Can a shade shed light on the monophyly of Cycloramphidae (Lissamphibia: Anura)?

Colaço, Gustavo; Bittencourt-Silva, Gabriela B.; Silva, Helio Ricardo

doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2020.01.002

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[14,15]), there has been a renewal in the attention to the amphibian visual system. Over the last decade, the main focus has been set on visual pigments and especially in the unique green rods only present in the amphibian retina (see reviews by [16,17]), but some studies also focused on different aspects of eye morphology [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Anurans display a vast diversity of ecological traits including habits, diel activity, and reproductive mode [8,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pupil shape diversity in adult frogs and toads. Seven general pupil shapes were defined, with a remarkable internal diversity in most of them: vertical (1-6), horizontal(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17), rhomboidal/subrhomboidal(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23), triangular(24)(25)(26), circular(27), fan(28)(29), inverted fan(30).1, Agalychnis callidryas (Hylidae); 2, Afrixalus fornasini (Hyperoliidae); 3, Limnomedusa macroglossa (Alsodidae); 4, Pelobates fuscus (Pelobatidae); 5, Calyptocephalella gayi (Calyptocephalellidae); 6, Pipa pipa (Pipidae); 7, Sphaenorhynchus lacteus (Hylidae); 8, Pristimantis metabates (Craugastoridae); 9, Boophis pauliani (Mantellidae); 10, Aplastodiscus cavicola (Hylidae); 11, Itapotihyla langsdorffii (Hylidae); 12, Chiromantis rufescens (Rhacophoridae); 13, Eupsophus roseus (Alsodidae); 14, Hyloscirtus ptychodactylus (Hylidae); 15, Espadarana durrellorum (Centrolenidae); 16, Boophis lilianae (Mantellidae); 17, Hyperolius marmoratus (Hyperoliidae); 18, Nyctibatrachus karnatakaensis (Nyctibatrachidae); 19, Odontophrynus americanus (Odontophrynidae); 20, Dyscophus antongilii (Microhylidae); 21, Boana geographica (Hylidae); 22, Morerella cyanophthalma (Hyperoliidae); 23, Spinomantis aglavei (Mantellidae); 24, Crinia sloanei (Myobatrachidae); 25, Bombina variegata (Bombinatoridae); 26, Barbourula busuangensis (Bombinatoridae); 27, Xenopus laevis (Pipidae); 28, Occidozyga lima (Dicroglossidae); 29, Ranoidea cryptotis (Hylidae); 30, Phrynella pulchra (Microhylidae).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A closer look at pupil diversity and evolution in frogs and toads

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The eyes of frogs and toads (Anura) are among their most fascinating features. Although several pupil shapes have been described, the diversity, evolution, and functional role of the pupil in anurans have received little attention. Studying photographs of more than 3200 species, we surveyed pupil diversity, described their morphological variation, tested correlation with adult habits and diel activity, and discuss major evolutionary patterns considering iris anatomy and visual ecology. Our results indicate that the pupil in anurans is a highly plastic structure, with seven main pupil shapes that evolved at least 116 times during the history of the group. We found no significant correlation between pupil shape, adult habits, and diel activity, with the exception of the circular pupil and aquatic habits. The vertical pupil arose at least in the most-recent common ancestor of Anura + Caudata, and this morphology is present in most early-diverging anuran clades. Subsequently, a horizontal pupil, a very uncommon shape in vertebrates, evolved in most neobatrachian frogs. This shape evolved into most other known pupil shapes, but it persisted in a large number of species with diverse life histories, habits, and diel activity patterns, demonstrating a remarkable functional and ecological versatility.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A closer look at pupil diversity and evolution in frogs and toads

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recognition of these features are scattered in the literature (Bokermann, 1965;Heyer, 1983a, b;Wassersug & Heyer, 1983;Lima et al, 2010;Da Silva & Ouvernay, 2012Nunes-de-Almeida et al, 2016Almeida-Silva et al, 2019;Moura et al, 2019;Verdade et al, 2019). The value of some of these features for the systematics of the family, observed in tadpoles, as the presence of meniscus on the upper iris, has only recently been recognized (Colaço et al, 2020). Further studies are still needed to identify characters (or character states) unique to the tadpoles of this genus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heyer (1983a) suggested this character as synapomorphy for Cycloramphus present in adults, and Verdade (2005, unpublished data) recognized as a synapomorphy for a clade that includes Cycloramphus + Zachaenus. Recently, the presence of meniscus in the tadpoles was recognized as a synapomorphy for Cycloramphidae (Colaço et al, 2020). However, probably due to ontogenetic peculiarities, the presence of this structure is rarely reported and appears only in the description of the larvae of C. bandeirensis (Verdade et al, 2019), C. lithomimeticus (Da Silva & Ouvernay, 2012, and C. lutzorum (Lima et al, 2010).…”

Section: Meniscusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The tadpole of an insular population of Cycloramphus boraceiensis Heyer, 1983 (Anura: Cycloramphidae) with a review of larval descriptions for species in the genus

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A literature survey for the external morphology of tadpoles for species in the genus Cycloramphus Tschudi, 1838, which is mainly represented by larval descriptions, resulted in finding some inconsistent character descriptions. In a few cases, some of the information is either not presented or mistakenly reported; in some cases, the illustrations provided the information not present in the descriptions. Here in we use a sample of tadpoles of an insular population identified as Cycloramphus boraceiensis, present a description for it, compare it to the original larval description for this species, and using it as a model, present a comparative review of the other larval descriptions for Cycloramphus tadpoles. We evaluate that most of the mistakes we found in the literature are associated to the unique morphology of these semiterrestrial larvae and some of their seemingly adaptation to their microhabitats, which for the majority of the known species is a film of water running associated to or near streams.

show abstract