was described in 1960, based on specimens from Mengyang in the Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture of Yunnan, China; the holotype is in the CIB, specimen 571171. Subsequently, frogs that matched the description of R. rhodopus were also found at Chiang Mai and in the Doi Chiang Dao mountains (Thailand), Buon Luoi (Vietnam), and Arunachal Pradesh (India). The latter were described as R. namdaphaensis in 1985; however, they were not compared with R. rhodopus at that time, only with R. dulitensis. In 1999, it was stated that R. rhodopus is a junior synonym of the frog that, after much renaming due to homonymy, had become known as R. bipunctatus. But the type specimens were not examined; it was simply stated that Lui and Hu had misread some old descriptions of R. bipunctatus and that, as frogs from Vietnam were quite obviously of the same species as those from Thailand – which were believed to be R. bipunctatus –, R. rhodopus was synonymized with R. bipunctatus. However, R. bipunctatus had in fact never been reported from so far to the southeast by any older author. In 2005, a similar moss frog from Myanmar was described as Htun Win's Treefrog (Rhacophorus htunwini). The mystery was unravelled when the type specimens of R. bipunctatus and R. namdaphaensis were finally examined and compared with other specimens from southeastern Asia in 2007. It turned out that the frogs from the border region of India, China and Myanmar, originally described as R. bipunctatus, matched R. htunwini, but not the frogs described as R. rhodopus and R. namdaphaensis. So the actual situation seems to be that the three taxa refer to two, not three species, with R. htunwini being a junior synonym of R. bipunctatus – possibly a restricted-range endemic of upland forest at the eastern end of the Himalayas, though it might occur south to Malaysia –, and R. namdaphaensis a junior synonym of R. rhodopus, a species that ranges widely from eastern India to the east and south and also occurs in lower-lying regions. Thus, it seems that the 1999 study compared only specimens of R. rhodopus with other specimens of R. rhodopus, and therefore its conclusion that these constituted just one species was indeed correct. The mistake was rather the failure to compare even a single individual of the actual R. bipunctatus with the frogs from Thailand and Vietnam. Indeed, the authors of the 1999