Review of the Internal Larval Anatomy of the Proceratophrys bigibbosa Species Group (Anura: Odontophrynidae), with Description of the Tadpole of P. brauni Kwet and Faivovich, 2001

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

“…Moreover, Dias et al (2019b) (see also Dias, 2018) identified several larval synapomorphies for the P. bigibbosa species group.…”

“…The tadpoles of P. minuta also present these four character states. Nevertheless, as discussed by Dias, Araújo-Vieira, Santos, and Both (2019b), given the poorly supported phylogenetic position of Odontophrynidae, these character states may be synapomorphies for a more inclusive group in an alternative phylogenetic hypothesis. (Haas, 2003), reaching the tooth rows and the ventral and anterolateral marginal papillae (Carr & Altig, 1991).…”

“…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).…”

“…Dias et al (2014) suggested the loss of the gap in the second anterior tooth row as a putative synapomorphy for the P. appendiculata species complex. Moreover, Dias et al (2019b) (see also Dias, 2018) identified several larval synapomorphies for the P. bigibbosa species group. Unfortunately, the lack of data, especially regarding internal morphology is a limiting factor.…”

“…Buccopharyngeal morphologyCharacters of the buccopharyngeal cavity have been successfully employed in Proceratophrys taxonomy and systematics (e.g.,Dias, 2018;Dias, Araújo-Vieira, Santos, & Both, 2019b;Provete et al, 2013; Provete, Guimarães, Melo, & Rossa-Feres, 2017).Nevertheless, buccopharyngeal morphology have been described for only 12 species of the genus: P. appendiculata, P. avelinoi, P. bigibbosa, P. boiei, P. brauni, P. cristiceps, P. cururu, P. izecksohni, P. mantiqueira, P. melanopogon, P. moratoi, and P. renalis(de Sá & Langone, 2002;Dias, 2018;Dias et al, 2014;Dias, Araújo-Vieira, Santos, & Both, 2019b;Nascimento et al, 2010;Provete et al, 2013Provete et al, , 2017Vieira et al, 2007;Wassersug & Heyer, 1988).Proceratophrys minuta tadpoles share a set of character states with most of the Proceratophrys tadpoles, such as (a) four infralabial papillae (two in P. boiei and P. renalis); (b) four lingual papillae (eight in P. bigibbosa, three in P. cristiceps, six in P. mantiqueira and P. renalis, and five in P. melanopogon); (c) dorsal velum margin papillate (unpapillate in P. brauni and P. cristiceps); (d) the presence of papillae investing the buccal floor arena (absent in P. boiei, P. cristiceps, P. melanopogon, and P. renalis); and (e) the buccal floor and roof densely pustulate and papillate. However, this species also presents unique features.…”