Larval anatomy of Dendropsophus decipiens (A. Lutz 1925) (Anura: Hylidae: Dendropsophini) with considerations to larvae of this genus

Abstract

The Dendropsophus decipiens clade comprises four species: D . berthalutzae , D . decipiens , D . haddadi , and D . oliveirai . Tadpoles of these species were described, but data on their internal morphology are lacking. We provide the first description of the buccopharyngeal anatomy, chondrocranial morphology, and cranial, hyoid and hyobranchial musculature of the tadpole of D . decipiens . Larvae of D . decipiens are characterized by the absence of lingual papillae, presence of fan-like papilla on the buccal floor, presence of a single-element suprarostral cartilage, presence of a small triangular process at the basis of the processus muscularis, m. levator mandibulae lateralis inserted on the nasal sac, and m. subarcualis rectus II-IV with a single, continuous slip. Tadpoles are likely macrophagous, although not as specialized as those of other species of the genus, suggesting some degree of diversification on the feeding habits within Dendropsophus .

The phylogeny of Dendropsophini (Anura: Hylidae: Hylinae)

“…and tadpoles of Dendropsophus minutus are known to be active predators (Peixoto and Gomes, 1997). Dias et al (2019) noted that larvae of Dendropsophus decipiens have a combination of buccopharyngeal character states that suggests a less specialized predator (within carnivore or omnivore diets) than the tadpoles of D. microcephalus and D. nanus. Nevertheless, intestinal anatomy of D. nanus larvae suggests that this species is a macrophagous carnivore (Vera Candioti et al, 2004).…”

“…Although a general reduction of the number of elements in the buccopharyngeal cavity has been suggested as a putative synapomorphy for the clade composed of Dendropsophus, Lysapsus, Pseudis, Scarthyla, Scinax, and Sphaenorhynchus (Dendropsophini sensu Faivovich et al, 2005), its individual elements vary in shape, presence, and taxonomic distribution. The buccopharyngeal cavity of larval Dendropsophus is almost unexplored, but some elements as the absence of lingual papillae may be a synapomorphy of Dendropsophus or Dendropsophini (see Dias et al, 2019).…”

The remarkable larval anatomy of Proceratophrys minuta Napoli, Cruz, Abreu and Del‐Grande, 2011 (Amphibia: Anura: Odontophrynidae)

“…Absent or cartilago Meckelilower lip Absent Haas, 2001Haas, , 2003Ruibal & Thomas, 1988;Vera Candioti, 2005, 2007Ziermann, Infante, Hanken, & Olsson, 2013 Conrauidae --- Altig, 1991;Haas, 1995Haas, , 2001Haas, , 2003Krings, Klein, Heneka, & Rödder, 2017 Kolenc, Borteiro, & Baldo, 2011;Carr & Altig, 1991;Dias, Araújo-Vieira, Carvalho-e-Silva, & Orrico, 2019a;Vera Candioti, 2004, 2007Vera Candioti & Haas, 2004;Vera Candioti, Lavilla, & Echeverría, 2004;Vera Candioti, Haas, Altig, & Peixoto, 2017 Hylodidae Cartilago Meckeli-lower lip Absent Haas, 2003 Hyperoliidae Cartilago Meckeli-lower lip Absent Carr & Altig, 1991;Haas, 2003 Leiopelmatidae ---…”

“…One example of a poorly studied group is the Neotropical genus Proceratophrys, which currently comprises 39 species (Mângia et al, 2020) distributed throughout Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay in several terrestrial habitats in the Amazonian Forest, Cerrado, Caatinga, Pampas, and Atlantic Forest (Frost, 2020). The monophyly of Proceratophrys as well as its status as a sister taxon of Odontophrynus + Macrogenioglottus is well supported by molecular (Dias, Amaro, Carvalho-e-Silva, & Rodrigues, 2013a;Jetz & Pyron, 2018;Pyron, 2014;Pyron & Wiens, 2011) and phenotypical evidence (Blotto, Pereyra, Faivovich, Dias, & Grant, 2017;Dias, Araújo-Vieira, Carvalho-e-Silva, & Orrico, 2019a;Lynch, 1971). To date, tadpoles of 21 species of the genus are known (e.g., Peixoto & Cruz, 1980;Santos, Feio, & Nomura, 2017), but descriptions of their internal morphology are rare and restricted to few aspects of their buccopharyngeal cavity (e.g., Nascimento, Lisboa, Skuk, & de Sá, 2010;Vieira, Vieira, & Gomes-Santana, 2007;Wassersug & Heyer, 1988), chondrocranium (e.g., Dias, Carvalho-e-Silva, & Carvalho-e-Silva, 2014), and muscles (Dias, Araújo-Vieira, Santos, & Both, 2019b).…”

“…Such intriguing evolutionary trajectory makes larval morphology an important element to understand the phylogenetic relationships of frogs. Larval characters have been incorporated into several phylogenetical studies in the last 20 years (e.g., de Sá et al, 2014; Faivovich, 2002; Frost et al, 2006; Haas, 2003; Maglia, Púgener, & Trueb, 2001; Púgener, Maglia, & Trueb, 2003), and several new larval synapomorphies have been identified in many anuran lineages (e.g., Araújo‐Vieira, Tacioli, Faivovich, Orrico, & Grant, 2015; Baldo et al, 2014; Blotto, Pereyra, & Baldo, 2014; Dias, Anganoy‐Criollo, Guayasamin, & Grant, 2018b; Dias, Araújo‐Vieira, Carvalho‐e‐Silva, & Orrico, 2019a; Dias, Mongin‐Aquino, Vera Candioti, Carvalho‐e‐Silva, & Baêta, 2018a; Kolenc et al, 2008; Nascimento & Skuk, 2007). Nevertheless, these exciting discoveries are connected with a broad taxonomic sampling of phenotypical characters, and the lack of data prevents us from fully understanding larval evolution in several lineages.…”