Abstract
Although comparative studies of anuran ontogeny have provided new data on heterochrony in the life cycles of frogs, most of them have not included ossification sequences. Using differential staining techniques, we observe and describe differences and similarities of cranial and postcranial development in two hylid species, Scinax ruber (Scinaxinae) and Dendropsophus labialis (Hylinae), providing new data of ontogenetic studies in these Colombian species. We examined tadpoles raining from Gosner Stages 25 to 45. We found differences between species in the infrarostral and suprarostral cartilages, optic foramen, planum ethmoidale, and gill apparatus. In both species, the first elements to ossify were the atlas and transverse processes of the vertebral column and the parasphenoid. Both species exhibited suprascapular processes as described in other hylids. Although the hylids comprise a large group (over 700 species), postcranial ossification sequence is only known for 15 species. Therefore, the descriptions of the skeletal development and ossification sequences provided herein will be useful for future analyses of heterochrony in the group.
Highlights
Comparative morphological descriptions for a specific group of frogs have provided useful systematic characters since 1960 (e.g., Cannatella, 1999; Duellman, Marion & Hedges, 2016)
Because identifying variations in developmental morphology and ossification sequence can lead to informative phylogenetic characters (Weisbecker & Mitgutsch, 2010; Harrington, Harrison & Sheil, 2013), we provide a detailed anatomical comparison of the cranial and postcranial development between two species of Andean hylids, Dendropsophus labialis and Scinax ruber
The elements of the skeleton were compared according to the initiation of ossification and not with a specific stage, because in the two study species the ossification occurred in different Gosner stages (Table 3)
Summary
Comparative morphological descriptions for a specific group of frogs have provided useful systematic characters since 1960 (e.g., Cannatella, 1999; Duellman, Marion & Hedges, 2016). Most studies of frog morphological characters focus on adults (Faivovich, 2002; Faivovich et al, 2005; Maglia, Pugener & Mueller, 2007; Wiens et al, 2010; Pyron & Wiens, 2011; Yildirim & Kaya, 2014; Duellman, Marion & Hedges, 2016), and tadpoles have often been overlooked (Alcalde et al, 2011). There continues to be a pressing need to conduct comprehensive comparative studies of hylids developmental morphology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
