Do Frogs Come from Tadpoles? Other Nature Institute Perspectives

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Do Frogs Come from Tadpoles? Other Nature Institute Perspectives Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? Other Nature Institute Perspectives Extraordinary Lives: Disability and Destiny in a Technological Age by Stephen L. Talbott The Flexible Giant: Seeing the Elephant Whole by Craig Holdrege In the Belly of the Beast: Technology, Nature, and the Human Prospect by Stephen L. Talbott The Giraffe’s Long Neck: From Evolutionary Fable to Whole Organism by Craig Holdrege Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? Rethinking Origins in Development and Evolution Craig Holdrege Evolving Science Association A collaboration of The Nature Institute and the Myrin Institute 2017 Copyright 2017 Craig Holdrege All rights reserved. Published by the Evolving Science Association, a collaboration of The Nature Institute and the Myrin Institute The Nature Institute: 20 May Hill Road, Ghent, NY 12075 natureinstitute.org The Myrin Institute: 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230 myrin.org ISBN 978-0-9744906-4-9 Cover drawing by Martina Muller This book and other Nature Institute Perspectives can be purchased from The Nature Institute’s online bookstore: http://www.natureinstitute.org/store/index.htm or contact: The Nature Institute— [email protected] 518-672-0116 Contents Introduction 7 Chapter One. Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? 11 The Life of a Tadpole 11 Metamorphosis 14 Thinking Development 20 But What About Genes and Hormones? Where Have all the Causes Gone? 22 Being Itself Differently 25 From Space to Time, From Thing to Process 29 Chapter Two. A Biology of Beings 31 Portraying a Frog 33 Scientific Portrayal 39 Chapter Three. Creativity, Ancestors, and Origins: What Frog Evolution Can Teach Us 45 The Double Nature of Life 46 Fossils and Life Past: Portraying or Explaining 49 Frog Fossil History 52 Forming a Picture of Evolutionary Transformation 62 The Problem of Ancestors 65 Of Origins and Creative Evolution 70 Acknowledgements 73 Notes 75 References 79 Introduction Introduction I think of this monograph as a meditation because it is concerned with heightening our understanding of facts already known. It involves seeing things in a new light. The illumina- tion comes from letting the phenomena of development and evolution reveal aspects of themselves that previous perspec- tives have hindered. For many years I have studied and taught about development and evolution, and always experienced them as fascinating and important topics. Theories about ‘mechanisms’ and ‘causes,’ however, have seemed inadequate to me. In fact, I have serious doubts about the value of speculative theories altogether. For this reason I have put much effort into trying to bypass theoret- ical frameworks so as to gain a more direct and unadulterated view of the phenomena themselves. As a result, much of my work has been concerned with studying development and evolutionary biology with the trust that the phenomena themselves, if I can just attend to them in a fresh way, have the power to help me break through men- tal barriers and awaken to new insights. This has been my aim in studying frog development and evolution. Many years ago, as a high school biology teacher, I began teaching about frog metamorphosis. I have remained intrigued by this remarkable transformation of little tadpoles into adult frogs that are such different creatures. A few years ago I returned to observing tad- poles and frogs in rural upstate New York, and also revisited the scientific literature describing the radical changes that oc- cur during metamorphosis. 7 Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? Along the way, I had an “aha” experience: I realized that frogs do not come from tadpoles. I will explain what this apparently outrageous and erroneous statement means in Chapter One. My understanding of development was revolutionized, and from that point on all the details and the whole developmental process appeared to me in a new light. One central feature of my new understanding was to know in a concrete way that development has to do with agency, with the activity of beings. “Agency” and “Being” are terms that are strictly forbidden in mechanistic biology. But a veil had dropped. I realized that you can’t really do biology in a way that does justice to the phenomena unless you acknowledge and take into account that beings are active at all times in every as- pect of life. So in Chapter Two, I present some of the challenges and features of a biology of beings. I also realized that this new way of seeing development has huge ramifications for understanding the macro-developmen- tal process we call evolution. So I decided to stay with frogs— who had revealed to me so much—and study their evolution- ary history as it shows itself in the fossil record. Chapter Three presents the results of this effort so far. In the work of articulating and attempting to make under- standable the new perspectives, I experience two different kinds of hurdles. I confront my own difficulties in fully expressing what it is I’ve seen in a way that seems true and adequate. And I am also aware, given the habits of thoughts that inform so much modern thinking about development and evolution, that much of what I am trying to get at can easily be misunderstood. That’s a dilemma. Just over 100 years ago, Edmund Husserl was working to es- tablish phenomenology in philosophy as “a new way of looking at things … one that contrasts at every point with the natural at- titude of experience and thought.” He knew this would demand 8 Introduction that we “set aside all previous habits of thought, see through and break down the mental barriers which these habits have set along the horizons of our thinking.” This alone will allow us “to move freely along this new way without ever reverting to the old viewpoints, to learn to see what stands before our eyes…”1 This study has been such an adventure of breaking through boundaries. I hope you will experience some of that adventure and be stimulated by the glimpses into features of development and evolution that only a new way of looking can provide. 9 Introduction CHAPTER ONE Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? Where does a frog come from? The answer seems obvious. It comes from a tadpole. But does it? Surely, without the tadpole the frog does not develop. But just as surely, nowhere do we find the frog in the tadpole. The frog comes into existence only as the tadpole disappears. We need to be keenly aware of what we mean, and what we don’t mean, when we say, “A frog develops out of a tadpole”—or a tadpole out of an embryo, or an embryo out of a fertilized egg, or an adult human being out of a child. As we will see, when we give careful attention to what is actually happening when a new phase of life develops out of a previous stage, there are large implications for our overall understanding of developmental processes. New and exciting questions arise about how we conceive of development— including that trans-species developmental process we call evolution. The Life of a Tadpole Most of you have probably seen tadpoles in ponds and vernal pools.1 With a thick squat body that abruptly tapers to a long, finned tail, a tadpole can be distinguished from a fish. And yet, tadpoles are fish-like in many of their characteristics. 11 Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? Figure 1. Metamorphosis of the European common frog (Rana temporaria). Pictured to scale. (Photographs by Tim Hunt, reprinted with permission; http:// www.timhuntphotography.co.uk/) They remain submerged in water and breathe through their skin and gills. They have no limbs, and swim through water via undulating movements of a long boneless tail fin. Like fish, tadpoles have a lateral line organ, which runs along each side of the body and tail, through which they sense movements in water. A tadpole typically grazes on algae that grow on plants, rocks, or at the surface of the water. Tadpoles have a “beak” and rows of denticles in their mouth that function like rasps to scrape off the algae. The denticles do not consist of bone and enamel but of keratin—a protein substance that, for instance, also makes up our fingernails and hair. The tongueless tadpole sucks the algae into its throat, and the food enters the long intestine where it is digested. There is no stomach. The intestine can be more than ten times longer 12 Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? Figure 2. Tadpoles (European common frog; Rana temporaria). (Photo by Friedrich Böhringer; Wikimedia Commons.) than the tadpole itself and is its largest internal organ, making up over half its body mass. Tightly coiled, the intestine takes up about half the space within the tadpole’s ovoid-shaped body and is visible through the translucent belly skin. Figure 3. Northern leopard frog tadpole (Rana pipiens) viewed from below (ventral; developmental stage 25 as given by Witschi). Note the coiled intestine visible through the belly skin. (From Witschi 1956, p. 80.) 13 Do Frogs Come From Tadpoles? How long a tadpole lives before it metamorphoses into a frog is dependent on the species and on outer conditions. A wood frog tadpole (Rana sylvatica), for example, usually metamor- phoses into a froglet within two or three months after hatch- ing in the northeastern United States. The time is shorter when there are higher water temperatures and ample food, and lon- ger when there is colder water and little food. Bullfrog tadpoles (Rana catesbeiana) grow large—often around four inches (10 cm) long—and, depending on circumstances, can sometimes metamorphose into frogs in the fall (four to five months after hatching). But, more typically, they live as tadpoles for two to three years before metamorphosing.
Recommended publications
  • Rampant Tooth Loss Across 200 Million Years of Frog Evolution
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.04.429809; this version posted February 6, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. 1 Rampant tooth loss across 200 million years of frog evolution 2 3 4 Daniel J. Paluh1,2, Karina Riddell1, Catherine M. Early1,3, Maggie M. Hantak1, Gregory F.M. 5 Jongsma1,2, Rachel M. Keeffe1,2, Fernanda Magalhães Silva1,4, Stuart V. Nielsen1, María Camila 6 Vallejo-Pareja1,2, Edward L. Stanley1, David C. Blackburn1 7 8 1Department of Natural History, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 9 Gainesville, Florida USA 32611 10 2Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida USA 32611 11 3Biology Department, Science Museum of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota USA 55102 12 4Programa de Pós Graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Pará/Museu Paraense 13 Emilio Goeldi, Belém, Pará Brazil 14 15 *Corresponding author: Daniel J. Paluh, [email protected], +1 814-602-3764 16 17 Key words: Anura; teeth; edentulism; toothlessness; trait lability; comparative methods 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.04.429809; this version posted February 6, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license.
    [Show full text]
  • Terra Nostra 2018, 1; Mte13
    IMPRINT TERRA NOSTRA – Schriften der GeoUnion Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung Publisher Verlag GeoUnion Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung c/o Universität Potsdam, Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, Haus 27, 14476 Potsdam, Germany Tel.: +49 (0)331-977-5789, Fax: +49 (0)331-977-5700 E-Mail: [email protected] Editorial office Dr. Christof Ellger Schriftleitung GeoUnion Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung c/o Universität Potsdam, Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, Haus 27, 14476 Potsdam, Germany Tel.: +49 (0)331-977-5789, Fax: +49 (0)331-977-5700 E-Mail: [email protected] Vol. 2018/1 13th Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biota (MTE13) Heft 2018/1 Abstracts Editors Thomas Martin, Rico Schellhorn & Julia A. Schultz Herausgeber Steinmann-Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Paläontologie Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Nussallee 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany Editorial staff Rico Schellhorn & Julia A. Schultz Redaktion Steinmann-Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Paläontologie Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Nussallee 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany Printed by www.viaprinto.de Druck Copyright and responsibility for the scientific content of the contributions lie with the authors. Copyright und Verantwortung für den wissenschaftlichen Inhalt der Beiträge liegen bei den Autoren. ISSN 0946-8978 GeoUnion Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung – Potsdam, Juni 2018 MTE13 13th Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biota Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn,
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLISHED VERSION Liping Dong, Zbyněk Roček, Yuan Wang, Marc E H
    PUBLISHED VERSION Liping Dong, Zbyněk Roček, Yuan Wang, Marc E H. Jones Anurans from the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Group of western Liaoning, China PLoS One, 2013; 8(7):e69723-1-e69723-17 Copyright: © 2013 Dong et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PERMISSIONS http://www.plosone.org/static/license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 17 November, 2014 http://hdl.handle.net/2440/87016 Anurans from the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Group of Western Liaoning, China Liping Dong1*, Zbyneˇk Rocˇek2, Yuan Wang1, Marc E. H. Jones3 1 Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 2 Institute of Geology, Department of Palaeobiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic, 3 Research Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom Abstract Background: To date, the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Group of western Liaoning, China has yielded five monotypic genera of anurans, including Liaobatrachus grabaui, Callobatrachus sanyanensis, Mesophryne beipiaoensis, Dalianbatrachus mengi, and Yizhoubatrachus macilentus. However, the validity and distinctness of these taxa have been questioned. Methodology/Principal Finding: We provide a comprehensive analysis of the Jehol frogs that includes a re-examination of the published taxa as well as an examination of a number of new specimens that have been collected over the past 10 years. The results show that the five previously named taxa can be referred to three species of one genus–Liaobatrachus grabaui, L.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Eocene Frogs from Vastan Lignite Mine, Gujarat, India
    Early Eocene frogs from Vastan Lignite Mine, Gujarat, India ANNELISE FOLIE, RAJENDRA S. RANA, KENNETH D. ROSE, ASHOK SAHNI, KISHOR KUMAR, LACHHAM SINGH, and THIERRY SMITH Folie, A., Rana, R.S., Rose, K.D., Sahni, A., Kumar, K., Singh, L., and Smith, T. 2013. Early Eocene frogs from Vastan Lignite Mine, Gujarat, India. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 58 (3): 511–524. The Ypresian Cambay Shale Formation of Vastan Lignite Mine in Gujarat, western India, has yielded a rich vertebrate fauna, including the earliest modern mammals of the Indian subcontinent. Here we describe its assemblage of four frogs, including two new genera and species, based on numerous, diverse and well−preserved ilia and vertebrae. An abundant frog, Eobarbourula delfinoi gen. and sp. nov., with a particular vertebral articulation similar to a zygosphene−zygantrum complex, represents the oldest record of the Bombinatoridae and might have been capable of displaying the Unken reflex. The large non−fossorial pelobatid Eopelobates, known from complete skeletons from the Eocene and Oligocene of Europe, is also identified at Vastan based on a single nearly complete ilium. An abundant “ranid” and a possible rhacophorid Indorana prasadi gen. and sp. nov. represent the earliest records of both families. The Vastan pelobatids and ranids confirm an early worldwide distribution of these families, and the bombinatorids and rhacophorids show possible origins of those clades on the Indian subcontinent. Key words: Amphibia, Bombinatoridae, Ranidae, Pelobatidae, Rhacophoridae, Eocene, Vastan, India. Annelise Folie [[email protected]] and Thierry Smith [[email protected]], Royal Bel− gian Institute of Natural Sciences, Department of Paleontology, Rue Vautier 29, B−1000 Brussels, Belgium; Rajendra S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesozoic and Tertiary Anura of Laurasia Zbyněk
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259080631 Article: Mesozoic and Tertiary Anura of Laurasia Article in Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments · November 2013 DOI: 10.1007/s12549-013-0131-y CITATIONS READS 38 2,173 1 author: Zbyněk Roček The Czech Academy of Sciences - Institute of Geology 105 PUBLICATIONS 2,024 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Revision of fossil frogs of the genus Palaeobatrachus View project All content following this page was uploaded by Zbyněk Roček on 29 May 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Mesozoic and Tertiary Anura of Laurasia Zbyněk Roček Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments ISSN 1867-1594 Volume 93 Number 4 Palaeobio Palaeoenv (2013) 93:397-439 DOI 10.1007/s12549-013-0131-y 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung and Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships of Pelobatoidea Re-Examined Using Mtdna
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28 (2003) 12–23 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Phylogenetic relationships of Pelobatoidea re-examined using mtDNA Mario Garcııa-Parııs,a,* Daniel R. Buchholz,b and Gabriela Parra-Oleac a Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2. 28006 Madrid, Spain b Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3160, USA c Instituto de Biologııa, UNAM. AP 70-153, Mexico DF 04510, Mexico Received 1 April 2002; revised 15 January 2003 Abstract Pelobatoidea is a clade of ancient anurans with obscure relationships to the remaining clades of frogs. We used partial sequences of two mitochondrial genes (cytochrome b and 16S RNA) from all Pelobatoidea subclades, including all species of Pelobatidae and Pelodytidae and four outgroup taxa (Xenopus, Ascaphus, Discoglossus, and Rana), to propose a phylogenetic hypothesis for rela- tionships within Pelobatoidea. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses support the monophyly of Pelobatoidea, but our hy- pothesis of internal relationships differs substantially from all previous hypotheses. Megophryidae is sister to Pelobates, and this clade is sister to Pelodytes. The most basal clade within Pelobatoidea is formed by Scaphiopus and Spea. The family Pelobatidae, as previously defined is not monophyletic, and it is split into Eurasian spadefoot toads Pelobates which retain the name Pelobatidae and North American spadefoot toads Scaphiopus and Spea which comprise the revived taxon Scaphiopodidae. Our analysis un- covers the existence of morphologically cryptic taxa within previously recognized species of the genus Spea and reveals marked genetic differentiation within Iberian Pelodytes. We discuss biogeographic implications and the evolution of fossoriality in the light of the new phylogenetic hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure S1 ML Tree 164 SP
    Latimeriidae Protopteridae Hominidae 1 3 Crocodylidae 4 Phasianidae 2 Ichthyophiidae Tetrapoda Hynobiidae 7 5 Cryptobranchidae Amphibia Leiopelmatoidea Leiopelmatidae 6 Ascaphidae Batrachia Alytoidea Alytidae 9 8 Bombinatoridae Anura Pipoidea Rhinophrynidae 11 Pipa 12 Xenopus Bombinanura Pseudhymenochirus Hymenochirus Pelobatoidea Scaphiopodidae 10 13 Pipanura Pelodytidae 14 Pelobatidae 15 Megophryidae Heleophrynidae Calyptocephalellidae 16 18 Acosmanura Myobatrachidae Rhinodermatidae Alsodidae Batrachylidae 17 Neobatrachia Telmatobiidae Ceratophryidae Hyloidea Hemiphractidae Hylidae Dendrobatidae Eleutherodactylidae Phthanobatrachia Craugastoridae Strabomantidae Bufonidae Odontophrynidae Leptodactylidae Sooglossidae Microhylidae Hemisotidae Diplasiocoela Afrobatrachia Brevicipitidae 19 Hyperoliidae Ranoidea Arthroleptidae Odontobatrachidae Ptychadenidae 20 Phrynobatrachidae Pyxicephalidae Petropedetidae Natatanura Conrauidae Ceratobatrachidae Dicroglossidae Ranidae Mantellidae Rhacophoridae Num Node to be calibrated Fossils Minimum Soft Maximum Source 1 Choanata † Youngolepis 408 427 Benton et al. (2015) 2 Tetrapoda † Lethiscus stocki 337 351 Benton et al. (2015) 3 Amniota † Hylonomus lyelli 318 332.9 Benton et al. (2015) 4 Crocodile and birds † Ctenosauriscus koeneni 247.1 260.2 Benton et al. (2015) 5 Amphibia (Liss-) † Gerobatrachus hottoni 270.6 337 Anderson (2008) 6 Batrachia † Triadobatrachus massinoti 252 272.8 Cannatella (2015); Benton et al. 2015 7 Cryptobranchoidea † Chunerpeton tianyiensis 161.2 252 Gao and Shubin (2003) 8
    [Show full text]
  • CONTRIBUTION to the HEAD ANATOMY of the BASAL FROG Barbourula Busuangensis and the EVOLUTION of the ANURA
    Russian Journal of Herpetology Vol. 23, No. 3, 2016, pp. 163 – 194 CONTRIBUTION TO THE HEAD ANATOMY OF THE BASAL FROG Barbourula busuangensis AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANURA Zbynìk Roèek,1 Natalia Baleeva,2 Anne Vazeille,3 Alberto Bravin,4 Eddie van Dijk,5 Christian Nemoz,4 Tomáš Pøikryl,1 Ella M. Smirina,6 Renaud Boistel,3 and Leon Claessens7 Submitted May 2, 2016 Barbourula busuangensis Taylor and Noble, 1924 is a poorly known basal aquatic frog from the Philippines. Here we describe some features of the head anatomy of B. busuangensis, with a focus on jaw and eye musculature and the cranial skeleton, based on 3D reconstructions from serial histological sections of a metamorphosed but not fully grown (subadult) female and two fully grown adults, one of which was investigated by synchrotron x-ray im- aging. Examination of two different post-metamorphic stages allowed tentative assessment of the development of some characters from the subadult to the adult condition, e.g., shape and size of the parahyoid or arrangement of some jaw adductors. The subadult specimen of B. busuangensis also possesses some unique cranial characters, including a salamander-like arrangement of the jaw adductors, which is obscured in fully grown adults, and a well-developed basal (= basicranial) articulation resembling that of temnospondyls. The facial nerve of B. bu- suangensis does not fuse with the trigeminal ganglion. Head anatomy confirms that Barbourula is a basal anuran, and comparison with other basal taxa suggests that B. busuangensis most closely resembles the hypo-ossified taxa Alytes and Bombina, and Discoglossus with respect to degree of ossification.
    [Show full text]
  • A Burrowing Frog from the Late Paleocene Of
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN A burrowing frog from the late Paleocene of Mongolia uncovers a deep history of spadefoot toads Received: 16 October 2015 Accepted: 07 December 2015 (Pelobatoidea) in East Asia Published: 11 January 2016 Jianye Chen1,2, Gaberiel S. Bever2,3, Hong-Yu Yi4 & Mark A. Norell1,2 Fossils are indispensible in understanding the evolutionary origins of the modern fauna. Crown- group spadefoot toads (Anura: Pelobatoidea) are the best-known fossorial frog clade to inhabit arid environments, with species utilizing a characteristic bony spade on their foot for burrowing. Endemic to the Northern Hemisphere, they are distributed across the Holarctic except East Asia. Here we report a rare fossil of a crown-group spadefoot toad from the late Paleocene of Mongolia. The phylogenetic analysis using both morphological and molecular information recovered this Asian fossil inside the modern North American pelobatoid clade Scaphiopodidae. The presence of a spade and the phylogenetic position of the new fossil frog strongly support its burrowing behavior. The late Paleocene age and other information suggestive of a mild climate cast doubt on the conventional assertion that burrowing evolved as an adaptation to aridity in spadefoot toads. Temporally and geographically, the new fossil provides the earliest record of Scaphiopodidae worldwide, and the only member of the group in Asia. Quantitative biogeographic analysis suggests that Scaphiopodidae, despite originating in North America, dispersed into East Asia via Beringia in the Early Cenozoic. The absence of spadefoot toads in East Asia today is a result of extinction. Frogs, the largest modern amphibian clade with more than 6500 species1, are both ecologically diverse and geo- graphically widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Paleozoic Limbed Vertebrates Reassessed Through Revision and Expansion of the Largest Published Relevant Data Matrix
    Phylogeny of Paleozoic limbed vertebrates reassessed through revision and expansion of the largest published relevant data matrix David Marjanovic1 and Michel Laurin2 1 Science Programme “Evolution and Geoprocesses”, Museum für Naturkunde—Leibniz Institute for Evolutionary and Biodiversity Research, Berlin, Germany 2 Centre de Recherches sur la Paléobiologie et les Paléoenvironnements (CR2P), Centre national de la Recherche scientifique (CNRS)/Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN)/Sorbonne Université, Paris, France ABSTRACT The largest published phylogenetic analysis of early limbed vertebrates (Ruta M, Coates MI. 2007. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 5:69–122) recovered, for example, Seymouriamorpha, Diadectomorpha and (in some trees) Caudata as paraphyletic and found the “temnospondyl hypothesis” on the origin of Lissamphibia (TH) to be more parsimonious than the “lepospondyl hypothesis” (LH)—though only, as we show, by one step. We report 4,200 misscored cells, over half of them due to typographic and similar accidental errors. Further, some characters were duplicated; some had only one described state; for one, most taxa were scored after presumed relatives. Even potentially continuous characters were unordered, the effects of ontogeny were not sufficiently taken into account, and data published after 2001 were mostly excluded. After these issues are improved— we document and justify all changes to the matrix—but no characters are added, we find (Analysis R1) much longer trees with, for example, monophyletic Caudata, Diadectomorpha and (in some trees) Seymouriamorpha; Ichthyostega either crownward or rootward of Acanthostega; and Anthracosauria either crownward or Submitted 16 January 2016 Accepted 12 August 2018 rootward of Temnospondyli. The LH is nine steps shorter than the TH (R2; Published 4 January 2019 constrained) and 12 steps shorter than the “polyphyly hypothesis” (PH—R3; Corresponding author constrained).
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Perspectives on Amphibian Evolution Across Multiple Phylogenetic Scales
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Biology Biology 2017 GENOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON AMPHIBIAN EVOLUTION ACROSS MULTIPLE PHYLOGENETIC SCALES Paul Michael Hime University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.284 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hime, Paul Michael, "GENOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON AMPHIBIAN EVOLUTION ACROSS MULTIPLE PHYLOGENETIC SCALES" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--Biology. 45. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/biology_etds/45 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Biology by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibia Mundi. 1.2. Recent Amphibians: Generic and Infrageneric Taxonomic Additions (1981-2002)
    Alytes, 2005, 23 (1-2): 25-69.25 Amphibia Mundi. 1.2. Recent amphibians: generic and infrageneric taxonomic additions (1981-2002) Alain D*, Ronald I. C** & Frank G*** * Vertébrés: Reptiles et Amphibiens, USM 0602 Taxonomie and Collections, Département de Systématique and Evolution, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France <[email protected]> ** California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-3098, USA <[email protected]> *** Zoologische Staatssammlung, 81247 München, Germany <[email protected]> The present list concerns additions in the taxonomy of NEOBATRACHI (i.e., recent amphibians, taxa represented by at least one species in the currently living fauna of our planet: see D, 2004), for taxa at rank genus and below, published before 2003 after the three lists of recent amphibians taxa of F (1985), D (1993) and G et al. (1998) and the two lists of fossil taxa of this group of E (1981) and S (1998), or absent from these five lists.The period covered by these additions starts in 1981 for taxa of fossil gymnophiones and urodeles, in 1993 for taxa of recent amphibians, and in 1998 for taxa of fossil anurans. It ends on 31 December 2002 for all these groups.We tried to include all new nomina that had been overlooked in the lists cited above, or for which we identified errors in these lists. However, nomina of lower recent taxa anterior to 1993 not considered in F’s (1985) and D’s (1993) checklists (i.e., most synonyms and most nomina of valid subgenera and subspe- cies) were not included, as their inclusion would have increased the present list by hundreds, if not thousands, of nomina.
    [Show full text]