A survey of the internal oral features and external morphology of Physalaemus larvae (Anura, Leptodactylidae)

Abstract

There are 45 species currently described for the genus Physalaemus that are allocated into seven morphological groupsand 29 of them have their tadpoles described, of which 12 have information on their internal oral anatomy. In order to helpresolving taxonomic and systematic problems, tadpoles from this genus had their external and internal oral morphologiesstudied, described and compared. During this study, it was noticed that different terms are sometimes used to refer to thesame character and a standardized nomenclature is suggested. This study is divided into two parts. First, we describe theoral cavity anatomy of the tadpoles of Physalaemus aguirrei, P. atlanticus, P. camacan, P. cicada, P. gracilis, P. irroratus,P. maximus, P. rupestris, P. signifer and P. soaresi. Second, we present a comparison among tadpoles of these ten speciesplus the tadpoles of P. albifrons, P. angrensis, P. centralis, P. crombiei, P. cuvieri, P. henselii, P. jordanensis, P. marmora-tus, P. moreirae and P. spiniger. This study adds information on tadpoles of the genus Physalaemus that corroborates someof the species groups proposed for adult specimens, but also shows that although they have a typical pond-living externalmorphology, being very similar to one another, the oral disc and the internal oral morphologies present many features with interspecific variation that may be used to identify the specimens.

Tadpole of the Amazonia frog Edalorhina perezi (Anura: Leptodactylidae) with description of oral internal and chondrocranial morphology

“…Most species build foam‐nests to reproduce; however, Pseudopaludicola and some species of Pleurodema do not (Barrio, 1954; Faivovich et al, 2012; Giaretta & Facure, 2009; Weigandt, Úbeda, & Díaz, 2004). These reproductive patterns are usually associated with a peculiar larval diversity (Kolenc, Borteiro, Baldo, Ferraro, & Prigioni, 2009; Ruggeri & Weber, 2012; Vera Candioti et al, 2011). Furthermore, tadpole morphology of this subfamily may also correlate with phylogenetic arrangements (e.g., the Physalaemus biligonigerus group, Lourenço et al, 2015; a subset of the Pleurodema thaul clade, Barrasso, Cotichelli, Alcalde, & Basso, 2013), and variation in larval morphology was reported even among closely related species (e.g., Engystomops guayaco and E .…”

Head in the clouds: a new dwarf frog species of the Physalaemus signifer clade (Leptodactylidae, Leiuperinae) from the top of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

“…For the comparisons with the known tadpoles of the Physalaemus signifer clade (sensu Lourenço et al 2015), we used the original tadpole descriptions of P. angrensis (Ruggeri et al 2011), P. atlanticus (Haddad & Sazima 2004), P. bokermanni (Cardoso & Haddad 1985), P. caete (Pombal & Madureira 1997), P. camacan (Pimenta et al 2005), P. crombiei (Ruggeri & Weber 2012), P. erythros (Baêta et al 2007), P. irroratus (Cruz et al 2007), P. maculiventris (Bokermann 1963), P. moreirae (Provete et al 2011), P. nanus (Ceron & Santana 2017), P. rupestris (Nascimento et al 2001), P. signifier (Weber & Carvalho-e-Silva 2001), P. spiniger (Haddad & Pombal 1998), and the comparative study of Ruggeri & Weber (2012).…”

Larval morphology of Amazonia foam‐nesting frogs of the genus Engystomops (Anura: Leptodactylidae: Leiuperinae)

“…Furthermore, some of the available descriptions are brief and mostly restricted to external morphology, despite some recent efforts to fill this gap ( e.g. , Ruggeri & Weber, 2012; for Physalaemus ). Nevertheless, the available information on tadpoles in the subfamily seems to corroborate species interrelationships ( e.g., Physalaemus biligonigerus group; Lourenço et al, 2015), and variation can occur at intergeneric levels (Cannatella & Duellman, 1984; Lynch, 1971; Vera Candioti et al, 2011) and even among closely related species (Ron et al, 2005).…”

“…For example, while there are tadpole descriptions for almost all known species of Pleurodema (Barrasso et al, 2012(Barrasso et al, , 2013Cei, 1962Cei, , 1970Cei, , 1980Fabrezi & Vera, 1997;Fernández & Fernández, 1921;Fernández, 1927;Galvani et al, 2012;Kolenc et al, 2009;León-Ochoa andDonoso-Barros, 1969-1970;Otero & Grenat, 2013;Peixoto, 1982;Rada de Martínez D, 1981;Weigandt et al, 2004), tadpole descriptions in Engystomops are still incipient. Furthermore, some of the available descriptions are brief and mostly restricted to external morphology, despite some recent efforts to fill this gap (e.g., Ruggeri & Weber, 2012;for Physalaemus). Nevertheless, the available information on tadpoles in the subfamily seems to corroborate species interrelationships (e.g., Physalaemus biligonigerus group; Lourenço et al, 2015), and variation can occur at intergeneric levels (Cannatella & Duellman, 1984;Lynch, 1971;Vera Candioti et al, 2011) and even among closely related species (Ron et al, 2005).…”