates

    PNAS 111:E2957–E2966.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319091111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Heled J
    2. Drummond AJ

    (2010) Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 27:570–580.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msp274

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. Software

    1. Hijmans RJ
    2. Phillips S
    3. Leathwick J
    4. Elith J

    (2015) Dismo: species distribution modeling, version 1.0-12

    Cran.

    http://cran.r-project.org/package=dismo
40. 1. Huelsenbeck JP
    2. Ronquist F

    (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees

    Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 17:754–755.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Huson DH

    (1998) SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data

    Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 14:68–73.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/14.1.68

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Igawa T
    2. Kurabayashi A
    3. Nishioka M
    4. Sumida M

    (2006) Molecular phylogenetic relationship of toads distributed in the Far East and Europe inferred from the nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial DNA genes

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 38:250–260.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.09.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Janes JK
    2. Miller JM
    3. Dupuis JR
    4. Malenfant RM
    5. Gorrell JC
    6. Cullingham CI
    7. Andrew RL

    (2017) The K = 2 conundrum

    Molecular Ecology 26:3594–3602.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14187

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kamata H
    2. Kodama K

    (1994) Tectonics of an arc-arc junction: an example from Kyushu Island at the junction of the Southwest Japan Arc and the Ryukyu Arc

    Tectonophysics 233:69–81.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(94)90220-8

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Kim S
    2. Tkalčić H
    3. Rhie J

    (2017) Seismic constraints on magma evolution beneath Mount Baekdu (Changbai) volcano from transdimensional Bayesian inversion of ambient noise data

    Journal of Geophysical Research 122:5452–5473.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014105

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Kolbe JJ
    2. Kearney M
    3. Shine R

    (2010) Modeling the consequences of thermal trait variation for the cane toad invasion of Australia

    Ecological Applications 20:2273–2285.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1973.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Kopelman NM
    2. Mayzel J
    3. Jakobsson M
    4. Rosenberg NA
    5. Mayrose I

    (2015) Clumpak: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K

    Molecular Ecology Resources 15:1179–1191.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12387

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Lanfear R
    2. Frandsen PB
    3. Wright AM
    4. Senfeld T
    5. Calcott B

    (2017) PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 34:772–773.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw260

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Lee C
    2. Fong JJ
    3. Jiang JP
    4. Li PP
    5. Waldman B
    6. Chong JR
    7. Lee H
    8. Min MS

    (2021) Phylogeographic study of the Bufo gargarizans species complex, with emphasis on Northeast Asia

    Animal Cells and Systems 25:434–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/19768354.2021.2015438

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Lei F
    2. Qu Y
    3. Song G

    (2014) Species diversification and phylogeographical patterns of birds in response to the uplift of the qinghai-tibet plateau and quaternary glaciations

    Current Zoology 60:149–161.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/60.2.149

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Lei B
    2. Xu M
    3. Chen J
    4. Liang J
    5. Zhang Y
    6. Qingdao Institute of Marine Geology

    (2018) Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology

    China Geology 1:466–476.

    https://doi.org/10.31035/cg2018063

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Leigh JW
    2. Bryant D

    (2015) POPART: full-feature software for haplotype network construction

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6:1110–1116.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12410

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Li XS
    2. Zhao YX
    3. Feng ZB
    4. Liu CG
    5. Xie QH
    6. Zhou QJ

    (2016) Quaternary seismic facies of the South Yellow Sea shelf: depositional processes influenced by sea-level change and tectonic controls

    Geological Journal 51:77–95.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.2811

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Li J
    2. Huang JP
    3. Sukumaran J
    4. Knowles LL

    (2018) Microevolutionary processes impact macroevolutionary patterns

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 18:123.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1236-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Liao WB
    2. Luo Y
    3. Lou SL
    4. Lu D
    5. Jehle R

    (2016) Geographic variation in life-history traits: growth season affects age structure, egg size and clutch size in Andrew’s toad (Bufo andrewsi)

    Frontiers in Zoology 13:6.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-016-0138-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Liedtke HC
    2. Müller H
    3. Rödel MO
    4. Menegon M
    5. Gonwouo LGN
    6. Barej MF
    7. Gvoždík V
    8. Schmitz A
    9. Channing A
    10. Nagel P
    11. Loader SP

    (2016) No ecological opportunity signal on a continental scale? Diversification and life-history evolution of African true toads (Anura: Bufonidae)

    Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 70:1717–1733.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12985

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Lin CF
    2. Lue KY

    (2004)

    Altitudinal differences in temporal distribution, spatial preference and timing of breeding climax of frogs and toads in the Central Taiwan

    Endemic Species Research 6:39–50.

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Lischer HEL
    2. Excoffier L

    (2012) PGDSpider: an automated data conversion tool for connecting population genetics and genomics programs

    Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 28:298–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr642

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Liu W
    2. Lathrop A
    3. Fu J
    4. Yang D
    5. Murphy RW

    (2000) Phylogeny of east asian bufonids inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences (Anura: Amphibia)

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 14:423–435.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1999.0716

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Luquet E
    2. Léna JP
    3. Miaud C
    4. Plénet S

    (2015) Phenotypic divergence of the common toad (Bufo bufo) along an altitudinal gradient: evidence for local adaptation

    Heredity 114:69–79.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2014.71

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Macey JR
    2. Schulte JA
    3. Larson A
    4. Fang Z
    5. Wang Y
    6. Tuniyev BS
    7. Papenfuss TJ

    (1998) Phylogenetic relationships of toads in the Bufo bufo species group from the eastern escarpment of the Tibetan Plateau: a case of vicariance and dispersal

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9:80–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1997.0440

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Mantel N

    (1967)

    The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach

    Cancer Research 27:209–220.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Martin SH
    2. Davey JW
    3. Jiggins CD

    (2015) Evaluating the use of ABBA-BABA statistics to locate introgressed loci

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 32:244–257.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu269

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Maslova IV

    (2016) The protection of amphibians and reptiles in the Russian Far East

    Nature Conservation Research 1:26–35.

    https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2016.024

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Matsui M

    (1984)

    Morphometric variation analyses and revision of the Japanese toads (genus Bufo, Bufonidae)

    Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto University 26:209–428.

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Matsui M

    (1986) Geographic variation in toads of the Bufo complex from the far East, with a description of a new subspecies

    Copeia 1986:561.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1444939

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Matthews KJ
    2. Maloney KT
    3. Zahirovic S
    4. Williams SE
    5. Seton M
    6. Müller RD

    (2016) Global plate boundary evolution and kinematics since the late Paleozoic

    Global and Planetary Change 146:226–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.10.002

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. McGee S

    (2002) Simplifying likelihood ratios

    Journal of General Internal Medicine 17:646–649.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10750.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Miura I

    (1995) Two differentiated groups of the Japanese toad, Bufo japonicus, demonstrated by C-banding analysis of chromosomes

    Caryologia 48:123–136.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.1995.10797322

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Nokariya H
    2. Hasegawa Y

    (1985)

    Reports of Excavation of Pinza-Abu Cave

    Fossil Frogs from Pinza-Abu Cave 1:.

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Othman SN
    2. Chen YH
    3. Chuang MF
    4. Andersen D
    5. Jang Y
    6. Borzée A

    (2020) Impact of the mid-pleistocene revolution and anthropogenic factors on the dispersion of Asian Black-spined toads (Duttaphrynus melanostictus)

    Animals 10:1157.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10071157

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Othman SN
    2. Putri ET
    3. Messenger KR
    4. Bae Y
    5. Yang Y
    6. Bova T
    7. Reed T
    8. Amin H
    9. Chuang MF
    10. Jang Y
    11. Borzée A

    (2021) Impact of the Miocene orogenesis on Kaloula spp: radiation, and implication of local refugia on genetic diversification

    Integrative Zoology pp. 1–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12538

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Patterson N
    2. Moorjani P
    3. Luo Y
    4. Mallick S
    5. Rohland N
    6. Zhan Y
    7. Genschoreck T
    8. Webster T
    9. Reich D

    (2012) Ancient admixture in human history

    Genetics 192:1065–1093.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.145037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Pauly GB
    2. Hillis DM
    3. Cannatella DC

    (2004) The history of a Nearctic colonization: molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the Nearctic toads (Bufo)

    Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 58:2517–2535.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00881.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Phillips SJ
    2. Anderson RP
    3. Dudík M
    4. Schapire RE
    5. Blair ME

    (2017) Opening the black box: an open-source release of Maxent

    Ecography 40:887–893.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03049

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Portik DM
    2. Papenfuss TJ

    (2015) Historical biogeography resolves the origins of endemic Arabian toad lineages (Anura: Bufonidae): Evidence for ancient vicariance and dispersal events with the Horn of Africa and South Asia

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 15:152.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-015-0417-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Pramuk JB

    (2006) Phylogeny of South American Bufo (Anura: Bufonidae) inferred from combined evidence

    Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 146:407–452.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00212.x

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Pritchard JK
    2. Stephens M
    3. Donnelly P

    (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data

    Genetics 155:945–959.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/155.2.945

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Pyron RA
    2. Wiens JJ

    (2011) A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61:543–583.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.06.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. Book

    1. R Core Team

    (2020)

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Ramasamy RK
    2. Ramasamy S
    3. Bindroo BB
    4. Naik VG

    (2014) Structure plot: a program for drawing elegant structure bar plots in user friendly interface

    SpringerPlus 3:431.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-431

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Rambaut A
    2. Drummond AJ
    3. Xie D
    4. Baele G
    5. Suchard MA

    (2018) Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7

    Systematic Biology 67:901–904.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Ratnikov VY

    (2001)

    Osteology of Russian toads and frogs for paleontological researches

    Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 44:1–23.

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Ray N
    2. Adams JM
    3. Nicolas R

    (2001)

    A GIS-based vegetation map of the world at the Last Glacial Maximum (25,000-15,000 BP)

    Internet Archaeology 11:1–44.

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Recuero E
    2. Canestrelli D
    3. Vörös J
    4. Szabó K
    5. Poyarkov NA
    6. Arntzen JW
    7. Crnobrnja-Isailovic J
    8. Kidov AA
    9. Cogălniceanu D
    10. Caputo FP
    11. Nascetti G
    12. Martínez-Solano I

    (2012) Multilocus species tree analyses resolve the radiation of the widespread Bufo bufo species group (Anura, Bufonidae)

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62:71–86.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Ricklefs RE

    (2006) Evolutionary diversification and the origin of the diversity-environment relationship

    Ecology 87:S3–S13.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[3:edatoo]2.0.co;2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Roček Z
    2. Rage JC

    (2003) Evolution of anuran assemblages in the tertiary and quaternary of Europe, in the context of palaeoclimate and palaeogeography

    Amphibia-Reptilia 24:133–167.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853803322390408

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Rojas RR
    2. Fouquet A
    3. Ron SR
    4. Hernández-Ruz EJ
    5. Melo-Sampaio PR
    6. Chaparro JC
    7. Vogt RC
    8. de Carvalho VT
    9. Pinheiro LC
    10. Avila RW
    11. Farias IP
    12. Gordo M
    13. Hrbek T

    (2018) A pan-amazonian species delimitation: high species diversity within the genus Amazophrynella (Anura: Bufonidae)

    PeerJ 6:e4941.

    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4941

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Russel PM
    2. Brewer BJ
    3. Klaere S
    4. Bouckaert RR

    (2019) Model selection and parameter inference in phylogenetics using nested sampling

    Systematic Biology 68:219–233.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. San Mauro D
    2. Gower DJ
    3. Oommen OV
    4. Wilkinson M
    5. Zardoya R

    (2004) Phylogeny of caecilian amphibians (Gymnophiona) based on complete mitochondrial genomes and nuclear RAG1

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33:413–427.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.05.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. Book

    1. Sanchiz B

    (1997)

    Factores causales de biodiversidad: especiación, extinción y migración en la formación de la batracofauna europea In

    In: Aguirre E, Morales J, Soria D, editors. Registros Fósiles e Historia de La Tierra. Madrid. pp. 185–206.

    • Google Scholar
92. Book

    1. Sanchiz B

    (1998)

    Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology

    Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.

    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Schmidt KP

    (1925)

    New Chinese amphibians and reptiles

    American Museum Novitates 175:1–3.

    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Stejneger L

    (1926)

    A new toad from China

    J Washington Acad Sci 16:445–446.

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Stöck M
    2. Moritz C
    3. Hickerson M
    4. Frynta D
    5. Dujsebayeva T
    6. Eremchenko V
    7. Macey JR
    8. Papenfuss TJ
    9. Wake DB

    (2006) Evolution of mitochondrial relationships and biogeography of Palearctic green toads (Bufo viridis subgroup) with insights in their genomic plasticity

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41:663–689.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.05.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Suzuki D
    2. Kawase T
    3. Hoshina T
    4. Tokuda T

    (2020) Origins of nonnative populations of Bufo japonicus formosus (Amphibia: Bufonidae) in Hokkaido, Japan, as inferred by a molecular approach

    Current Herpetology 39:47.

    https://doi.org/10.5358/hsj.39.47

    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Syromyatnikova EV

    (2015)

    A new species of Bufo (Amphibia, anura) from the Miocene of Russia

    Russian Journal of Herpetology 22:281–288.

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Taira A

    (2001) Tectonic evolution of the Japanese Island arc system

    Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 29:109–134.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.109

    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Trifinopoulos J
    2. Nguyen LT
    3. von Haeseler A
    4. Minh BQ

    (2016) W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis

    Nucleic Acids Research 44:W232–W235.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw256

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Tsuji H
     2. Kawamichi T

     (1996) Breeding activity of a stream-breeding toad, Bufo torrenticola

     Japanese Journal of Herpetology 16:117–128.

     https://doi.org/10.5358/hsj1972.16.4_117

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Untergasser A
     2. Cutcutache I
     3. Koressaar T
     4. Ye J
     5. Faircloth BC
     6. Remm M
     7. Rozen SG

     (2012) Primer3--new capabilities and interfaces

     Nucleic Acids Research 40:1–12.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks596

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Van Bocxlaer I
     2. Biju SD
     3. Loader SP
     4. Bossuyt F

     (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.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-131

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Van Bocxlaer I
     2. Loader SP
     3. Roelants K
     4. Biju SD
     5. Menegon M
     6. Bossuyt F

     (2010) Gradual adaptation toward a range-expansion phenotype initiated the global radiation of toads

     Science (New York, N.Y.) 327:679–682.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1181707

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Vieites DR
     2. Wollenberg KC
     3. Andreone F
     4. Köhler J
     5. Glaw F
     6. Vences M

     (2009) Vast underestimation of Madagascar’s biodiversity evidenced by an integrative amphibian inventory

     PNAS 106:8267–8272.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810821106

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Xing Y
     2. Ree RH

     (2017) Uplift-driven diversification in the hengduan mountains, a temperate biodiversity hotspot

     PNAS 114:E3444–E3451.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616063114

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Yu TL
     2. Lin HD
     3. Weng CF

     (2014) A new phylogeographic pattern of endemic Bufo bankorensis in Taiwan Island is attributed to the genetic variation of populations

     PLOS ONE 9:e98029.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098029

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Yu Y
     2. Harris AJ
     3. Blair C
     4. He X

     (2015) RASP (Reconstruct ancestral state in phylogenies): a tool for historical biogeography

     Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 87:46–49.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.03.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Zhan A
     2. Fu J

     (2011) Past and present: phylogeography of the Bufo gargarizans species complex inferred from multi-loci allele sequence and frequency data

     Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61:136–148.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.06.009

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Zhan X
     2. Wu H
     3. Wu H
     4. Wang R
     5. Luo C
     6. Gao B
     7. Chen Z
     8. Li Q

     (2020) Metabolites from Bufo gargarizans (Cantor, 1842): A review of traditional uses, pharmacological activity, toxicity and quality control

     Journal of Ethnopharmacology 246:112178.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2019.112178

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Zhang ML
     2. Xiang XG
     3. Xue JJ
     4. Sanderson SC
     5. Fritsch PW

     (2016) Himalayan uplift shaped biomes in Miocene temperate Asia: evidence from leguminous Caragana

     Scientific Reports 6:1–7.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36528

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Zhao Y
     2. Yu Z

     (2012) Vegetation response to Holocene climate change in East Asian monsoon-margin region

     Earth-Science Reviews 113:1–10.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.03.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Siti N Othman

   1. Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Conservation, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China
   2. Department of Life Sciences and Division of EcoScience, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3894-7553

2. Spartak N Litvinchuk

   Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Irina Maslova

   Federal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russian Federation

   Contribution

   Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Hollis Dahn

   Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Kevin R Messenger

   Herpetology and Applied Conservation Laboratory, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Desiree Andersen

   Department of Life Sciences and Division of EcoScience, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Michael J Jowers

   CIBIO/InBIO (Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos), Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8935-5913

8. Yosuke Kojima

   Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Dmitry V Skorinov

   Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Kiyomi Yasumiba

    Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Ming-Feng Chuang

    Department of Life Sciences and Research Center for Global Change Biology, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7328-2577

12. Yi-Huey Chen

    Department of Life Science, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0987-2385

13. Yoonhyuk Bae

    Department of Life Sciences and Division of EcoScience, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Jennifer Hoti

    1. Department of Life Sciences and Division of EcoScience, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    2. Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Yikweon Jang

    Department of Life Sciences and Division of EcoScience, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Contribution

    Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    jangy@ewha.ac.kr

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7213-7319

16. Amael Borzee

    Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Conservation, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    amaelborzee@gmail.com

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1093-677X

• 1,472

  views

• 306

  downloads

• 17

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.