XXXIX.—Observations on the Pectoral Musculature of Amphibia Salientia

Morphological Variation in Frog Pectoral Girdles: Testing Alternatives to a Traditional Adaptive Explanation

“…It should be noted that these findings do not support assertions found in the literature that the clavicles have been reduced because they have lost their function in firmisternal girdles (Jones, 1933) or that the function of keeping the glenoids apart can be better undertaken by the coracoids (Parker, 1934). Rather, these results show only that the firmisternal girdle maintains structural integrity without clavicles, while the arciferal girdle does not.…”

Functional analysis of frog pectoral girdles. The epicoracoid cartilages

“…For example, loading of the girdle elements is related, in part, to their orientation in the girdle. The orientation of the coracoids in firmisternal girdles suggest that the clavicles are subjected to little or no compressive stress (Jones, 1933). That hypothesis is currently being tested as it may, in turn, account for why clavicular loss occurs among firmisternal species (Trueb, 1973;Parker, 19341, but not among arciferal forms.…”

Ontogenetic development of the shoulder joint muscles in frogs (Amphibia: Anura) assessed by digital dissection with implications for interspecific muscle homologies and nomenclature

“…Diogo and Ziermann (2014), in contrast, reported the presence of both, a pars epicoracoidea of the m. pectoralis and a separate m. supracoracoideus, which contradicts the homology assumption by Ritland (1955). Jones (1933) observed the presence of a m. supracoracoideus profundus in, among others, two bufonid species, whereas Bigalke (1927) reported no such muscle in Bufo bufo (then B. vulgaris) but a pars superficialis of the m. coraco-brachialis brevis that remarkably resembled the m. supracoracoideus profundus in Jones (1933). The m. scapulohumeralis profundus anterior was observed in various anuran species, including representatives of the Ranidae (Tyson 1987).…”

“…In addition, previously published descriptions of the shoulder joint muscles in selected species (various species of Rana in Gaupp 1896; Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) in Bigalke 1927;Ascaphus truei Stejneger, 1899in Ritland 1955 were reassessed to identify inconsistencies in the use of muscle names and to suggest a consistent nomenclature. The descriptions by Gaupp (1896) were included, because they seem to be the most frequently referenced for anuran muscle anatomy; the nomenclature introduced by him, and modified versions of it, presumably are the most widely used (compare, e.g., Bigalke 1927;Jones 1933;Mahendra 1936;Ritland 1955;Burton 1983;Duellman and Trueb 1994;Manzano et al 2008;Baleeva 2009). The works of Ritland (1955) and Bigalke (1927) were used for comparison as they provide thorough descriptions of the muscles in species belonging to an ancient anuran linage and the Hyloidea, respectively, and because both refer to the nomenclature of Gaupp (1896).…”