SciBlogs

Posts Tagged animaldiversity

the gastric-brooding frog – not quite back from the dead Alison Campbell May 08

No Comments

I first found out about gastric-brooding frogs (Rheobatrachus silus) when reading Stephen Jay Gould’s essay "Here Goes Nothing" (as published in the 1991 book Bully for Brontosaurus). As he said, these frogs really do live up to their name: the frog

swallows its fertilised eggs, broods tadpoles in its stomach, and gives birth to young frogs through its mouth.

Gould’s tale first introduces another example of the ability of natural selection to shape truly strange behaviour: male Rhinoderma darwini frogs swallow the eggs they’ve fertilised and brood them, not in their stomachs, but in their throat pouches. These are the same pouches that male frogs inflate with air & use in croaking (& whistling, & chirping, depending on species) during courtship, which means that a brooding male is rendered voiceless for the duration. However, it doesn’t stop them feeding normally, something that was first demonstrated way back in 1888 by biologist G.B.Howes (Gould, 1991). I was interested to find out, while researching this post, that the eggs aren’t ingested immediately after fertilisation: they’re laid in damp leaf litter and the male remains close by, but waits until the embryonic tadpoles are wriggling around inside the egg membrane before taking them up in his mouth. (I’m guessing that the behaviour’s triggered by the sight of the wriggling tadpoles.)

As for the gastric-brooding species: Gould provides an engaging description of how this habit was uncovered. Until 1979

[n]atural birth had not yet been observed in Rheobatrachus. All young had either emerged unobserved or been vomited forth as a violent reaction after hatching.

However, scientists finally managed to get a gravid (I hope that’s the right word in these circumstances!) female in an aquarium with their cameras all at the ready:

The mother "partially emerged from the water, shook her head, opened her mouth, and two babies actively struggled out."

It’s no small feat to incubate froglets in this way:

This… female, about two inches long, weighed 11.62 grams after birth. Her twenty-six children weighted 7.66 grams, or 66 percent of her weight without them.

And of course, the incubating female must stop eating and switch off production of gastric juices for the duration!

Sadly, confirmation of this highly unusual method of parental care was rapidly followed by news that the species appeared to be extinct in the wild. Which is why I was so intrigued by my student’s news of its resurrection. However, it seems that reports of that resurrection may have been somewhat exaggerated. A quick search turned up several articles (this one’s a good example) that describe what’s been achieved so far: R.silus tissues that had been in the freezer were thawed, and cell nuclei from those tissues were implanted in enucleate eggs from another, distantly-related, species of frog (an example of somatic cell nuclear transfer). Some of those went on to an early (but unspecified) stage of embryonic development before being frozen in their turn, to await possible reanimation in the future.

In other words, R.silus froglets won’t be hopping around just yet. (And I’m moved to wonder how achievable the aim of the Lazarus project actually is, as it relates to this species. After all, if the gastric brooding part is an essential part of development, where’s the stomach going to come from?)

S.J.Gould (1991) Bully for Brontosaurus. Penguin Books.

see-through creatures Alison Campbell May 08

No Comments

This is a ‘glass frog’ (image from National Geographic):

It’s one of a number of transparent or translucent creatures featured on the National Geographic’s "Weird & Wild" blog. (Actually I take issue with the Monarch butterfly image there, as strictly speaking we’re seeing a transparent pupal case; the butterfly inside is definitely not see-through.)

Glass frogs (Hyalinobatrachium pellucidum) are on the ICUN’s ‘red’ list as an endangered species, with habitat destruction the likely cause. However, if chitrid fungi are introduced to the frog’s limited range  - they’re recorded from only five locations on the Amazonian slopes of the Andes in Ecuador – then the population will likely decline even faster (always supposing this particular pathogen isn’t already there). These delightful little frogs are apparently about the size of a fingernail, & their translucency is due to a lack of pigment in the skin. Not only can you see the air-filled lungs, the red threads that are blood vessels, and the heart with some of the major arterial arches clearly visible – you can also see the animal’s skeleton.

And that reminds me: we were talking in class the other day about gastric-brooding frogs & one of the students said they’d heard that this species had been cloned. An intriguing possibility – I must go off & look into it!

 

true facts… Alison Campbell Apr 26

No Comments

 OK, you could argue that you can’t have a ‘false’ fact :) But that aside – I was recently introduced to this little gem of a video, True Facts About The Chameleon. Nice little sound-bites of information, rather lovely images – and the narrator’s voice-over had me in stitches. (But he’ll never replace Sir David Attenborough!)

Enjoy! (I’m going to sit & see what else he has to say about praying mantids: I’ve already heard the bits about having puppydog eyes and complex mouthparts that include "a moustache beneath [its] mouth – made of fingers" – a novel take on the animal’s lower ‘jaw’.)

convergent evolution: the pandas’ thumb Alison Campbell Dec 15

No Comments

 And yes, punctuation & grammar skillz, I has them :-) That apostrophe really is in the right place – read on to find out why.

The tale of the panda’s thumb is well-known, & an excellent example of how the action of natural selection can result in jury-rigged solutions to problems: a result that works, but not necessarily a perfect result. I first encountered it way back when, through reading Stephen Jay Gould’s wonderful book of the same name**.

A book which refers to the familiar black-&-white giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). I’d never really thought about it before, but of course we have 2 species of panda: the big fellas, & the much smaller red panda (Ailurus fulgens). Do they have ‘thumbs’ too?

As a post by Brian Switek shows, the answer is ‘yes; yes, they do’. And this is really interesting, as the two pandas aren’t closely related. Giant pandas are bears, while reds are more closely related to raccoons. Yet they both have modified a modified wrist bone, the radial sesamoid, that functions as a thumb and allows them to grip & manipulate bamboo – a lovely example of convergent evolution.

 

**The original essay, with the title The panda’s peculiar thumb’, is reproduced here.

talking about exaptations Alison Campbell May 24

No Comments

During a lecture to our second-year evolutionary biology class I introduced the concept of exaptations: features that have evolved in one environmental context but which have been co-opted to fill a different role in a changed environment. This was in the context of swim bladders/lungs, which I’ll talk about in a minute, but right now I’m regretting not having read further through Lewis Held’s Quirks of human anatomy before the lecture, as he’s got a different, fascinating example (Held, 2009):

Darwin made an interesting observation about our fontanelles. He noted how lucky we are that these hinges were already in place (because of how skull bones grow) before they acquired the function of allowing our skull to deform during the tight squeeze of the birth process. in other words, mammalian sutures were "co-opted" as hominin hinges:

"The sutures in the skulls of young mammals have been advanced as a beautiful adaptation for adding parturition [birth]… but as sutures occur in the skulls of young birds and reptiles, which have only to escape from a broken egg, we may infer that this structure has arisen from the laws of growth, and has been taken advantage of in the parturition of the higher animals."

My example, lungs, was in the context of tetrapod evolution. There’s a rather nice series of fossils demonstrating the links between early amphibians and almost-as-early four-legged vertebrates, in this post by afarensis. That story also gives a nice example of the predictive power of evolutionary theory. Tiktaalik roseae was found because scientists working in that area knew that amphibians could be found in rocks of a particular age & early tetrapods in somewhat younger rocks. They predicted that an intermediate species might be found in rocks of intermediate age, identified a likely locality, went fossil hunting, and bingo!

Anyway, one of the big problems with life on land is that gas exchange becomes rather more complicated. While there’s much more oxygen in air than in water, getting it is in some ways more difficult. Gas exchange surfaces need to be moist, but gills or skin, for example, would dry out very quickly if exposed to the air for too long. And in any case gills are useless as a gas exchange surface in air – their fine filamentous structure must be supported by water or it collapses into a thick clumpy mass with relatively little surface area exposed to the ‘respiratory medium’ (shorthand for the oxygen-bearing air or water). And for an animal testing the air, as it were, half a lung is not going to be good enough.

Now, we know that lungs originated as outpocketings from the gut – they’re lined with the same endodermal tissues. The thing is, when did this happen and what sort of selection pressures might have been operating? The ‘when’ seems to have been a looong time ago, as lungs & lung derivatives – swim bladders – are found in all bony fish lineages, & bony fish first appear in the fossil record back in the Devonian. (It’s more likely that lungs evolved in the common ancestor of all those modern fish groups, than that they all evolved them independently.)

The current hypothesis for the origin of lungs is that they probably evolved in Devonian fish living in ponds or shallow lagoons. Geological evidence indicates that there were alternating wet & dry seasons back then &, just as today, during the dry weather water levels would drop & conditions in them would become hypoxic (low in oxygen). Fish able to gulp air at the surface, and sequester it somewhere in the gut, would be at a selective advantage in these conditions (& before someone comes along & says, this is just a just-so story, remember that there are modern fish able to do this, holding their gulped bubbles of air in the mouth or somewhere along the intestine, whence oxygen can diffuse into the bloodstream). Any increase in size of the bubble-holding part of the gut – which from the position of lungs/swim bladders in living species must have been in a ventral outpocketing from the foregut – would have been selected for, as would any increase in the capillary beds associated with the nascent lung.

(And of course, that has landed us with a whole lot of problems further down the line – because the paths of food and air must cross at the back of the pharynx, something that brings with it the ever-present risk of choking. One of the hallmarks of evolution is that it optimises, rather than producing perfection.)

Lewis Held (2009) Quirks of human anatomy: an evo-devo look at the human body. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-59384-0 (e-book, Kindle edition)

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer