Venomous animals have toxins associated with delivery mechanisms that can introduce the toxins into another animal. Although most amphibian species produce or sequester noxious or toxic secretions in the granular glands of the skin to use as antipredator mechanisms, amphibians have been considered poisonous rather than venomous because delivery mechanisms are absent. The skin secretions of two Brazilian hylid frogs (Corythomantis greening and Aparasphenodon brunoi) are more toxic than the venoms of deadly venomous Brazilian pitvipers, genus Bothrops; C. greeningi secretion is 2-fold and A. brunoi secretion is 25-fold as lethal as Bothrops venom. Like the venoms of other animals, the skin secretions of these frogs show proteolytic and fibrinolytic activity and have hyaluronidase, which is nontoxic and nonproteolytic but promotes diffusion of toxins. These frogs have well-developed delivery mechanisms, utilizing bony spines on the skull that pierce the skin in areas with concentrations of skin glands. C. greeningi has greater development of head spines and enlarged skin glands producing a greater volume of secretion, while A. brunoi has more lethal venom. C. greeningi and A. brunoi have highly toxic skin secretions and an associated delivery mechanism; they are therefore venomous. Because even tiny amounts of these secretions introduced into a wound caused by the head spines could be dangerous, these frogs are capable of using their skin toxins as venoms against would-be predators.

Amphibians have many skin poison glands used in passive defense, in which the aggressor causes its own poisoning when biting prey. In some amphibians the skin glands accumulate in certain regions forming macroglands, such as the parotoids of toads. We have discovered that the toad Rhaebo guttatus is able to squirt jets of poison towards the aggressor, contradicting the typical amphibian defense. We studied the R. guttatus chemical defense, comparing it with Rhinella marina, a sympatric species showing typical toad passive defense. We found that only in R. guttatus the parotoid is adhered to the scapula and do not have a calcified dermal layer. In addition, in this species, the plugs obstructing the glandular ducts are more fragile when compared to R. marina. As a consequence, the manual pressure necessary to extract the poison from the parotoid is twice as high in R. marina when compared to that used in R. guttatus. Compared to R. marina, the poison of R. guttatus is less lethal, induces edema and provokes nociception four times more intense. We concluded that the ability of R. guttatus to voluntary squirt poison is directly related to its stereotyped defensive behavior, together with the peculiar morphological characteristics of its parotoids. Since R. guttatus poison is practically not lethal, it is possibly directed to predators' learning, causing disturbing effects such as pain and edema. The unique mechanism of defense of R. guttatus may mistakenly justify the popular myth that toads, in general, squirt poison into people's eyes.

BackgroundAmphibian defence against predators and microorganisms is directly related to cutaneous glands that produce a huge number of different toxins. These glands are distributed throughout the body but can form accumulations in specific regions. When grouped in low numbers, poison glands form structures similar to warts, quite common in the dorsal skin of bufonids (toads). When accumulated in large numbers, the glands constitute protuberant structures known as macroglands, among which the parotoids are the most common ones. This work aimed at the morphological and biochemical characterization of the poison glands composing different glandular accumulations in four species of toads belonging to group Rhinella marina (R. icterica, R. marina, R. schneideri and R. jimi). These species constitute a good model since they possess other glandular accumulations together with the dorsal warts and the parotoids and inhabit environments with different degrees of water availability.ResultsWe have observed that the toads skin has three types of poison glands that can be differentiated from each other through the morphology and the chemical content of their secretion product. The distribution of these different glands throughout the body is peculiar to each toad species, except for the parotoids and the other macroglands, which are composed of an exclusive gland type that is usually different from that composing the dorsal warts. Each type of poison gland presents histochemical and biochemical peculiarities, mainly regarding protein components.ConclusionsThe distribution, morphology and chemical composition of the different types of poison glands, indicate that they may have different defensive functions in each toad species.

Amphibian skin is rich in mucous glands and poison glands, secreting substances important for gas exchange and playing a fundamental role in chemical defense against predators and microorganisms. In the caecilian Siphonops annulatus (Mikan, 1920) we observed a concentration of enlarged mucous glands in the head region. In the posterior region of the body a similar concentration is made up of enlarged poison glands. These accumulations of glands structurally resemble the macroglands previously reported in anurans and salamanders. The skin glands in these regions are each surrounded by collagen walls forming a honeycomb-like structure. The collagen network in the head region firmly attaches to tiny pits in the bones of the skull. The two extremities of the body produce different secretions, containing exclusive molecules. Considering the fossorial lifestyle of caecilians, it seems evident that the secretions of the head and caudal region serve different functions. The anterior macrogland of mucous glands, rich in mucous/lipid secretion, in conjunction with the funnel-shaped head, may act to lubricate the body and penetrate the soil, thus facilitating locomotion underground. The blunt posterior end bearing an internalized macrogland of poison glands in the dermis may act in chemical defense and/or by blocking invasion of tunnels.

The parotoid macroglands of toads (bufonids) and leaf frogs (hylids) are used in passive defence against predators. The parotoids release poison when the amphibian is bitten by a predator. Despite the apparent similarity, the anatomical and histological structure of these macroglands in hylids is poorly studied when compared with those of bufonids. In this paper, we focused on the morphology of the macroglands of P. distincta, a leaf frog endemic to the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest, comparing their structure with those of bufonids. In addition, we compared the macrogland morphology of P. distincta with those from major clades of Phyllomedusa. All results revealed a macrogland morphology in leaf frogs distinct from that of toads, suggesting that the term parotoid should be used only for those of bufonids.