DOCSLIB.ORG

Aposematic Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae) of the Andean

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aposematic Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae) of the Andean CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL FIELD GUIDE SERIES Aposematic Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae) of the Andean Countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela H CH3 NOCH3 N O CH CH3 H3C 3 H H N N O HO Spiropyrrolizidine CH N 236A 3 H O O HO Batrachotoxin H Cl NH N Epibatidine Editors Ted R. Kahn Enrique La Marca Stefan Lötters Jason L. Brown Evan Twomey Adolfo Amézquita Illustrated by Ted R. Kahn Chapter 1 Recent Progress in the Systematics of Poison Frogs and Their Relatives (Dendrobatoidea) Taran Grant1 Darrel R. Frosr ~ IUSlll de /..oologia, Vniversicbdc de ao Paulo, S.io Paulo, Brazil '\ciemist Lmerit\15, American .Museum of Natural Hi,tory, ~e" York. l';Y, U~A llle fir~r steps in undemanding biodiversiry are ro idenrify species, which are the primary units of biodiversiry, and to group rhem in a way that informs subsequem studies in areas such a.o. ecology, conservation, and pharmacology, as well as funher re.~ea rch on their evolutionary relarionships. These are the tasks of sysremarics. Within systematics, the most basic level of research focuse~ on discovering species and elucidating their variation and distribution. Once species are idenrificd, they can be grouped based on any number of criteria, such as similariry, ecological affiniry, or geographic disrriburion. and rhere b no law prohibiting the use ofdifferent groupings ror differenr purposes. Howe,·er. because the biodiversity observed today was caused by evolution, eYolurionary relarion~hip~ provide rhe explanarory framework that unifies til areas of biology. Consequently. S)')temarisrs group species formally according tO heir relative recency of common evolutionary ancestry, or their phrlogeny. These phylogenetic groups, or clades, are named and, following rhe International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), ranked as genera, families, and species. Rank-free systems of nomenclature have also been proposed, bur ro dare they have nm been widely applied: for argumcnrs and a promising alternative sec Kluge, 2005.) -\ point often overlooked br non-sprematistS is thar identif}•ing species and inferring r heir phylogenetic relatiomhips are highly theoretical and empirically challenging '~lentific problems. As evidence accumulates and knowledge increases, prior hvpotheses are corroborated or refuted, exisring names pass into and our ofsynonymy, C\\ species and clades are named, and species are shuffied among groups to reflect improved understanding of their relarionships. It is e.xpecrcd that taxo nomy will stable as evidence accumulates. However, to employ taxonomic stabiliry umo itself would compromise rhe scienrific srarus of systematics. Instead, te ~rabiliry can emerge only as rhe evidenrial basis for understanding ry relationships provides stable answers. It is frustrating and difficult for --.Ti;...c ..nd non-systematists alike tO keep up wirh the changing names, bur ri··e is ro employ a sraric cl~sificarion that obscures rhe growing body of knowledge behind a cloud of authoritarianism disguised as tradition or same roken, lhe very rules char promote progress in systematics can also r. The rule of priority establ ishes rhar the oldest available name that ,~ Taxonomy 9 '-G= I' Chapter 1 can be applied ro a given group musr be used. This rule encourages ~ciemists ro be the first co discover and name taxonomic groups in order co achieve the accolades that accompany these discoveries. ·n,e respecr and recognirion of fir~t discovery is one of the factors thar drive scienrisrs, and therefore science, forward. However, the technical requiremenrs for a new name ro be nomenclarurally valid are so lax rhar it is possible for non·specialists to have a detrimental impacr on systematics that is unparalleled in other sciences. Poison frogs are especially prone to this problem due ro rhe large number of cnrhusiasts who arc extremely knowledgeable abour the frogs bur lack the necessary rraining in systematics to allow them to quantify and analyze phylogenetic evidence ro substamiare changes ro raxonomy. Ir i~ therefore essemial rhat taxonomic proposals always be subjected ro peer review in \pecialized sc1enrific journals. Thb requirement of peer review in specialized journals is not a defense of rhe ivory tower. In the same way rhar an amateur asrronomer may discover a new star or galaxy and must have the right to report their discovery, a frog enthusiast may discover a new species or higher raxon and must have rhe righr ro publi~h their findings; however. in both cases the claims must be backed by scientific evidence, and the way chis is ensured is rhrough peer re,·iew in specialized journals. The difference is rhar astronomers are free ro ignore unsubsrantiared claims that are published without evidence or peer review (indeed, rhe rules of rhe Imernarional Asrronomical L:nion [I AU] are much more rigid than those rhar govern zoological name\), whereas systematisrs are required by rhe lnrernarional Code of Zoological l\omenclarure ro recognize rheir names, if nor rhe cnriries thar these names represenr. Over the pasr few decades the number of known species of poison frogs and rheir relatives has grown from around 70 ro 283 (host, 2011 ). As knowledge of rhe diversiry of the group has increased, rhere <llso has been a revolution in rhe \\a) systemarists approach the problem of inferring phylogeny. First, rigorously quanritative methods of analysb were developed (e.g.. Kluge and Farris, 1969; Farris, 1970), which allowed much of rhe subjectivity and aurhoritarianism rhar characteri7ed rhe sptemaric. of the Evolutionary Synthesis (e.g .. Huxley, 1940) ro be eliminared. "I he problem of inferring phylogenetic relarionships is among the most compurationally challenging cla!>ses of problems known, and new analytical tools and rheorctical approaches continue ro be developed (e.g., Huelsenbeck eta!., 2002; Drummond et a!., 2006; Starnatakis, 2006; Wheeler et nl., 2006; Goloboff eta!., 2008). Second, the genomic revolution has made ir possible for researchers ro obtain more data than they had dreamed possible only a decade ago. Datasers composed of hundreds of thousands and even millions of observariom are now common. As a re~ulr of the intensive srudies rhar have emerged from the~e advances, our undemanding of amphibian relationships has imprO\·ed significantly, and rhe raxonomy of several groups, including poison frogs, has been modified ro reflect rhese changes (e.g., Faivovich et ·: _ 10 Taxonomy Recent Progress in the Systematics of Poison Frogs and Their Relatives (Dendrobatoidea) al., 2005; Frost et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2006; Roelams et al., 2007; Hedges eta!., 2008; Van Bocxlaer et al., 201 0). Building on srudies carried out over the previous 15 years (e.g., Myers, 1991; Ford, 1993; Kaplan, 1997; Clough and Summers, 2000; Vences et al., 2000; Santos et a!., 2003; Vences et al., 2003), Gram et al. (2006) assembled a dataset composed of over 1.55 million base pairs (bp) of mirochondrial and nuclear DNA from 11 genes (approximately 6,100 bp: 1. = 3,740 bp per terminal), as well as 174 phenotypic characters scored from adult and larval morphology, alkaloid profiles, and behavior. These clara were sampled from 156 species of poison frogs and numerous close relatives. As a result of this srudy, Gram et al. (2006) overhauled the taxonomy of poison frogs in order ro reflect the increased knowledge of their phylogeny and ro incorporate several technically valid names that had been overlooked or dismissed by many workers. Additional progress was subsequendy achieved by Twomey and Brown (2008a) who ftmher modified the taxonomy based on rheir srudy of DNA sequence clara from previously unanalyzed species. ln rhe foUowing we briefly summarize rhe changes and highlight the areas of dart-poison frog systematics char are most in need Aromobatidae ~ ARheob~tes, JAnomaloglossinae ---c= noma1og ossus Allobates J Allobatinae Aromobates JAromobatinae Mannophryne --Colostethus 1 Ameerega . Epipedobatesj Colostethmae Silverstoneia Hyloxalus J Hyloxalinae / Phy/lobates Dendrobatidae Minyobates ,.--- Ranitomeya · · · · · · Excidobates Dendrobatinae Adelphobates Oophaga Dendrobate Figure 1.1. Phylogenetic relariomhip:s among genera of Dendrobatoidca. Relationships are has~d on Gram rt a/. (2001)) with the addition of E\'cidob,ues placed as rhe sister group of l?Jwitolllt')"tl following T"omcy md Bro\\n (:!008a). Andinolmm. described by Twomey, Brown, Amezquira, and ,\lejfa-\'arga> in Brown, Twomey, Ambquita, de Souza. Caldwell, U:itt~rs. von M.ty, :-., fdo-~ampaio. ~kjia-\'arg.ts, 1\~n:z-Pcria. Pepper, Poelm.m. Sanchez-Rodrigu~z. and Summers in 20 II is not included here. Taxonomy 11 ~ ~ I Chapter 1 of additional research. Figure 1.1 shows the phylogenetic relationships among the genera and higher raxa of dendrobawids and Table 1.1 gives the indented raxonomy. Table 1.1. The higher-level taxonomy of Dendrobatoidea Cope, 1865, following Grant eta/. (2006), Twomey and Brown (2008a) and Brown et at (2011) Family Subfamily Genus Aromobaridac Anomaloglossin ae AnomnlogLossus Grant et rd., 2006 Gram t't a/., 2006 Gram n nl., 2006 Rfgobnus Gram n nl., 2006 Aromobatinae Aromobnus Myers, DJ.Iy. and Paolillo. 1991 Gram n nl., 2006 Mnnnophrynt' LaMarca. 1992 Allobarinae Granr er A!klbntes Zimmerm;Ulll and Zimmermann, 1988 nl., 2006 Dendrobaridae Colosrethinae Cope. Amurega Bauer, 1986 Cope, 1865 1867 Colosuthus Cope. 1866 Eprpedobnus ~ lyer~. 198- Silt•t'rrtonein Gram rr a!.. 2006 I lyloxalinae Gram Hyloxalus Jimenez de Ia Espada, 187 1 " 1870" et rzl., 2006 Dendrobarinae Andinobtttes l\1·omey. Brown, Amezquita and Cope, 1865 ,\1ejia-Vargas in Brown tt al.. 2011 Ade/phobnres Gram n a!.. 2006 Dmdrobares \X'agler, 1830 £v:cidobates Twomey and Brown, 2008a Minyobatrs Myers, 1987 Oophngn Bauer, 1994 P/~y//obntes Dumcril and Bibron. 1841 Ra11itomrya Bauer. 1986 ~t e Ne ,... "-r 1t'cs n"'1'l+io..- · ... '"' '1e- ,.. ___ C' The placemenr of poison frogs relative to other groups of frog~ has been one of rhe most recalcitrant problems in amphibian systematics. Arguably the most important amphibian biologist of his generation, G.K.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amphibians in Zootaxa: 20 Years Documenting the Global Diversity of Frogs, Salamanders, and Caecilians
    Zootaxa 4979 (1): 057–069 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Review ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4979.1.9 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:972DCE44-4345-42E8-A3BC-9B8FD7F61E88 Amphibians in Zootaxa: 20 years documenting the global diversity of frogs, salamanders, and caecilians MAURICIO RIVERA-CORREA1*+, DIEGO BALDO2*+, FLORENCIA VERA CANDIOTI3, VICTOR GOYANNES DILL ORRICO4, DAVID C. BLACKBURN5, SANTIAGO CASTROVIEJO-FISHER6, KIN ONN CHAN7, PRISCILLA GAMBALE8, DAVID J. GOWER9, EVAN S.H. QUAH10, JODI J. L. ROWLEY11, EVAN TWOMEY12 & MIGUEL VENCES13 1Grupo Herpetológico de Antioquia - GHA and Semillero de Investigación en Biodiversidad - BIO, Universidad de Antioquia, Antioquia, Colombia [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5033-5480 2Laboratorio de Genética Evolutiva, Instituto de Biología Subtropical (CONICET-UNaM), Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Químicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Posadas, Misiones, Argentina [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2382-0872 3Unidad Ejecutora Lillo, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas - Fundación Miguel Lillo, 4000 San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina [email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6133-9951 4Laboratório de Herpetologia Tropical, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Rodovia Jorge Amado Km 16 45662-900 Ilhéus, Bahia, Brasil [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4560-4006 5Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 1659 Museum Road, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1810-9886 6Laboratório de Sistemática de Vertebrados, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Av.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of the Amphibians of Venezuela: Illustrated and Annotated Species List, Distribution, and Conservation 1,2César L
    Mannophryne vulcano, Male carrying tadpoles. El Ávila (Parque Nacional Guairarepano), Distrito Federal. Photo: Jose Vieira. We want to dedicate this work to some outstanding individuals who encouraged us, directly or indirectly, and are no longer with us. They were colleagues and close friends, and their friendship will remain for years to come. César Molina Rodríguez (1960–2015) Erik Arrieta Márquez (1978–2008) Jose Ayarzagüena Sanz (1952–2011) Saúl Gutiérrez Eljuri (1960–2012) Juan Rivero (1923–2014) Luis Scott (1948–2011) Marco Natera Mumaw (1972–2010) Official journal website: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 13(1) [Special Section]: 1–198 (e180). Catalogue of the amphibians of Venezuela: Illustrated and annotated species list, distribution, and conservation 1,2César L. Barrio-Amorós, 3,4Fernando J. M. Rojas-Runjaic, and 5J. Celsa Señaris 1Fundación AndígenA, Apartado Postal 210, Mérida, VENEZUELA 2Current address: Doc Frog Expeditions, Uvita de Osa, COSTA RICA 3Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Museo de Historia Natural La Salle, Apartado Postal 1930, Caracas 1010-A, VENEZUELA 4Current address: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Río Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Laboratório de Sistemática de Vertebrados, Av. Ipiranga 6681, Porto Alegre, RS 90619–900, BRAZIL 5Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Altos de Pipe, apartado 20632, Caracas 1020, VENEZUELA Abstract.—Presented is an annotated checklist of the amphibians of Venezuela, current as of December 2018. The last comprehensive list (Barrio-Amorós 2009c) included a total of 333 species, while the current catalogue lists 387 species (370 anurans, 10 caecilians, and seven salamanders), including 28 species not yet described or properly identified. Fifty species and four genera are added to the previous list, 25 species are deleted, and 47 experienced nomenclatural changes.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance
    Chapter 21 A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance Juan C. Santos , Rebecca D. Tarvin , and Lauren A. O’Connell 21.1 Introduction Chemical defense has evolved multiple times in nearly every major group of life, from snakes and insects to bacteria and plants (Mebs 2002 ). However, among land vertebrates, chemical defenses are restricted to a few monophyletic groups (i.e., clades). Most of these are amphibians and snakes, but a few rare origins (e.g., Pitohui birds) have stimulated research on acquired chemical defenses (Dumbacher et al. 1992 ). Selective pressures that lead to defense are usually associated with an organ- ism’s limited ability to escape predation or conspicuous behaviors and phenotypes that increase detectability by predators (e.g., diurnality or mating calls) (Speed and Ruxton 2005 ). Defended organisms frequently evolve warning signals to advertise their defense, a phenomenon known as aposematism (Mappes et al. 2005 ). Warning signals such as conspicuous coloration unambiguously inform predators that there will be a substantial cost if they proceed with attack or consumption of the defended prey (Mappes et al. 2005 ). However, aposematism is likely more complex than the simple pairing of signal and defense, encompassing a series of traits (i.e., the apose- matic syndrome) that alter morphology, physiology, and behavior (Mappes and J. C. Santos (*) Department of Zoology, Biodiversity Research Centre , University of British Columbia , #4200-6270 University Blvd , Vancouver , BC , Canada , V6T 1Z4 e-mail: [email protected] R. D. Tarvin University of Texas at Austin , 2415 Speedway Stop C0990 , Austin , TX 78712 , USA e-mail: [email protected] L.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Checklist of Amphibian Species Listed in the CITES
    CoP17 Doc. 81.1 Annex 5 (English only / Únicamente en inglés / Seulement en anglais) Taxonomic Checklist of Amphibian Species listed in the CITES Appendices and the Annexes of EC Regulation 338/97 Species information extracted from FROST, D. R. (2015) "Amphibian Species of the World, an online Reference" V. 6.0 (as of May 2015) Copyright © 1998-2015, Darrel Frost and TheAmericanMuseum of Natural History. All Rights Reserved. Additional comments included by the Nomenclature Specialist of the CITES Animals Committee (indicated by "NC comment") Reproduction for commercial purposes prohibited. CoP17 Doc. 81.1 Annex 5 - p. 1 Amphibian Species covered by this Checklist listed by listed by CITES EC- as well as Family Species Regulation EC 338/97 Regulation only 338/97 ANURA Aromobatidae Allobates femoralis X Aromobatidae Allobates hodli X Aromobatidae Allobates myersi X Aromobatidae Allobates zaparo X Aromobatidae Anomaloglossus rufulus X Bufonidae Altiphrynoides malcolmi X Bufonidae Altiphrynoides osgoodi X Bufonidae Amietophrynus channingi X Bufonidae Amietophrynus superciliaris X Bufonidae Atelopus zeteki X Bufonidae Incilius periglenes X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides asperginis X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides cryptus X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides frontierei X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides laevis X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides laticeps X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides minutus X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides paulae X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides poyntoni X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides pseudotornieri X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides tornieri X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides vestergaardi
    [Show full text]
  • F3999f15-C572-46Ad-Bbbe
    THE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) ACT (CHAPTER 92A) (Original Enactment: Act 5 of 2006) REVISED EDITION 2008 (1st January 2008) Prepared and Published by THE LAW REVISION COMMISSION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS ACT (CHAPTER 275) Informal Consolidation – version in force from 22/6/2021 CHAPTER 92A 2008 Ed. Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Appointment of Director-General and authorised officers PART II CONTROL OF IMPORT, EXPORT, ETC., OF SCHEDULED SPECIES 4. Restriction on import, export, etc., of scheduled species 5. Control of scheduled species in transit 6. Defence to offence under section 4 or 5 7. Issue of permit 8. Cancellation of permit PART III ENFORCEMENT POWERS AND PROCEEDINGS 9. Power of inspection 10. Power to investigate and require information 11. Power of entry, search and seizure 12. Powers ancillary to inspections and searches 13. Power to require scheduled species to be marked, etc. 14. Power of arrest 15. Forfeiture 16. Obstruction 17. Penalty for false declarations, etc. 18. General penalty 19. Abetment of offences 20. Offences by bodies corporate, etc. 1 Informal Consolidation – version in force from 22/6/2021 Endangered Species (Import and 2008 Ed. Export) CAP. 92A 2 PART IV MISCELLANEOUS Section 21. Advisory Committee 22. Fees, etc., payable to Board 23. Board not liable for damage caused to goods or property as result of search, etc. 24. Jurisdiction of court, etc. 25. Composition of offences 26. Exemption 27. Service of documents 28.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, Revision of the Ranitomeya Fantastica Species Complex with Description Of
    TERM OF USE This pdf is provided by Magnolia Press for private/research use. Commercial sale or deposition in a public library or website site is prohibited. Zootaxa 1823: 1–24 (2008) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2008 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Revision of the Ranitomeya fantastica species complex with description of two new species from Central Peru (Anura: Dendrobatidae) JASON L. BROWN1,4, EVAN TWOMEY1,5, MARK PEPPER2 & MANUEL SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ3 1Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA 2Understory Enterprises, Charing Cross, Ontario, Canada 3Understory Enterprises, Iquitos, Peru 4Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] 5Corresponding author. E-mail:[email protected] Abstract We describe two new species of poison frogs (genus Ranitomeya) from the central Rio Huallaga drainage and adjacent Cordillera Azul in central Peru. Both species were previously considered to be members of Ranitomeya fantastica, a spe- cies described from the town of Yurimaguas, Peru. Extensive sampling of putative R. fantastica (including near-topo- typic material) throughout central Peru, and the resulting morphological and phylogenetic analysis has led us to conclude that R. fantastica sensu lato is a complex of three closely related species rather than a single, widely distributed species. The first of these species occurs near the type locality of R. fantastica but bears significant dissimilarity to the original type series and forms a monophyletic clade that is distributed throughout an expansive lowland zone between Rio Huall- aga and Rio Ucayali. This species is diagnosable by its brilliant red head and advertisement call differences.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Record of the 26Th Meeting of the Animals Committee
    Original language: English AC26 summary record CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________ Twenty-sixth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-20 March 2012 and Dublin (Ireland), 22-24 March 2012 SUMMARY RECORD Animals Committee matters 1. Opening of the meeting The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed all participants, before giving the floor to the Secretary- General, who also welcomed everyone and introduced new members of the Secretariat's scientific team (Mr De Meulenaer and Ms Kwitsinskaia) and enforcement team (Ms Garcia Ferreira, Ms Jonsson and Mr van Rensburg). He wished the Committee well in its deliberations. The Chair thanked the Secretary-General and invited suggestions as to how the Conference of the Parties could establish stronger measures to support the Committee as well as export countries, which deserved particular assistance. No other intervention was made during discussion of this item.1 2. Rules of Procedure The Secretariat introduced document AC26 Doc. 2 and proposed amending Rule 22 as follows: “On request, the Secretariat shall distribute printed and translated documents...”. The Secretariat explained that most members regularly indicated that they did not need printed copies and that this proposal was made to reduce costs. Although not opposed to the change in principle, a Party regretted that the suggestion had not been presented in the document, which would have given Parties time to consider it, and was concerned that this unannounced proposal might create a precedent. Another Party asked a question on the procedure to accept observers, but the Chair invited it to raise this topic under agenda item 4 on Admission of observers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complete Mitochondrial Genome of Anomaloglossus Baeobatrachus (Amphibia: Anura: Aromobatidae)
    MITOCHONDRIAL DNA PART B: RESOURCES, 2016 VOL. 1, NO. 1, 338–340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2016.1172053 MITOGENOME ANNOUNCEMENT The complete mitochondrial genome of Anomaloglossus baeobatrachus (Amphibia: Anura: Aromobatidae) Jean-Pierre Vachera, Antoine Fouquetb, Hele `ne Holotaa and Christophe Thebaud a aLaboratoire EDB, UMR5174, CNRS-UPS-ENFA, Toulouse, France; bLaboratoire Ecologie, Evolution, Interactions Des Syste`mes Amazoniens (LEEISA), Universite De Guyane, CNRS Guyane, Cayenne, French Guiana ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The complete mitogenome of the rocket frog Anomaloglossus baeobatrachus was sequenced using a Received 23 March 2016 shotgun approach on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA), providing the first Accepted 25 March 2016 mitogenome for this genus. The genome was 17,572 bp long and presents the typical organization found in other neobatrachian anurans. A phylogenetic analysis including A. baeobatrachus and all other KEYWORDS Amphibia; Aromobatidae; available mitogenomes of Hyloidea provided relationships in accordance with previous phylogenetic Guiana Shield; mitochondrial studies. genome Anomaloglossus baeobatrachus (Boistel & Massary, 1999)isa (Besnard et al. 2014). We obtained a circular sequence of species of frog endemic to the eastern part of the Guiana 17,572 bp in length. The overall base composition was as fol- Shield. It is currently known to occur in French Guiana, lows: A (28.5%), C (27.4%), G (13.9%) and T (30.3). We anno- Suriname and the State of Amapa (Fouquet et al. 2012), and tated the mitogenome with the MITOS webserver (Bernt et al. the State of Para (Avila-Pires et al. 2010). The taxonomy of the 2013). We validated the coding regions using Geneious ver- genus Anomaloglossus is not well resolved, as several mito- sion 9.0.5 (Kearse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Th`Ese: Christophe THEBAUD´ Et Antoine FOUQUET Rapporteurs : Violaine NICOLAS-COLIN Et Fr´Ed´Ericdelsuc Declaration
    THTHESEESE`` En vue de l’obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITE´ DE TOULOUSE D´elivr´epar : l’Universit´eToulouse 3 Paul Sabatier (UT3 Paul Sabatier) Pr´esent´eeet soutenue le 23/03/2017 par : Jean-Pierre VACHER Diversification in the Guiana Shield as seen through frogs JURY Sebastien´ BROSSE Professeur d’Universit´e Pr´esident du Jury Thibaud DECAENS¨ Professeur d’Universit´e Membre du Jury Miguel VENCES Professeur d’Universit´e Membre du Jury Ecole´ doctorale et sp´ecialit´e: SEVAB : Ecologie,´ biodiversit´eet ´evolution Unit´ede Recherche : Laboratoire Evolution´ et Diversit´eBiologique (UMR 5174) Directeur(s) de Th`ese: Christophe THEBAUD´ et Antoine FOUQUET Rapporteurs : Violaine NICOLAS-COLIN et Fr´ed´ericDELSUC Declaration This work has benefited from an \Investissement d'Avenir" grant managed by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CEBA, ref.ANR-10-LABX-25-01), France. 2 Acknowledgements Unlike a lot of people, I don't think the Acknowledgments is the most interesting part in a PhD dissertation. And it's actually a quite difficult task to accomplish. Most of the time, words do not flow seamlessly through the pen (or keyboard as we most often use in our modern world). For these reasons, at first I wanted to write a very dull thank you list, mandatory, nothing more. But then I got caught up in the spiral of writing stuff about people, about experiences, and it's actually quite fun. So here it is, four pages of acknowledgements, I hope it's not too boring nor too long. I also hope that you will find your name in the upcoming lines.
    [Show full text]
  • BOA5.1-2 Frog Biology, Taxonomy and Biodiversity
    The Biology of Amphibians Agnes Scott College Mark Mandica Executive Director The Amphibian Foundation [email protected] 678 379 TOAD (8623) Phyllomedusidae: Agalychnis annae 5.1-2: Frog Biology, Taxonomy & Biodiversity Part 2, Neobatrachia Hylidae: Dendropsophus ebraccatus CLassification of Order: Anura † Triadobatrachus Ascaphidae Leiopelmatidae Bombinatoridae Alytidae (Discoglossidae) Pipidae Rhynophrynidae Scaphiopopidae Pelodytidae Megophryidae Pelobatidae Heleophrynidae Nasikabatrachidae Sooglossidae Calyptocephalellidae Myobatrachidae Alsodidae Batrachylidae Bufonidae Ceratophryidae Cycloramphidae Hemiphractidae Hylodidae Leptodactylidae Odontophrynidae Rhinodermatidae Telmatobiidae Allophrynidae Centrolenidae Hylidae Dendrobatidae Brachycephalidae Ceuthomantidae Craugastoridae Eleutherodactylidae Strabomantidae Arthroleptidae Hyperoliidae Breviceptidae Hemisotidae Microhylidae Ceratobatrachidae Conrauidae Micrixalidae Nyctibatrachidae Petropedetidae Phrynobatrachidae Ptychadenidae Ranidae Ranixalidae Dicroglossidae Pyxicephalidae Rhacophoridae Mantellidae A B † 3 † † † Actinopterygian Coelacanth, Tetrapodomorpha †Amniota *Gerobatrachus (Ray-fin Fishes) Lungfish (stem-tetrapods) (Reptiles, Mammals)Lepospondyls † (’frogomander’) Eocaecilia GymnophionaKaraurus Caudata Triadobatrachus 2 Anura Sub Orders Super Families (including Apoda Urodela Prosalirus †) 1 Archaeobatrachia A Hyloidea 2 Mesobatrachia B Ranoidea 1 Anura Salientia 3 Neobatrachia Batrachia Lissamphibia *Gerobatrachus may be the sister taxon Salientia Temnospondyls
    [Show full text]
  • Halliday Conservation Library January
    2020 Journal Publications January Addis, B. R. Lowe, W. H. (2020). Long-term survival probability, not current habitat quality, predicts dispersal distance in a stream salamander. Ecology, Accepted Article, e02982. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ecy.2982 Agostinia, M. G. Roesler, I. Bonetto, C. Ronco, A. E. Bilenca, D. (2020). Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation, 241, Article 108355. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320719309905?fbclid=IwAR3tnrdCEHa1T9 McZT3GG1A4ae46vDA7aQnwBF354hJ2fjmlBjyK7aZRx4Q AliBardi, L. (2020). Presence of immune cells in the regenerating caudal spinal cord of frog tadpoles indicates active immune-surveillance before metamorphosis. Zoology, In Press, Journal Pre-proof, 125745. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0944200620300040 Amori, G. Bologna, M. A. Luiselli, L. (2020). A review of mono- and bispecific genera of Amphibians worldwide. The Herpetological Journal, 30(1), pp. 47-51. https://www.thebhs.org/publications/the-herpetological-journal/volume-30-number-1-january- 2020/2027-07-a-review-of-mono-and-bispecific-genera-of-amphibians-worldwide Anjos, A. G. Costa, R. N. Brito, D. Solé, M. (2020). Is there an association between the ecological characteristics of anurans from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and their extinction risk? Ethology, Ecology & Evolution, DOI: 10.1080/03949370.2020.1711815. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03949370.2020.1711815 Araújo, A. P. da C. Malafaia, G. (2020). Can short exposure to polyethylene microplastics change tadpoles’ behaviour? A study conducted with neotropical tadpole species belonging to order anura (Physalaemus cuvieri). Journal of Hazardous Materials, Article 122214, In Press, Journal Pre- proof.
    [Show full text]
  • Poison Frogs
    Current Biology Magazine appetite for grasshoppers, crickets, Quick guide preferences in different species for beetles, and caterpillars likely benefi t novel, brighter, or familiar colors, gardeners and farmers, and one early Poison frogs have both played a role in producing explorer of the American west actually a brilliant spectrum of color and kept a pair of grasshopper mice in pattern across the family. Coloration 1 2 his basement as an effective form of Jennifer L. Stynoski , Lisa M. Schulte , is an honest indicator of toxicity in 3 ‘cockroach control’, opening the door to and Bibiana Rojas some species, but not in others, their cage each evening, closing the door and is associated with territorial when the mice returned, contentedly What are poison frogs? Poison aggressiveness and boldness in satiated, in the morning. And although frogs, also commonly called ‘dart some cases. Recently, one Peruvian still a long way off, the novel mechanism poison frogs’ or ‘poison arrow frogs’, species, Ranitomeya imitator, was evolved by the mice for dealing with are charismatic amphibians forming found to be a true Müllerian mimic the intense and prolonged pain from a a spectacular adaptive radiation, of sympatric congeneric species. In bark scorpion sting could lead to the comparable to that of African cichlids. addition, the males and females of development of a completely new class Many of the diurnally active species several species are territorial and of analgesics, perhaps one lacking the have skin toxins and bright coloration have particularly good orientation and unfortunate side effects of opiates — the (Figure 1), and display numerous homing ability.
    [Show full text]