Zootaxa, the Tadpole of the Brazilian Torrent Frog Hylodes Heyeri (Anura

Home , Hylodes, Hylodidae

TERMS OF USE This pdf is provided by Magnolia Press for private/research use. Commercial sale or deposition in a public library or website is prohibited.

The tadpole of the Brazilian torrent frog Hylodes heyeri (Anura; Hylodidae)

T. R. N. COSTA1, 4, R. LINGNAU2 & L. F. TOLEDO1,3 1Programa de pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Universidade Federal do Paraná. Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Caixa Postal 19031, CEP 81531-980, Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] 2Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina, Área de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Avenida Getúlio Vargas 2125, Flor da Serra, 89600-000, Joaçaba, Santa Catarina, Brasil 3Museu de Zoologia “Prof. Dr. Adão José Cardoso”, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP- IB), Rua Albert Einstein s/n, Campinas, São Paulo, 13083-863. E-mail: [email protected] 4Corresponding author

Hylodes heyeri Haddad, Pombal & Bastos is allocated in the H. lateristrigatus group (Heyer, 1982), together with other 17 species. The tadpole of H. heyeri is still unknown and our aim here is to describe the tadpole and compare it with other Hylodes species for which tadpole descriptions are available. Thirteen tadpoles in the stage 25 (Gosner 1960) were collected in a torrent stream in Morretes (25o26’59”S 48o52’09”W), Paraná, south Brazil and PEIC (Parque Estadual Ilha do Cardoso) (25° 03’05”S 47°53’48”), São Paulo, southeast Brazil Voucher tadpoles were deposited at Célio F. B. Haddad collection, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, São Paulo (CFBH 19248, 21995, 21996). Measurements of morphology follows nomenclature of Altig & McDiarmid (1999) and are reported as mean ± SD, min - max. The dental formula follows Altig (1970). In both Morretes and PEIC there were no other species of Hylodes during our field activities. Measurements: Total length (42.9 ± 5.2 mm; 34.8–54.5), body length (16.0 ± 3.0 mm; 10.4–21.7), tail length (27.0 ± 2.8 mm; 21.4–32.8), maximum tail muscle height (6.8 ± 1.6 mm; 4.9–9.4), maximum tail height (8.8 ±1.8 mm; 6.7– 12.5), maximum tail muscle width (4.5 ± 0.6 mm; 3.9–6.1), interorbital distance (4.6 ± 0.9 mm; 3.4–6.1), internarial distance (3.4 ±1.3 mm; 0.3–5.0), maximum dorsal fin height (2.6 ± 0.9 mm; 0.2–3.9), maximum ventral fin height (2.1 ± 0.6 mm; 0.2–2.7), eye diameter (1.0 ± 0.5 mm; 0.1–2.0), narial diameter (0.4 ± 0.1 mm; 0.03–0.6), snout-eye distance (4.6 ± 1.5 mm; 0.3–6.6), snout-nostril distance (2.3 ± 0.6 mm; 1.4–3.4), body width (9.8 ± 1.6 mm; 7.4–12.7), oral disc width (4.4 ± 0.9 mm; 3.3–5.8; n = 12), dorsal gap on marginal papillae (3.0 ± 0.9 mm; 1.7–4.6; n = 9). Dental formula is 2(2)/3(1). External morphology: Body ovoid in lateral and dorsal views. In lateral view the front is depressed with the tail 73 % longer than body. In dorsal view, the widest body portion is in the middle, just before the spiracle, which is sinistral and with a tube directed slightly to the posterior portion of the dorsum. In ventral view there is a depression anterior to the coiled intestine. Dorsal fin begins just after end of the body, and is narrow in all its extent. Ventral fin is narrower than the dorsal fin in all its extension. Both fins have the widest portion on the middle third. Nostrils with well defined edges, directed dorsolaterally, nearly equidistant between the eyes and the point of the snout. Eyes small (10 % of the body width). Two pairs of lateral lines on the first half of the body, and one pair on the posterior half. Mouth ventral, directed forward. Oral disc is 41 % of body width, laterally with a row of marginal papillae. The bases of the row of marginal papillae are in one series but alternate papillae project in different directions, emulating a double row. On the anterior labium there is a dorsal gap without papillae with 60 % of the oral disc width. Both jaws sheaths serrated, upper and lower jaw sheaths V-shaped. There are additional papillae on the posterior labium and lateral edges. Coloration in preservative. In dorsal view the body is beige translucent with brown spots between the eyes and between eyes and nostrils. Between nostrils there are two short longitudinal dark brown stripes. In ventral view transparent and lack the dark spots. Denticles and eyes are black. Some individuals present mouthparts depigmentation (unkeratinized). Tail transparent with brown dots uniformly dispersed. Spiracle and opening of cloacal tube transparent. Habits. Tadpoles of H. heyeri were found generally in backwaters of mountainous streams and rivulets, where males could be found calling and reproducing. Larvae could be found in the backwaters in all months of the year, indicating that the larvae development could be very slow (as the adults are not reproducing all over the year).

66 Accepted by M. Vences: 8 Jul 2009; published: 7 Sept. 2009 TERMS OF USE This pdf is provided by Magnolia Press for private/research use. Commercial sale or deposition in a public library or website is prohibited.

FIGURE 1. The tadpole of Hylodes heyeri in dorsal view (A), lateral view (B), ventral view (C), and mouth parts (D).

Of the 24 species of the genus Hylodes only 11 species had its larvae described (Table 1). Tadpoles of H. heyeri differ from H. uai, H. sazimai and H. amnicola in the lateral line system, since this species have more lateral lines (Nascimento et al. 2001, Haddad & Pombal 1995, Pombal et al. 2002). In H. dactylocinus there are also two pairs of lateral lines (Pavan et al. 2001), however they are not visible on the tail, such as in H. heyeri. Regarding the number of marginal papillae rows, the tadpoles of H. heyeri have only one row, while tadpoles of H. uai and H. sazimai have from two to three rows (Nascimento et al. 2001, Haddad & Pombal 1995), H. amnicola have from one to three rows (Pombal et al. 2002), H. perplicatus, and H. otavioi have two rows (Haddad et al. 2003 and Sazima & Bokermann 1982), and H. nasus have papillae biserial to multiserial (Wogel et al. 2004).

TABLE 1. Species of the genus Hylodes, its groups (sensu HEYER 1982), and descriptions of its tadpoles, showing development stage and some physical characteristics. An asterisk “*” indicates that the information was not presented by the authors, but inferred from the illustrations presented in the original manuscript. Two asterisks “**” indicates that the tadpole needs redescription.

Species Group Stage Dental tail/body eye/body body/total Described by formula width length H. amnicola H. lateristrigatus 28 2(2)/3(1) 1.83 0.15 0.35 Pombal et al. 2002 H. asper** H. nasus 25* 2(2)/3(1) ------0.33 Bokermann 1963 H. dactylocinus H. nasus 37 2(2)/3(1) 2 --- 0.33 Pavan et al. 2001 H. heyeri H. lateristrigatus 25 2(2)/3(1) 1.73 0.1 0.37 Present study H. lateristrigatus** H. lateristrigatus ------Lutz 1930 H. nasus H. nasus 26 2(2)/3(1) 2.03 0.16 0.33 Wogel et al. 2004 H. otavioi H. lateristrigatus 28 2(2)/3(1) ------Sazima & Bokermann 1982 H. perplicatus H. lateristrigatus 36 2(2)/3(1) 1.95 0.18 0.34 Haddad et al. 2003 H. phyllodes H. lateristrigatus 25* 2(2)/3(1) ------Heyer et al. 1990 H. sazimai H. lateristrigatus 25 2(2)/3(1) 1.83 ------Haddad & Pombal 1995 H. uai H. lateristrigatus 36 2(2)/3(1) 2.01 0.14 0.33 Nascimento et al. 2001

In H. asper the largest portion of the body is between the eyes, and in H. heyeri the largest portion of the body is at the median part, before the operculum. Differs from the tadpole of H. dactylocinus with length of the tail about twice of

THE TADPOLE OF HYLODES HEYERI (ANURA; HYLODIDAE) Zootaxa 2222 © 2009 Magnolia Press · 67 TERMS OF USE This pdf is provided by Magnolia Press for private/research use. Commercial sale or deposition in a public library or website is prohibited. the body (Pavan et al. 2001), whereas in H. heyeri the tail is 73 % longer than the body (Table 1). The tadpole of H. heyeri also differs from H. asper in relation to the distance between eyes and nostrils, which is longer in H. heyeri, equivalent to 2.16 times the eye diameter, and in H. asper it is 1.5 times the eye diameter (Bokermann 1963). Hylodes heyeri differs from H. phyllodes in the distance between nostrils, eye diameter and oral disc size. The distance between nostrils is smaller in H. phyllodes (around 1.2 times the eye diameter) (Heyer et al. 1990) than in H. heyeri (around 3.26 times the eye diameter), and the eye diameter is larger in H. phyllodes, around almost 10 % of body length (Heyer et al. 1990) whereas in H heyeri it is 6.6 %. Also in H. phyllodes the oral disc is larger (50 % of body width) (Heyer et al. 1990) and in H. heyeri measures 44 % of body width. Regarding coloration differs from H. lateristrigatus due to the lack of large dark stripes which extends on both sides of tail (Lutz 1930).

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Jaime Somera for the line drawings; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP, proc. no. 2006/60055-0 and 2008/50325-5) and .Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) provided financial support and scholarships.

References

Altig, R. (1970) A key to the tadpoles of the continental United States and Canada. Herpetologica, 26 (2), 180–207. Altig, R. & McDiarmid, R.W. (1999) Body plan: developmental and morphology. In Mc Diarmind & Altig, R. Tadpoles – the biology of anuran larvae. Univ of Chicago Press. Chicago, pp 24–51. Bokermann, W.C.A. (1963) Girinos de anfíbios brasileiros - 2 (Amphibia Salientia). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 23 (2), 349–353. Gosner, K.L. (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica, 16 (2), 183–190. Haddad, C.F.B. & Pombal Jr., J.P. (1995) A new species of Hylodes from southeastern Brazil (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica, 51 (3), 279–286. Haddad, C.F.B., Garcia, P.C.A. & Pombal Jr. J.P. (2003) Redescrição de Hylodes perplicatus (Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926) (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae). Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 61 (4), 245–254. Heyer, W.R. (1982) Two new species of the frog genus Hylodes from Caparaó, Minas Gerais, Brasil (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 95 (2), 377–385. Heyer, W.R., Rand, A.S., Cruz, C.A.G., Peixoto, O.L. & Nelson, C E. (1990) Frogs of Boracéia. Arquivos de Zooogia, 31(4), 231–410. Lutz, A. (1930) Observações sobre batrachios brasileiros—Taxonomia e biologia das Elosiinas. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 24, 195–222. Nascimento, L.B., Pombal Jr J.P. & Haddad, C.F.B. (2001) A new frog of the genus Hylodes (Amphibia Leptodactylidae) from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of Zoology, 254, 421–428. Pavan, D., Narvaes, P. & Rodrigues, M.T. (2001) A new species of leptodactylid frog from the atlantic forests of southeastern Brazil with notes on the status and on speciation of the Hylodes species groups. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, 41, 407–425. Pombal Jr. J.P., Feio R.N. & Haddad, C.F.B. (2002) A new species of torrent frog genus Hylodes (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Southeastern Brazil. Herpetologica, 58 (4), 462–471. Sazima, I. & W.C.A. Bokermann W.C.A. (1982) Anfíbios da Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brasil. 5: Hylodes otavioi sp.n. (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 42 (4), 767–771. Wogel, H., Abrunhosa, P.A. & Weber, L.N. (2004) The tadpole, vocalizations and visual displays of Hylodes nasus (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Amphibia-Reptilia, 25, 219–227.