International Scholarly Research Notices

International Scholarly Research Notices / 2012 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 725203 | https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/725203

Giselle Thibaudeau, Ronald Altig, "Coloration of Anuran Tadpoles (Amphibia): Development, Dynamics, Function, and Hypotheses", International Scholarly Research Notices, vol. 2012, Article ID 725203, 16 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/725203

Coloration of Anuran Tadpoles (Amphibia): Development, Dynamics, Function, and Hypotheses

Academic Editor: K. Cheng
Received27 Sep 2012
Accepted15 Oct 2012
Published14 Nov 2012

Abstract

Colorations of anuran tadpoles surely function in many of the same ways that have been ascribed to color and pattern in other animals, but the paucity of data forces one to look to other groups to generate hypotheses. Such an action often occurs because of the difficulty of defining specific fitness parameters to larval forms. The commonly muted colorations of tadpoles are typically considered to function only in some form of crypsis, but we discuss other functions in the particular context of behavioral ecology and changes induced by various kinds of coinhabitants. We review the development, terminology, diversity, and functions of coloration in tadpoles and then pose various questions for future research. We strongly support a broad-based perspective that calls for an integration of several fields of research.

1. Introduction

The literature on coloration, the visual impression gained from color and pattern, is very incomplete for tadpoles, probably because colorations used in aggressive interactions, territorial maintenance, and species and sex recognition are presumed to be absent. Also, it seems that for many years we accepted ideas from major summaries [1] as intuitive fact. Studies of sexual selection, community ecology, and developmental genetics have changed the research landscape immensely. We are at least approaching a respectable understanding of the development, genetics, and evolution of coloration of several model organisms. Studies of the coloration of birds and fishes obviously sit near the top of the knowledge base, and the data on all larval amphibians certainly sits near the bottom.

After we review the formation and ontogeny, diversity, and functions of the colorations of tadpoles, we discuss possible ways to use larval coloration to better understand several facets of the behavioral ecology of tadpoles. The potential ramifications of inducible changes in coloration that are stimulated by coinhabiting competitors and predators [2] are a major focus. One must use various surrogates of fitness in evaluating larval forms, and we attempted to supply information and identify questions more than supplying answers [3]. These authors rightfully warn that an “uncritical interpretation of supposedly adaptive features presents dangers of properties being mistaken for function .” Another pertinent comment [4] was “I have assumed that eyespots have a function but do not wish to be so adamantly adaptationist as to suggest that we ignore the null hypothesis that eyespots are not adaptive and currently have no function.” There is much to be learned about intra- and interspecific differences in the ecobehavior of anuran larvae, and the recognition of an increase in the relevance of coloration in the interpretations of such studies is surely warranted.

Other than descriptive and typically speculative notes, actual tests of the functions, including crypsis via several means, thermoregulation, ultraviolet protection, and modifications of social interactions of those taxa that aggregate, of coloration of larvae [5] are rare; survival rates of larvae are often quite low and in most reproductive modes, large numbers of offspring are produced. The probable occurrences of many behavioral and social components have not been investigated. Fitness components throughout the amphibian biphasic life cycle have obvious underpinnings long before the actual consequences of a breeding event. Surrogates of larval fitness include size at stage, survivorship, growth, time to metamorphosis, and size at metamorphosis; vulnerability [6, 7], viability, or especially various measures of energetics through developmental stages [8, 9] and coloration might be more immediately productive concepts. Various facets of coloration may be viable indicators of fitness if we understood the ecobehavioral aspects of tadpole biology more completely.

There are summaries of coloration in adult frogs [10] and a few tadpoles [11], but attempts to integrate the ecobehavioral and coloration of tadpoles are lacking. We emphasize ecobehavioral and phylogenetic correlations, and the large databases involving biochemical, endocrinological, and immunological [12] factors that are surely very influential are not included. The visual perception of infrared [13, 14] and ultraviolet [1522] wavelengths was not addressed. Amphibian larvae can use polarized patterns of light at least for orientation [23].

2. Development and Genetics

The neural crest is an ectodermal derivative of all of vertebrate embryos that gives rise to cells of the cranial facial structures, paraendocrine system, peripheral nervous system, enteric ganglia, and all pigment cells. Unlike the single type of pigment cell in mammals, amphibians have melanophores (containing melanin that produce browns and blacks), xanthophores (lipophores of older literature, containing purine and pteridine pigments like drosopterin and sepiapterin [24] and carotenoids [25] that produce yellows and oranges), and iridophores (guanophores of older literature, containing crystalline purines that produce structure colors of various types). The pigment-containing organelles found in each of these cell types are melanosomes, pterinosomes, and reflecting platelets [26]. Cells giving rise to these three lineages are assumed to contain primordial vesicles originating from the endoplasmic reticulum that become the various pigment-containing organelles [27]. Unlike mammalian pigment cells, which deposit pigment-containing organelles into keratinocytes of the skin and hair follicles, amphibian pigment cells retain the pigment-containing organelles, and the ability of the organelles to be rearranged within the cells allows metachrosis (i.e., change color and pattern). We do not include details of carotenoids, which must be sequestered from the environment and serve many other functions besides color [28, 29]. Although amphibian chromatophores are found in both the epidermis and the dermis, it is primarily the dermal chromatophores that produce the colors and patterns among different stages and taxa [30]. Melanin deposited in the animal pole of an ovum by the mother during oogenesis does not contribute to larval pigmentation.

Presumptive neural crest cells are detectable within the neural folds prior to the closure of the neural folds. These cells form a wedge-shaped ridge or crest in the neuroepithelium along the dorsal midline. The crest remains intact a relatively short time before the cells migrate to various locations throughout the embryo and differentiate into the cell types noted above. In general, amphibian trunk neural crest cells migrate between the neural tube and somites and give rise to such cells as the paraendocrine system and the enteric ganglia. Other trunk neural crest cells migrate dorsolaterally between the epidermis and somites and give rise to most pigment cells of the body [31, 32]. Some crest-derived pigment cells that migrate medially end up in the coverings of the body cavity and viscera.

Morphogenesis, migration, and differentiation of neural crest derivatives are dependent on interactions of the cell/extracellular matrix, cell/cell, and cell/diffusible factors. Classical studies suggest a significant role played by the extracellular matrix (ECM) in the timing of dispersal, direction of migration, and differentiation of neural crest cells [3336]. Somites, the lateral line, other neural crest cells, and other pigment cell types can influence neural crest cell activities through physical interference or cell signaling events. Pigment cell interactions contribute to the barred, banded, and striped patterns seen in many amphibian larvae [31, 33, 36, 37]. Sorting [38] and differential adhesion of specific pigment cell types [39] are also influential. The influence of cell/diffusible factor interactions in dispersal of neural crest cells or aggregation of pigment cells during early patterning events is implied in some studies [35, 3941].

In general, differentiation of pigment cells occurs afterchromoBlast (i.e., pigment cell precursors) reach their destinations in the embryo, and melanophores disperse away from the neural tube and differentiate before other pigment cell types. Xanthophores begin to differentiate shortly after the melanophores and the iridophores differentiate significantly later [26]. Melanophores and xanthophores are primarily responsible for pigment patterns seen shortly after hatching [35]. The three primary populations of chromatophores eventually become arranged in (a) chromatophore unit ([30, 42]; Figures 1(a)1(d)). Melanophores positioned at the base of the chromatophore unit have dendritic processes that extend upwards through layers of xanthophores and iridophores and often travel along the underside of the epidermis.

Collectively, it is the deposition and quantity of pigment, the arrangement of pigment organelles within the cells, and the quantity and arrangement of the different pigment cell types in the skin that result in the observed coloration. A larger quantity of pigment per organelle or organelles per cell results in a higher intensity of black or yellow in a melanophore or xanthophore, respectively. Melanosomes of melanophores and pterinosomes of xanthophores can aggregate to the cell body or disperse radially by means of microtubules [43] when stimulated by melanocyte stimulating hormone, epinephrine, or melatonin [27]. Reflective platelets do not aggregate or disperse, but they do contribute to structural colors and pattern by reorienting within the iridophores [44]. Structural colors [45] are produced by refraction of incident light and selective absorption based on the orientation of reflective platelets and the disposition of other adjacent chromatophores. For example, green in amphibians usually is a structural color, although the green in centrolenids and some hylids is pigmentary [46]. Green color in larvae is relatively rare, is seldom bright [47], and typically appears late in ontogeny even in tadpoles that metamorphose into green frogs. Carotenoids as pigments in larval amphibians have not been studied extensively but seem to be important components of induced color changes. Examples of pigmentation that result from carotenoids occur in the fins of some North American Hyla [2], the Dendropsophus minuta group of South America, and Hemisus of Africa. All these tadpoles have lateral eyes, tall fins, and compressed bodies and spend considerable time in midwater. An alternate color is presented if all three populations of chromatophores are not present. For example, if xanthophores are either absent or nonpigmented, a normally green frog is blue [4850]. A number of pigment mutations exist in amphibians, and because eye and body pigmentation are controlled by different genetic systems, individuals with normal eye color and altered body color do occur.

During early stages of development, the distribution of melanophores seems to be closely regulated to produce fixed numbers of cells in definite subepidermal positions [51]. Later in development, the distribution of pigment cells is less precise and melanophores can be found in such locations as spinal ganglia, peritoneum, and gut. Populations of neural crest stem cells likely remain within the skin and differentiate at later larval stages, during metamorphosis, or throughout adult life [26, 36, 37, 52]. This accounts for the often dramatic changes in coloration during and after metamorphosis. Cell migration and restructuring of the skin at this time is certainly influenced by endocrine changes associated with metamorphosis. Consistent with the metamorphic effects triggered by thyroid hormones, the ECM is reorganized, and specific pigment cell types are surely affected.

Patterns are produced by differential migrations of the various chromatophores. Using melanophores as the simplest example, imagine two cell populations residing near the midline of an early embryo. Cells of the first population start to migrate laterally and ventrally, and because some stop at various places, a uniformly dark color is produced. All stop at some specific ventrolateral plane and thus delimit the darker dorsal and lateral coloration from the paler venter. The boundary is distinct if no cells migrate beyond one specific plane or diffuse if diminishing numbers of cells stop at various distances. Conversely, no cells of the second population stop until they are beyond the first migration boundary so that a dark dorsum, a lateral pale stripe, and a ventrolateral dark area are results. Iridophores and xanthophores migrate similarly. Regenerated parts of tails typically have a modified coloration [53] with smaller, more numerous contrasting marks than in the original tail, or such marks may be absent.

Other commonly used terms include “leucophore” (i.e., an iridophore that produces white) and “erythrophore” (i.e., a xanthophore that produces red). In addition, there are other types of chromatophores with unique pigments that are seemingly restricted to specific taxa [14, 54]. Reviews of many of the classical studies of pigment pattern development in amphibians have been written [3436, 5558]. Although chromatophores in the amphibian integument end up in both the epidermis and the dermis, it is primarily the dermal chromatophores that are responsible for the specific pigment patterns.

Studies of the biochemistry and cellular mechanisms of pigmentation usually do not offer information needed to understand the influence of coloration on behavioral ecology. Also, the genetics of coloration stems primarily from research on normal and mutant adult individuals of model species (e.g., Caudata: Ambystoma mexicanum [59]; Anura: Bombina orientalis [60]; Lithobates pipiens “burnsi” and L. pipiens “kandyohi” [61].As is so often the case, the use of models stems from the ease of laboratory propagation and not necessarily from the most interesting cases of coloration. Also, these studies usually involve only adult colorations. There are discussions of genetic analysis of an aposematic pattern [62] and the genetics of adaptive coloration in reptiles [63]. The tail bands of Ambystoma mexicanum do not coincide with the distribution of the myotomic musculature [64].

Laboratory hybridizations were usually done to reveal genetic relationships among taxa and not for the examination of specific traits, especially color, but some basic ideas can be extracted from studies that include larvae. Tadpoles of Incilius nebulifer have a banded tail muscle (Figure 2(a)), and hybrids involving I. nebulifer, Anaxyrus americanus, and A. terrestris, both of the latter with uniformly pigmented tail muscles [65], had nonbanded tail muscles. F1 tadpoles from crosses of various hylids always had the pattern of one or the other parent [66]. With the likelihood that sufficient F1 crosses, let alone the more informative later generations, will ever be made, the information content of embryo and hatchling colorations needs more attention so that we have at least some understanding of the initial development and diversity. The banding in cyprinid fishes resulted from a monogenic, recessive autosomal gene [6769]. Various genetic mechanisms have been noted in coloration of frogs [70], and evaluations of sequential changes in pattern and color [71] would be helpful.

The energetic costs of producing coloration have not been well studied [73]. One must first distinguish between those pigments that are manufactured versus those that are sequestered. Different pigment types (e.g., melanins, pteridines) and the two classes of melanins (eumelanin, phaeomelanin) may differ in costs of production; melanins may have evolved first in response to their antioxidant properties [74, 75] and only secondarily provided body color.

3. Terminology and Functions

Pattern descriptors do not enjoy a standardized terminology that can be used for organisms of different shapes [76], and we use the various terms as follows. A band, limited to the body and tail musculature, is a pale transverse, symmetrical pattern within a dark field or vice versa that crosses the sagittal plane and often occurs in a series (Figure 2(a)). A single band at midbody is not uncommon in tadpoles, but the single dark band midway along the dorsum of the tail muscle of small Hyla gratiosa (Figure 2(b)) is a rarity. Phasmahyla cruzi [77] has a white band on the dorsum of the dark tail muscle at about three-quarters of the tail length. Bands are formed during early embryology [65, 78], and most banded embryos and hatchlings lose the pattern as they grow. Tail bands remain throughout ontogeny in Acris spp. and a number of other hylids. Lysapus limellus [47] has a definite band near the tail : body junction, another less distinct band at about midtail, and a terminal black tail tip.

A bar [79], often extending the height of both fins, extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and may or may not cross the sagittal plane or be matched uniformly with a bar on the other side (e.g., Litoria micromembrana [11]; small Pseudis paradoxus [72]; Figure 2(c)). The single tail spot (semibar of [80]) of Hysiboas hutchinsi [81]) is likely an abbreviated bar, and a black tail tip is actually a bar with only an anterior boundary. The number of bars increases by additions on both the anterior and posterior end of a series in centrarchid fishes [79], but it appears that the number of bars and bands is fixed during early development in amphibians.

A stripe is a longitudinal or diagonal (e.g., naris to eye in many hylids, diagonal body stripe) contrasting mark on the body or tail (Figure 2(d)). Stripes may be restricted to the tail or extend from the naris onto the tail, and, as with a band, may be formed from the presence or absence of pigment in surface tissue or deeper layers. The juncture of dorsal dark pigmentation and ventral pale pigmentation on the body or on a bicolored tail muscle (i.e., dark dorsally, pale ventrally in lateral view) is not considered a stripe because there is only one delimiting margin.

Other common descriptors of patterns are less distinct and apply to larger surfaces of the body. These appear disorderly and are defined much more subjectively: blotched—multiple haphazardly shaped spots, usually relatively large; dotted—a small spot, usually with discrete borders; marbled—similar to mottled but more likely to produce a random circuitry of marks, as if swirled; mottled, dappled or variegated—random markings of different darker and paler shades; speckled or flecked—similar to dotted but many small marks involved whether randomly or uniformly arranged; spotted—sizeable contrasting marks, often approximately circular with reasonably discrete boundaries; and unicolored—grossly appearing one color. The impressions of all such patterns sometimes change when viewed at different magnifications and may change ontogenetically.

The various functions for eye lines (i.e., pale or dark lines extending through the eye; Figure 2(e)) include camouflaging the eye, protecting the eye from glare, and serving as sighting line during feeding [82, 83]. Lip lines (Figure 2(f)) extend from near the snout posteriorly below the eye. Isolated pale spots may occur on the snout of Polypedates leucomystax [84] or between the eyes (Microhyla heymonsi [85]. Irises [86, 87] have metallic colors (Figure 2(g)) in several notable patterns when viewed in living individuals; like other patterns produced by iridophores, these pigments disappear in preservatives. A common pattern among several families produces a pupillary rim and patches in the ciliary zone that produces a cross with the pupil at the center. Large tadpoles of Hyla gratiosa often have a uniformly silver iris, and those of Lithobates heckscheri and some hylids have a red iris. Subtle patterns of corneal pigmentation and iridial projections ([88], elygium and umbraculum) that are presumed to protect the eye from downwelling light have not been studied sufficiently to know the taxonomic distribution. Eye size is an associated feature that has not been studied [8991]. Nektonic forms have large, protrusive eyes that are usually positioned more laterally than benthic forms with smaller, dorsal eyes. The most protrusive and proportionally largest eyes occur in several convergent, semiterrestrial tadpoles in South America (Thoropa, Cycloramphidae), Africa (Petropedetes, Petropedetidae), and Sri Lanka (Nannophrys, Dicroglossidae).

Our preliminary observations of pieces of preserved skin with bright-field, dark-field, and polarized lighting suggest differences in the perceived structure of melanophores that would be useful in identification of larval amphibians; a classification of chromatophore shapes [92] is a useful guide. For example, the arrangement of the melanophores that form the dots on the dorsum of tadpoles of Lithobates catesbeianus and L. clamitans (Ranidae) differs in spatial orientation. The ornate melanophores of Gastrophryne (Microhylidae) tadpoles are foliose. Many neotropical, stream-inhabiting hylid tadpoles have rodular melanophores arranged in bundles of 4–8 cells arranged at 90° to each other. The melanophores of bombinatorid and discoglossid tadpoles are arranged like a net (Figure 2(i)).

Talking about the functions of coloration in amphibian larvae is almost entirely supposition based on substantiated cases in other taxa, and often the best we can do is recognize the habitats or other circumstances in which specific patterns occur. Coloration likely involves both intra- and interspecific functions, but with our present understanding of behavioral ecology of tadpoles, detecting and deciphering these conditions are difficult. Even so, the fact that larval coloration surely functions differently than that of the adults in most cases seems real, and it must be kept in mind that a given coloration may serve more than one function [80]. Finding circumstances where the coloration and associated behaviors are decoupled may be a productive venture [93]. Also, predators view [94] larvae with optical systems of specific abilities and in water. Thermoregulation may play a role in ecobehavior and color at times, but lying near the surface on top of dense vegetation or in shallow water may also be an escape from low oxygen tensions. In any case, seeking warmer water [95] surely takes precedence over the actual effects of coloration on the body temperature. Correlations of pattern with habitat (e.g., bars in structurally complex habitats and stripes in piscivorous fishes and those that shoal [9698]) present interesting research questions. Most macrocarnivorous tadpoles (e.g., Ceratophryidae: Lepidobatrachus; Scaphiopodidae: Spea) are unicolored.

Only some of the suggested functions [99101] of eyespots pertain to nonreproductive larvae (e.g., attack displacement to more dispensable parts of the body). It could be argued that a black tail tip (e.g., Acris, Hylidae [5], some hyperoliid Hyperolius, and the microhylid Calluella) functions as an eyespot. An eyespot occurs on the tail tip of Ascaphus truei (Figure 2(j)) at some sites, and because these tadpoles adhere to rocks in fast flowing water, these tadpoles may be expected to be attacked from the rear most often [102]. The bright yellow torus-shaped marks on the sides of the tail muscle of the social tadpoles of Clinotarsus alticola form the impression of an iris and pupil and sometimes increase in number with the size of the tadpole. Does the single band in small tadpoles of Hyla gratiosa and the single, abbreviated bands of Hypsiboas hutchinsi [81] and Atelopus mittermeieri [103] act as eyespots? The frequency of tail damage [104] indicates that this motile structure is a common predatory target. Aposematism in larval amphibians has been suggested but never tested specifically (see [105]), and judgements have been assumed based on the presence of contrasty colorations of individuals that are either toxic or noxious (Anaxyrus [106]; Hysiboas geographicus [107]; Phrynobatrachus maculiventris [108]). Integumentary glands that produce either toxic or noxious secretions likely occur throughout the skin of most tadpoles, but large, multicellular glands are less common (Figure 2(h)). These occur behind the eye, dorsolaterally and ventrolaterally on the body and elsewhere, and often these glands are contrasty in color and texture relative to the local surfaces.

Discussions of reflectivity [109113] and transparency [114118] as methods of crypsis have been addressed in larval amphibians. Rhinophrynid, pipid and some Old World microhylid tadpoles range from white to transparent, and the body and basal part of the tail of the tadpoles of Calluela are white to transparent relative to the long, black tail (Figure 2 (k)). Tadpoles of Scaphiophryne (Microhylidae) are amazingly transparent and have large, fluid-filled lymph sinuses between the skin and body tissue [119]. Fins of many species are often transparent and commonly have contrasty dark marks that appear isolated in space. Discussions of transparency have to address the whole body versus parts of bodies or patterns, but outline disruption seems like the most likely functions; tadpoles that have such coloration often remain stationary for long periods in midwater. Various other forms of crypsis are commonly assumed to represent background matching, but countershading (i.e., dark dorsum and pale venter [120, 121]) and disruptive of the body shape or edges must be incorporated into the concept; crypsis is a particular concept that would benefit from quantitative rather than qualitative evaluations [122]. Behavioral changes associated with ontogenetic color changes are known in only a few cases, but many more will likely be found. Some form of sociality is often involved in the behavioral changes. A number of studies with distinctly different motives show that tadpoles can preferentially recognize and associate with others of their own species, siblings, or half-siblings [123, 124], but the terms that describe these associations are vague and often ill defined because we do not know the functions involved or the reaction stimuli. There is a huge database on schooling in fishes, but perhaps no tadpoles congregate in the same contexts. To understand the potential function of a group and the benefits to its members, one needs to gather at least the following information: single or uncommonly multiple species [125, 126], age or size distributions, group including single or multiple sibships, individuals maintaining position independent of but in response to others, group polarized (individuals somehow aligned and oriented) or not, group mobile or stationary and group occuring on the bottom, in midwater, or at the surface. Potential functions (e.g., predator avoidance, feeding, and seeking amiable microenvironments) are diverse, and several of the traits suggest some form of sociality [127]. Ontogenetic behavioral changes, sometimes associated with differences in color, have been noted.

4. Diversity and Ontogeny

A general pattern of morphological diversity among larval anurans has been recognized for a number of different structures (e.g., diversity of labial tooth rows [128]; diversity of labial tooth morphology [129]). A large morphospace of relative commonality that encompasses taxa from across the order in many habitats and geographic regions is accompanied by novelties of various kinds at various points. Taxonomic and ecological distributions of coloration are surely similar, and potential reasons for the large area of commonality and the novelties both beg for answers. For example, the average ranid tadpole has a somber, mottled coloration, but Lithobates hecksheri has a golden body band and a black rim around an opaque white fin (Figure 2(l)). Tadpoles of the 18 species of Pseudacris are typically somber, but those of P. brimleyi and P. ocularis are prominently striped. The average bufonid tadpole is uniformly dark with no or minor patterning, but the torrent-dwelling tadpoles of the Asian Ansonia [130] and neotropical Atelopus include some taxa that are uniformly colored and some that are brightly banded. All centrolenid tadpoles [131, 132], burrowers in leaf mats of mountain streams, are nearly uniformly white, tan or red; the ranid tadpole of Staurois natator is similar in coloration and behavior. There are often specific patterns in hatchlings that may be retained throughout larval life or modified in later stages. Metamorphs commonly but not always (e.g., some hylids) have a similar coloration as the adults. All references to stage that follow are based on the table by Gosner [133].

In general, larger, darker, more contrasty, or complex colorations develop with increases in body size, especially in the tail fins. The single tail band of Hyla gratiosa tadpoles that develops embryologically [134] either disappears or becomes incorporated into the uniform tail pattern of older tadpoles. Also, clear fins of younger individuals of H. gratiosa become populated with melanophores near the base that do not dilate at night, and the melanophores in the distal two-thirds of the tail dilate to jet black at night (also [135]; phyllomedusine hylids; [136]: Xenopus; [137]). Small tadpoles of Lithobates heckscheri have uniformly jet black bodies with a bright golden band at midbody, a tail muscle that is black dorsally, and clear fins. By the time the tadpole reaches about 25 mm total length, an intensely black rim starts to form around the fins, and the remainder of the fin becomes translucent, frosty white. Young tadpoles of Lithobates grylio and L. virgatipes are patterned similar to L. heckscheri but less contrasty, and the diagnostic line of dots in the dorsal fins of these two species does not develop until about stage 28. The bands of small tadpoles of Dendropsophus berthalutzae [138] become connected as a large, haphazard blotch in larger tadpoles. Metamorphs that have a discrete metamorphic pattern attain the adult pattern before sexual maturity is attained (e.g., some Gastrotheca, some mantellids).

Variation in ventral coloration, whether transparent in younger stages or uniformly pale in older individuals, is much less diverse than are dorsal colorations and may vary with stage or life history. For example, the pale bellies [121] of tadpoles of Lithobates chiricahuensis have few melanophores while those of adults are densely populated with melanophores [139]. Microhylid tadpoles (e.g., Dasypops schirchi [140]; Gastrophryne carolinensis) are quiescent, midwater suspension feeders at night; they commonly have bellies that are crudely striped or mottled. Some megophryid (e.g., Megophrys, quiescent, surface film feeders in streams during the day) tadpoles have ornately banded bellies. We tend to notice the black markings, but it is likely the pale markings that break up the body outline when viewed from below against the brightness of the surface.

Because of its mode of development [141], the back of the oral disc usually is pigmented uniformly like the adjacent body surfaces but usually lacks iridophores. The oral (outer) face of the oral disc is typically translucent and nonpigmented. Both surfaces of the oral flaps of microhylids are pigmented. The spiracle(s), nares, and neuromasts sometimes influence pattern. Pigment in the nasal sac that is often visible through the skin gives the impression that the nares are more darkly pigmented than the surrounding surface. Structural ornamentations of the narial aperture (e.g., megophryids, [142]) vary widely and change ontogenetically, and some of these structures contrast with the local color. The viscera of larval amphibians [143] are usually not pigmented or at least not until late in ontogeny [144146]. Even then, the melanophores associated with the viscera are usually sparse and respond to stimuli much more slowly than do the integumentary chromatophores. A classification of viscera pigmentation of adult frogs [147] could be easily adapted for use with larvae. Melanophores in tadpole tails may be photoreceptive [137]. The amount of visceral pigmentation may correlate with body color [148], and various functions or at least correlations (e.g., gonad protection [149]) have been suggested for visceral pigmentation. Diet can affect the color of frogs [60], and even though similar responses are expected in larvae, no one has made the pertinent observations. The causes of common pale versus dark individuals among cultured tadpoles [150], as if some have aggregated melanosomes and some have dispersed ones under the same conditions, are not known.

5. Inducible Changes in Coloration

The potential ramifications of inducible changes in coloration was a primary concept that stimulated the writing of this paper. We propose that with the addition of the correct data, we could use ontogenetic changes [151] and those colorations that are inducible as a predictor of larval fitness; the use of coloration as an indicator of fitness is a common theme in other animals but has never been applied to larval amphibians.

Differences in coloration of tadpoles of the same species from adjacent ponds is often obvious to the casual observer, and until recently, these differences were assumed to be caused by light regimes, turbidity, and tannin content; animals from turbid pools are pale to almost albinistic in appearance, and those from clear to tannin-stained waters are much more brightly colored. Also, colors are usually more brilliant or contrasty during the day and paler at night. Sometimes specific parts of the body and melanophores of specific shapes may produce different patterns (e.g., Hyla gratiosa; [137]).

Inducible reactions, including morphological, behavioral, and biochemical responses, have been shown in many organisms, and after early studies of tadpoles [2, 152], a whole new variable in our understanding of coloration, morphology and ecology came to light. Variations in color and pattern result from the presence of predators and competitors. The effects of shape changes on pattern in larvae [153] have not been examined. The most notable fact of the known inducible color changes is that the inducible responses vary among individuals. We suggest that the significance of this variation has not been fully realized.

Tadpoles with modified colors and shapes perform better in a predatory encounter, but we suggest that this is just a minor indication of the potential fitness of these individuals. We need to know something about the breeding adults [154] that are derived from tadpoles that respond differently to inducible stimuli. The survival of a tadpole and the attainment of metamorphosis is a viable fitness signal, but in fact these features are rather uninformative stations relative to the overall goal of reproduction [155]. As difficult as it would be to conduct the experiment, we would be much further ahead if we had even the slightest indication of whether a tadpole judged to be ecologically robust at any given moment in its ontogeny has a better chance to grow into a fecund adult than a tadpole in its cohort that is judged to be less robust. That is, how well do the qualities of individual larvae indicate eventual fitness responses? Discussing the various options, let alone actually doing such an experiment, would be very lengthy, but we suggest that the ultimate experiment should be done on field populations to avoid the many limitations imposed by any laboratory test. Studies based on naturalistic mesocosms are a more feasible option, but we question if proper mesocosms can be prepared and replicated. In either case, a benign, long-lasting mark [156] of many previously evaluated tadpoles would be required to guarantee that at least a few individuals with a known ontogenetic and ecological history would be encountered as breeding adults.

To state the premise in another way, are the tadpoles that produce either the most vivid colors or the largest area of such colors under specific test circumstances likely to have higher adult fitness than those that respond minimally? Various ecobehavioral and genetic correlations seem possible (e.g., differential exposure to inducing stimulus because of differences in individual behavioral traits or differential acquisition of carotenoids). For example, do variations in innate behavior within a species and the duration of a given stimulus and its spatial sphere [157] influence the degree of induction? Are individuals that shun social contact somewhat exempt from the inducing stimuli? Behavioral differences among species only amplify this idea. Also, most interesting to this discussion, genotypic responses related to individual quality are surely at play. Might we find exciting correlations with coloration if we tested for individual differences in aggression and stress responses [158, 159], competitive ability, foraging skills, disease resistance, and particularly immune responses [160163]? In summary, we suggest that looking at trait changes among individuals in experiments of inducible mechanisms would be as or more productive than looking at species responses.

Does the ability to be induced vary geographically or intraspecifically, and if so, what does this say about the functions of color? For example, the variations between Hyla chrysoscelis tadpoles from North Carolina [2] and those from Mississippi (R.A., unpublished data) are distinct. In North Carolina the tadpoles were collected from permanent ponds, and these animals typically responded with a profound but variable color change in the presence of predators. In Mississippi this species most commonly breeds in temporary pools, and in over 35 years of general observations by the second author, the slightest hint of an orange color in the fins has been observed only four times. Potential differences in these responses range from genetics of the tadpoles to differences in the habitats (e.g., relative amounts and available carotenoids) to differences in coinhabitants. Also, at least the tadpoles in Mississippi are quite aggressive to intraspecific and heterospecific individuals with very obvious individual variations (R.A., unpublished data). Are aggressive individuals also the ones who might experience the most inducible color? Might the aggression representative of specific genotypes of tadpoles also be manifested in various behaviors of the adults (e.g., territoriality, diurnal retreat protection, calling station maintenance, and feeding and breeding success)? Being able to properly formulate better definitions of fitness components throughout the amphibian biphasic life cycle would be very informative. As an ancillary note, almost all studies of induced morphology has been done on bufonid, hylid, and ranid tadpoles of the northern hemisphere; photos of Microhyla butleri [164, 165] show the first microhylid tadpole with probable induced red color in the fins that we have seen. The tadpole of Litoria aurifera (Hylidae, [166]) may show considerable red color in the distal part of the tail, and this is an uncommon feature of stream-dwelling tadpoles.

Are stream tadpoles subject to the same kinds and degrees of inducible changes as pond forms? Because of the constraints of maintaining position in fast-flowing water, these kinds of tadpoles may be less plastic. Is coloration of those tadpoles that aggregate or are tended to by a parent less likely to be inducible? What about tadpoles that are known to or seem to have chemical defences? Social species often are contrasty even if unicolored dark (e.g., Schismaderma carens, “Bufo”), uniformly bright (Phyllomedusa vaillanti), or boldly patterned (e.g., Lithobates heckscheri, Clinotarsus alticola). Knowing species-specific and individual temperaments that probably have a genetic basis would be helpful, and this idea certainly extends to interspecific comparisons. Also, the carnivore: omnivore scenario in some scaphiopodid tadpoles [167] is another case where unnoticed behavioral differences surely exist; oddly, the huge morphological changes [168] in these species are not accompanied by notable color changes. Imagine a mixed population of equal numbers of several tadpoles that are not suspected of being strong competitors based on morphology or spatial usages (e.g., Hyla, pelagic rasper; Lithobates, benthic, rasper; Gastrophryne, midwater suspension feeder) and predators are absent. If there are induced changes in any members of this hypothetical community, one has to ask what the competitive factor might be. To what degree can tadpoles of different ecomorphological types function as competitors?

With all known and suspected influences on coloration, discussing geographic variation per se (i.e., genotypic differences in strict response to abiotic factors [169] is either difficult or impossible. The few studies that claim to address geographic variation of larvae [170, 171] likely represent actual responses to different kinds or degrees of induced changes. Larvae do learn substrates [172175], and commonly seen variations are likely responses to substrate color that would change in relation to a new substrate or lighting regime. Tadpoles of Lithobates grylio and R. virgatipes have a single row of longitudinal dots in the dorsal fin; some tadpoles (e.g., Lithobates clamitans from northeastern United States) have such a pattern that has not been noticed elsewhere. Considerable geographic variation exists in general coloration (e.g., ground color yellow, mottled to black; presence and completeness of the eyespot on the tail tip Ascaphus truei). Perhaps an actual analysis as with centrachid fishes [79] would resolve what appear to be inexplicable differences, but at least a first glance, and assuming some similarities in the developmental genetics of coloration, the feasibility of such a study with tadpoles would often seem to have some large hurdles to cross. Is absolute size of a tadpole ever a constraint on color or pattern (e.g., banded tail muscles of members of the diminutive members of the Anaxyrus debilis group and hatchlings in some hylids)? Finally, do the appearance of similar colorations in disparate taxa indicate a common selective influence [176]?

6. Discussion

For obvious reasons, the study of the evolution of coloration has been largely focused on sexual and species traits of reproductive individuals, and many facets of the behavioral ecology of amphibian larvae are poorly known. For example, of the many studies that examine competitive outcomes among various combinations of species [177], behavioral factors are essentially never suggested as contributing to which species wins. In this light, this discussion is a synthesis of circumstances and queries that need to be addressed to enhance our understanding of many interrelated subjects of amphibian larval biology.

It is obvious that individuals and species vary in temperament, and it seems that we should make a controlled adjustment to our phobia of anthropomorphisms so that we can describe and talk about behavioral differences more easily with our human lexicon. We say “innate behavioral differences” to avoid sounding anthropomorphic, but this is quite uninformative. Some might cringe at “tadpole bullies” [178] and “fishes acting recklessly” [179], but lengthy similes are annoying. We could do fine if we keep our notions in the realm of fitness and avoid descriptors that require empathy or an ability to project into the future. With such caution, we can more accurately evaluate and describe species and individuals behaviorally. For example, fish culturalists [180] strive to understand variations in behavior, growth, and survival so as to maximize production, and judgements of temperament are common. Many kinds of data that these researchers have are not available for amphibians.

Most larval and adult amphibians deposit most of their stored energy reserves in discrete fat bodies attached to the anterior end of the kidney. These reserves are commonly measured relative to reproduction of adults [181], but equivalent data on larvae and metamorphs are not common [182]. Individual trout from three populations differed relative to trade-off situations involving predator cues and food [179]. Genetically more variable fishes showed more risk-prone behavior. Having this kind of information on amphibian larvae would propel our thinking forward a great deal [183186]. Individual and interspecific differences in coloration and behavior related to genotype and hormones have bases in a number of research areas. Based on our own observations, there are behavioral features of tadpoles (e.g., overt aggression in nektonic hylids, passive aggression in ranids [178]; escape responses, tendencies to aggregate, and details of the part of the water column that is inhabited most commonly) that surely contribute to species interactions. Many of these factors involve some expression of sociality, and coloration is surely a factor to consider.

Not long ago [152] and relative to the numerous papers on the subject that have followed [187, 188], no one considered that coloration was inducible ontogenetically or that the strength and quality of certain signals involved in coloration were likely indicators of fitness. Variations were apparent, but mechanisms for this variation beyond the immediate environment were not suspected. It is likely for the present and for some time in the future that we will continue to consider a given larva typologically just to manage the wide diversity that is present, but in many ecobehavioral cases we need to change our perspectives. Speculations and subjective evaluations are often useful, but in absolutely all cases, we need a lot of additional data that is gathered very accurately. The amounts and kinds of variation and periods during which they occur during larval ontogeny are likely quite pervasive. By an extension of this progression of understanding, one can easily predict that there are numerous ontogenetic and interspecific aspects of the behavior, ecology, and effects of coloration on the biology of amphibian larvae that have gone unnoticed [189, 190]. The effects of aggressive intra- and interspecific interactions (RA. personal observations) that are not observable by casual observations and the causes, consequences, and dynamic structure of aggregations and schools are all fertile fields for research; coloration is a potential influence in all these cases, and understanding the presumed genotypic variations associated with these occurrences would be most exciting.

Phylogenetic [191, 192] and statistical [193196] analyses of patterns are a great adjunct to the use of the rather inexact descriptive terms. Patterns that are presumed to be random (e.g., mottling and spotting) may not be [197]; these studies would be particularly useful because the developmental processes involved often are unknown. The common banded patterns in fishes as a mean of camouflage via selection for background matching [198] without regarding the distinct possibility that the patterns are influenced by body shape [199, 200] need evaluation. Spectroradiometric quantifications [201] would improve or calibrate our subjective visual interpretations. Better understanding of hunting tactics and optical systems of various predators in and outside the water [202] would be helpful. In many respects, understanding the functions of coloration is actually an understanding of community structure and function.

Quantitative procedures for evaluating behavior are needed. Bailey et al. [203] generated an index of aggression for charr ( = Agg+/Agg+ + Agg where + = bites given and − = bites received). This index and the amount of food consumed by individuals produced estimates of a given fish’s fitness. Similar relationships involving activity, time spent feeding, location in water column, and coloration could be devised. A means of marking individuals during such tests will be required so their behavior can be correlated with growth and size at stage [158]. In summary, coloration is a potential means to evaluate the temperament of individuals and species.

Escape responses relative to color, site characteristics, sizes, and taxa are poorly known, and our understanding of the interactions of morphology, coloration, and characteristics of the site and relevant predators remain elusive. Tadpoles of L. catesbeianus often rest in shallow water near the bank and escape perpendicular to the bank; they often make a 90° turn at the end of such runs and wiggle into the substrate. Small tadpoles of Hyla gratiosa have a unique pattern that likely breaks up the body outline, and they remain motionless in stands of vegetation during the day and night. Larger tadpoles of the same species with a different color pattern, at least at night, hang at middle depths in open water. If touched from the top, they usually escape toward the bottom; if touched from the rear or below, they escape to other areas in midwater and momentarily swing vertically as they coast to a stop.

There are a number of brightly colored tadpoles or at least ones with contrasty patterns [166], and in some cases, there appears to be some correlation with sociality [204] and perhaps toxicity or noxiousness [205]. We know of no verified cases of mimicry among larval amphibians, and suppositions of aposematism need verification. We certainly do not understand the mechanisms of all behaviors that have been lumped under the concept of schooling [206, 207]. Crypsis by outline disruption seems like a viable option for some contrasty patterns, but sociality must also be considered. Tadpoles of Lithobates heckscheri change their schooling behavior with size. Small ones, with a clear, unmarked fin and bright gold band on a densely black body, maintain a stationary school which appears polarized. The group moves by short swim-and-coast sequences by small groups of individuals within the school. Larger individuals form huge, mobile schools during the day travel long distances. At some sites, tadpoles of Hyla andersonii and H. squirella look as if they are gilded. What causes this color and what might be its function? Because the taxa and conditions that have been tested is small, we simply do not have a thorough understanding of all possible effects of the many factors that may influence coloration.

In summary, we must be cautious not to underestimate the functions of coloration or automatically assign them to the most handy classical function. At least in larval amphibians, we have a tendency to pass coloration off as functioning only in some form of crypsis or occasionally aposomatism [106], but testing such assumptions are rare. Coloration may have multiple and modifiable functions [208], and even though larval coloration does not directly signal reproductive potential at the moment, there is every reason to ask if larval coloration involves profound fitness signals that we fail to recognize. A phylogenetic analysis is an alternative approach, but we predict that there would be a strong ecological signal and little or no phylogenetic signal.

Acknowledgments

E. D. Brodie, Jr., J. P. Caldwell, R. W. McDiarmid, and B. Storz provided useful comments, discussions, and literature sources during the preparation of this paper.

References

  1. H. B. Cott, Adaptive Coloration in Animals, Metheun, London, UK, 1940.
  2. S. A. McCollum and J. D. Leimberger, “Predator-induced morphological changes in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affects tadpole shape and color,” Oecologia, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 615–621, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. C. Partridge and M. E. Cummings, “Adaptation of visual pigments to the aquatic environment,” in Adaptive Mechanisms in the Ecology of Vision, S. N. Archer, M. B. A. Djamgoz, E. R. Lowe, J. C. Partridge, and S. Vallerga, Eds., pp. 252–283, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherland, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  4. D. W. Meadows, “Morphological variation in eyespots of the foureye butterfly-fish (Chaetodon capistratus): implications for eyespot function,” Copeia, vol. 1993, pp. 235–240, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  5. J. P. Caldwell, “Disruptive selection: a tail color polymorphism in Acris tadpoles in response to differential predation,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 2818–2827, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  6. R. A. Alford, “Effects of parentage on competitive ability and vulnerability to predation in Hyla chrysoscelis tadpoles,” Oecologia, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 199–204, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. L. Crump, “Ontogenetic changes in vulnerability to predation in tadpoles of Hyla pseudopuma,” Herpetologica, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 265–271, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  8. J. H. Brown, P. A. Marquet, and M. L. Taper, “Evolution of body size: consequences of an energetic definition of fitness,” American Naturalist, vol. 142, no. 4, pp. 573–584, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. D. A. Warner and R. Shine, “Fitness of juvenile lizards depends on seasonal timing of hatching, not offspring body size,” Oecologia, vol. 154, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. E. A. Hoffman and M. S. Blouin, “A review of colour and pattern polymorphisms in anurans,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 633–665, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. R. Altig and A. Channing, “Hypothesis: functional significance of colour and pattern of anuran tadpoles,” Herpetological Journal, vol. 3, pp. 73–75, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  12. S. del Cerro, S. Merino, J. Martínez-de la Puente et al., “Carotenoid-based plumage colouration is associated with blood parasite richness and stress protein levels in blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus),” Oecologia, vol. 162, no. 4, pp. 825–835, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. S. B. Emerson, T. A. Cooper, and J. R. Ehleringer, “Convergence in reflectance spectra among treefrogs,” Functional Ecology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 47–51, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  14. P. A. Schwalm and J. A. McNulty, “The morphology of the dermal chromatophores in the infrared-reflecting glass-frog Centrolenella fleischmanni,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 163, pp. 37–44, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  15. J. R. Cronly-Dillon and W. R. Muntz, “The spectral sensitivity of the goldfish and the clawed toad tadpole under photopic conditions,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 481–493, 1965. View at: Google Scholar
  16. M. E. Deutschlander and J. B. Phillips, “Characterization of an ultraviolet photoreceptor mechanism in the retina of an amphibian, the axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum),” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 197, no. 2, pp. 93–96, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. Honkavaara, M. Koivula, E. Korpimäki, H. Siitari, and J. Viitala, “Ultraviolet vision and foraging in terrestrial vertebrates,” Oikos, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 505–511, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. P. A. Liebman and G. Entine, “Visual pigments of frog and tadpole (Rana pipiens),” Vision Research, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 761–775, 1968. View at: Google Scholar
  19. A. Kodric-Brown and S. C. Johnson, “Ultraviolet reflectance patterns of male guppies enhance their attractiveness to females,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 391–396, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. G. S. Losey, T. W. Cronin, T. H. Goldsmith, D. Hyde, N. J. Marshall, and W. N. McFarland, “The UV visual world of fishes: a review,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 921–943, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. W. R. A. Muntz and T. Reuter, “Visual pigments and spectral sensitivity in Rana temporaria and other European tadpoles,” Vision Research, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 601–618, 1966. View at: Google Scholar
  22. A. M. Stoehr and K. J. McGraw, “Ultraviolet reflectance of color patches in male Sceloporus undulatus and Anolis carolinensis,” Journal of Herpetology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 168–171, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  23. D. H. Taylor and K. Adler, “Spatial orientation by salamanders using plane polarized light,” Science, vol. 181, no. 4096, pp. 285–287, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  24. M. Obika and J. T. Bagnara, “Pteridines as pigments in amphibians,” Science, vol. 143, no. 3605, pp. 485–487, 1964. View at: Google Scholar
  25. J. E. Steffen and K. J. McGraw, “Contributions of pterin and carotenoid pigments to dewlap coloration in two anole species,” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 42–46, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. K. Frost, L. G. Epp, and S. J. Robinson, “The pigmentary system of developing axolotls. I. A biochemical and structural analysis of chromatophores in wild-type axolotls,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 81, pp. 105–125, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  27. J. Odenthal, P. Haffter, E. Vogelsang et al., “Mutations affecting the formation of the notochord in the zebrafish, Danio rerio,” Development, vol. 123, pp. 103–115, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  28. S. Bertrand, B. Faivre, and G. Sorci, “Do carotenoid-based sexual traits signal the availability of non-pigmentary antioxidants?” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 209, no. 22, pp. 4414–4419, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. P. D. Fraser and P. M. Bramley, “The biosynthesis and nutritional uses of carotenoids,” Progress in Lipid Research, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 228–265, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. T. Bagnara, J. D. Taylor, and M. E. Hadley, “The dermal chromatophore unit,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 67–79, 1968. View at: Google Scholar
  31. L. Olsson and J. Löfberg, “Pigment pattern formation in larval ambystomatid salamanders: Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 211, pp. 73–85, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  32. R. P. Tucker, “The role of glycosaminoglycans in anuran pigment cell migration,” Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, vol. 92, pp. 145–164, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  33. H. H. Epperlein and J. Löfberg, “The development of the larval pigment patterns in Triturus alpestris and Ambystoma mexicanum,” Advances in Anatomy, Embryology, and Cell Biology, vol. 118, pp. 1–99, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  34. C. A. Erickson, “From the crest to the periphery: control of pigment cell migration and lineage segregation,” Pigment Cell Research, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 336–347, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  35. D. M. Parichy, “Salamander pigment patterns: How can they be used to study developmental mechanisms and their evolutionary transformation?” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 871–884, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  36. D. M. Parichy and S. L. Johnson, “Zebrafish hybrids suggest genetic mechanisms for pigment pattern diversification in Danio,” Development Genes and Evolution, vol. 211, no. 7, pp. 319–328, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. G. Thibaudeau and S. Holder, “Cellular plasticity among axolotl neural crest-derived pigment cell lineages,” Pigment Cell Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  38. M. S. Steinberg, “Does differential adhesion govern self-assembly processes in histogenesis? Equilibrium configurations and the emergence of a hierarchy among populations of embryonic cells,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 173, no. 4, pp. 395–433, 1970. View at: Google Scholar
  39. R. A. Foty, G. Forgacs, C. M. Pfleger, and M. S. Steinberg, “Liquid properties of embryonic tissues: measurement of interfacial tensions,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 72, no. 14, pp. 2298–2301, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. M. Abercrombie, “Contact inhibition in tissue culture,” In Vitro, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 128–142, 1970. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. G. Thibaudeau and S. K. Frost-Mason, “Inhibition of neural crest cell differentiation by embryo ectodermal extract,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 261, no. 4, pp. 431–440, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  42. M. Yasutomi and S. Yamada, “Formation of the dermal chromatophore unit (DCU) in the tree frog Hyla arborea,” Pigment Cell Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 198–205, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  43. A. A. Nascimento, J. T. Roland, and V. I. Gelfand, “Pigment cells: a model for the study of organelle transport,” Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 19, pp. 469–491, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. R. L. Morrison, W. C. Sherbrooke, and S. K. Frost-Mason, “Temperature-sensitive, physiologically active iridophores in the lizard Urosaurus ornatus: an ultrastructural analysis of color change,” Copeia, no. 4, pp. 804–812, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  45. A. R. Parker, “The diversity and implications of animal structural colours,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 201, no. 16, pp. 2343–2347, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  46. P. A. Schwalm, P. H. Starrett, and R. W. Mcdiarmid, “Infrared reflectance in leaf-sitting neotropical frogs,” Science, vol. 196, no. 4295, pp. 1225–1226, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  47. A. I. Kehr and N. G. Basso, “Description of the tadpole of Lysapsus limellus (Anura: Pseudidae) and some considerations of its biology,” Copeia, vol. 1990, pp. 573–575, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  48. J. T. Bagnara, P. J. Fernandez, and R. Fujii, “On the blue coloration of vertebrates,” Pigment Cell Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 14–26, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. M. W. Berns and K. S. Narayan, “An histochemical and ultrastructural analysis of the dermal chromatophores of the variant ranid blue frog,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 132, pp. 169–180, 1970. View at: Google Scholar
  50. E. G. Crespo, M. E. Oliveira, and M. Paillette, “Sobre uma variante azul de Hyla meridionalis (Amphibia, Hylidae) do sul de Portugal,” Arquivos Museo do Museo Bocage, vol. 1, pp. 479–482, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  51. H. H. Epperlein, J. Löfberg, and L. Olsson, “Neural crest cell migration and pigment pattern formation in urodele amphibians,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 229–238, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  52. J. T. Bagnara, J. Matsumoto, W. Ferris et al., “Common origin of pigment cells,” Science, vol. 203, no. 4379, pp. 410–415, 1979. View at: Google Scholar
  53. G. T. Noble and H. J. Clausen, “Factors controlling the form and color of scales on the regenerated tail of lizards,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 73, pp. 209–229, 1936. View at: Google Scholar
  54. M. Nishioka and H. Ueda, “Electron-microscopic observation on the dermal chromatophores of normal frogs and three kinds of color variants in Rhacophorus schlegelii,” Scientific Report of the Laboratory of Amphibian Biology, Hiroshima, vol. 7, pp. 123–155, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  55. H. H. Epperlein and J. Lofberg, “The development of the neural crest in amphibians,” Annals of Anatomy, vol. 175, no. 6, pp. 483–499, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  56. C. A. Erickson, K. W. Tosney, and J. A. Weston, “Analysis of migratory behavior of neural crest and fibroblastic cells in embryonic tissues,” Developmental Biology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 142–156, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  57. S. K. Frost and G. M. Malacinski, “The development genetics of pigment mutants in the Mexican axoltl,” Developmental Genetics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 271–294, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  58. B. K. Hall and S. Horstadius, The Neural Crest, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1988.
  59. J. T. Bagnara, S. K. Frost, and J. Matsumoto, “On the development of pigment patterns in amphibians,” American Zoologist, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 301–312, 1978. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. S. K. Frost, M. S. Ellinger, and J. A. Murphy, “The pale mutation in Bombina orientalis: effects on melanophores and xanthophores,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 221, pp. 125–129, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  61. D. J. Merrell, “Laboratory studies bearing on pigment pattern polymorphisms in wild populations of Rana pipiens,” Genetics, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 141–161, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
  62. G. J. Holloway, P. M. Brakefield, De Jong et al., “A quantitative genetic analysis of an aposematic colour pattern and its ecological implications,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 348, no. 1326, pp. 373–379, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  63. E. B. Rosenblum, H. E. Hoekstra, and M. W. Nachman, “Adaptive reptile color variation and the evolution of the MC1R gene,” Evolution, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1794–1808, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  64. H. E. Lehman, “An experimental study of the “barred” pigment pattern in Mexican axolotl larvae,” Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, vol. 70, pp. 218–221, 1954. View at: Google Scholar
  65. E. P. Volpe, “Hybridization of Bufo valliceps with Bufo americanus and Bufo terrestris,” Texas Journal of Science, vol. 11, pp. 335–342, 1959. View at: Google Scholar
  66. J. Fortman and R. Altig, “Characters of F1 hybrid tadpoles between six species of Hyla,” Copeia, vol. 1973, pp. 411–416, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  67. J. S. Frankel, “Monogenic inheritance of trunk banding patterns in Barbus tetrazona,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1357–1359, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. J. S. Frankel, “Inheritance of caudal peduncle banding in the spike-tailed paradisefish,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1095–1097, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. W. P. Young, P. A. Wheeler, and G. H. Thorgaard, “Asymmetry and variability of meristic characters and spotting in isogenic lines of rainbow trout,” Aquaculture, vol. 137, no. 1–4, pp. 67–76, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  70. E. M. O'Neill and K. H. Beard, “Genetic basis of a color pattern polymorphism in the coqui frog Eleutherodactylus coqui,” Journal of Heredity, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 703–709, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. S. C. Beeching and R. E. Pike, “Ontogenetic color change in the Firemouth Cichlid, Thorichthys meeki,” Copeia, no. 2, pp. 189–195, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. J. R. Dixon, C. I. Mercoll, and A. A. Yanosky, “Some aspects of the ecology of Pseudis paradoxa from northeastern Argentina,” Herpetological Review, vol. 26, pp. 183–184, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  73. A. M. Stoehr, “Costly melanin ornaments: the importance of taxon?” Functional Ecology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 276–281, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. J. Borovanský, “Free radical activity of melanins and related substances: biochemical and pathobiochemical aspects,” Sborník lékarský, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 49–70, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  75. P. Meredith and T. Sarna, “The physical and chemical properties of eumelanin,” Pigment Cell Research, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 572–594, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. M. Pickersgill, Frog search. Results of Expeditions to Southern and Eastern Africa, Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2007.
  77. P. N. Costa, A. M. P. Telles de Carvalho-e-Silva, and A. Flaskman, “Egg clutch and larval development of Phasmahyla cruzi Carvalho-e-Silva and Carvalho-e-Silva, 2009 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae),” Herpetology Notes, vol. 3, pp. 221–228, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  78. E. P. Volpe, M. A. Wilkens, and J. L. Dobie, “Embryonic and larval development of Hyla avivoca,” Copeia, vol. 1961, pp. 340–349, 1961. View at: Google Scholar
  79. P. M. Mabee, “Evolution of pigment pattern development in centrarchid fishes,” Copeia, no. 3, pp. 586–607, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  80. S. C. Beeching, B. A. Holt, and M. P. Neiderer, “Ontogeny of melanistic color pattern elements in the convict cichlid, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum,” Copeia, no. 1, pp. 199–203, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  81. W. F. Pyburn and D. H. Hall, “A new stream-inhabiting treefrog ( Anura: Hylidae) from southeastern Colombia,” Herpetologica, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 366–372, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  82. G. W. Barlow, “The attitude of fish eye-lines in relation to body shape and to stripes and bars,” Copeia, vol. 1972, pp. 4–14, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
  83. R. W. Ficken, P. E. Matthiae, and R. Horwich, “Eye marks in vertebrates: aids to vision,” Science, vol. 173, no. 4000, pp. 936–939, 1971. View at: Google Scholar
  84. B. Eggert, “Über den weissen Schnauzenfleck der Kaulquappe des javanischen Flugfroshes Rhacophorus leucomystax Graven,” Zoologischer Anzeiger, vol. 84, pp. 111–130, 1929. View at: Google Scholar
  85. W.-H. Chou and J.-Y. Lin, “Tadpoles of Taiwan,” Special Publication of the National Museum of Natural Science, no. 7, pp. 1–98, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  86. F. Glaw and M. Vences, “Anuran eye colouration: definitions, variation, taxonomic implications and possible functions,” in Herpetologia Bonnensis, W. Böhme, W. Bishoff, and T. Ziegler, Eds., pp. 125–138, SEH Proceedings, Bonn, Germany, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  87. I. Mann, “Iris pattern in the vertebrates,” Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, vol. 21, pp. 355–412, 1931. View at: Google Scholar
  88. D. E. Van Dijk, “Systematic and field keys to the families, genera and described species of southern African anuran tadpoles,” Annals of the Natal Museum, vol. 18, pp. 231–286, 1966. View at: Google Scholar
  89. H. J. de Jongh, “Relative growth of the eye in larval and metamorphosing Rana temporaria,” Growth, Development and Aging, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 93–103, 1967. View at: Google Scholar
  90. A. P. Møller and J. Erritzøe, “Flight distance and eye size in birds,” Ethology, vol. 116, no. 5, pp. 458–465, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. J. G. Sivak and M. R. Warburg, “Changes in optical properties of the eye during metamorphosis of an anuran, Pelobates syriacus,” Journal of Comparative Physiology, vol. 150, no. 3, pp. 329–332, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. G. P. Baerends and J. M. Baerends-van Roon, “An introduction to the study of the ethology of cichlid fishes,” Behaviour Supplement, vol. 1, pp. 1–242, 1950. View at: Google Scholar
  93. V. S. Quinn and D. K. Hews, “The evolutionary decoupling of behavioral and color cues in a multicomponent signal in two Sceloporus lizards,” Ethology, vol. 116, no. 6, pp. 509–516, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. J. A. Endler, “A predator's view of animal color patterns,” Evolutionary Biology, vol. 11, pp. 319–364, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
  95. R. K. Dupré and J. W. Petranka, “Ontogeny of temperature selection in larval amphibians,” Copeia, vol. 1985, pp. 462–457, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  96. J. P. Hailman, “Concealment by stripes during movement and bars at rest: field evidence from color changes in a goatfish and a cornetfish,” Copeia, vol. 1982, pp. 454–455, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  97. D. G. Míguez and A. P. Muñuzuri, “On the orientation of stripes in fish skin patterning,” Biophysical Chemistry, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 161–167, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. W. C. Sherbrooke, “Do vertebral-line patterns in two horned lizards (Phrynosoma spp.) mimic plant-stem shadows and stem litter?” Journal of Arid Environments, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 109–120, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. S. C. Beeching, “Eyespots as visual cues in the intraspecific behavior of the cichlid fish Astronotus ocellatus,” Copeia, no. 4, pp. 1154–1157, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  100. A. Miklosi, G. Berzsenyi, P. Pongracz, and V. Csanyi, “The ontogeny of antipredator behaviour in paradise fish larvae (Macropodus opercularis): the recognition of eyespots,” Ethology, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 284–294, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  101. C. G. M. Paxton, A. E. Magurran, and S. Zschokke, “Caudal eyespots on fish predators influence the inspection behaviour of Trinidadian guppies, Poecilia reticulata,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 175–177, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. J. W. Feminella and C. P. Hawkins, “Tailed frog tadpoles differentially alter their feeding behavior in response to non-visual cues from four predators,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 13, pp. 310–320, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  103. A. R. Acosta-Galvis, J. V. Rueda-Almonacid, A. A. Veláquez-Álvarez, S. J. Sánchez-Pacheco, and J. A. Peña Preito, “Descubrimiento de una nueva especie de Atelopus (Bufonidae) para Colombia: ¿una luz de esperanza o el ocaso de los sapos arleguines?” Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas Fisicas y Naturales, vol. 30, pp. 279–290, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  104. K. V. S. Hoff and R. J. Wassersug, “Tadpole locomotion: axial movement and tail functions in a largely vertebraeless vertebrate,” American Zoologist, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 62–76, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  105. L. F. Toledo and C. F. B. Haddad, “Colors and some morphological traits as defensive mechanisms in anurans,” International Journal of Zoology, vol. 2009, Article ID 910892, 12 pages, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. E. D. Brodie and D. R. Formanowicz, “Larvae of the predaceous diving beetle Dytiscus verticalis acquire an avoidance response to skin secretions of the newt Notophthalmus viridescens,” Herpetologica, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 172–176, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  107. A. D'Heursel and C. F. B. Haddad, “Schooling and swimming behaviors of Hyla semilineata tadpoles (Anura, Hylidae),” Iheringia, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 99–104, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  108. M. O. Rödel, L. Sandberger, L. A. Néma-Soua, J. Doumbia, and A. Hillers, “Revalidation of Phrynobatrachus maculiventris Guibé & Lamotte, 1958 and description of its aposematic coloured tadpole,” African Journal of Herpetology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 15–27, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  109. E. J. Denton and M. F. Land, “Mechanism of reflexion in silvery layers of fish and cephalopods,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, vol. 178, no. 50, pp. 43–61, 1971. View at: Google Scholar
  110. E. J. Denton and J. A. C. Nicol, “Studies of the reflexion of light from silvery surfaces of fishes, with special reference to the bleak, Alburnus alburnus,” Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 45, pp. 583–703, 1965. View at: Google Scholar
  111. E. J. Denton and D. M. Rowe, “Reflective communication between fish, with special reference to the greater sand eel, Hyperoplus lanceolatus,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 344, no. 1309, pp. 221–237, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  112. P. J. Herring, “Reflective systems in aquatic animals,” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 513–546, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. D. M. Rowe and E. J. Denton, “The physical basis for reflective communication between fish, with special reference to the horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 352, no. 1353, pp. 531–549, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. L. A. Giguere and R. L. Dunbrack, “Thin layer interference may reduce the visibility of transparent phantom midge larvae (Chaoborus trivittatus) to predators,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1043–1046, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  115. S. Johnsen, “Hidden in plain sight: the ecology and physiology of organismal transparency,” Biological Bulletin, vol. 201, no. 3, pp. 301–318, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  116. S. Johnsen and E. A. Widder, “Transparency and visibility of gelatinous zooplankton from the Northwestern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,” Biological Bulletin, vol. 195, no. 3, pp. 337–348, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  117. M. J. McFall-Ngai, “Crypsis in the pelagic environment,” American Zoologist, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 175–188, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  118. H. Thetmeyer and U. Kils, “To see and not be seen: the visibility of predator and prey with respect to feeding behaviour,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 126, no. 1–3, pp. 1–8, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  119. S. Grosjean, J. Glos, M. Teschke, F. Glaw, and M. Vences, “Comparative larval morphology of Madagascan toadlets of the genus Scaphiophryne: Phylogenetic and taxonomic inferences,” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 555–576, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. C. V. Finnegan, “Ventral tissues and pigment pattern in salamander larvae,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 128, pp. 453–479, 1955. View at: Google Scholar
  121. G. D. Ruxton, M. P. Speed, and D. J. Kelly, “What, if anything, is the adaptive function of countershading?” Animal Behaviour, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 445–451, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. J. A. Endler, “Progressive background in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 187–231, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  123. A. R. Blaustein, “Ecological correlates and potential functions of kin recognition and kin association in anuran larvae,” Behavior Genetics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 449–464, 1988. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. M. S. Foster and R. W. McDiarmid, “Study of aggregative behavior of Rhinophrynus dorsalis tadpoles: design and analysis,” Herpetologica, vol. 38, pp. 395–404, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  125. J. Glos, K. H. Dausmann, and E. K. Linsenmair, “Mixed-species social aggregations in Madagascan tadpoles—determinants and species composition,” Journal of Natural History, vol. 41, no. 29–32, pp. 1965–1977, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. J. Glos, G. Erdmann, K. H. Dausmann, and K. E. Linsenmair, “A comparative study of predator-induced social aggregation of tadpoles in two anuran species from western Madagascar,” Herpetological Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 261–268, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  127. R. J. Wassersug, A. M. Lum, and M. J. Potel, “An analysis of school structure for tadpoles (Anura: Amphibia),” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 15–22, 1981. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. R. Altig and G. F. Johnston, “Guilds of anuran larvae: relationships among developmental modes, morphologies and habitats,” Herpetological Monographs, vol. 3, pp. 81–109, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  129. M. F. Vera Candioti and R. Altig, “A survey of shape variation in keratinized labial teeth of anuran larvae as related to phylogeny and ecology,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 609–625, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. A. Haas, J. Wolter, S. T. Hertwig, and I. Das, “Larval morphologies of three species of stream toads, genus Ansonia (Amphibia: Bufonidae) from East Malaysia (Borneo), with a key to known Bornean Ansonia tadpoles,” Zootaxa, no. 2302, pp. 1–18, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  131. H. Hoffman, “The glass frog tadpoles of Costa Rica (Anura: Centrolenidae): a study of morphology,” Abhandlungen der Senkenberg Gesellschaft Naturforschung, no. 567, pp. 1–78, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  132. J. Villa and C. E. Valerio, “Red, white and brown. Preliminary observations on the color of the centrolenid tadpole (Amphibia: Anura: Centrolenidae),” Brenesia, vol. 19/20, pp. 1–16, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  133. K. L. Gosner, “A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification,” Herpetologica, vol. 16, pp. 183–190, 1960. View at: Google Scholar
  134. R. Altig, “Notes on the larvae and premetamorphic tadpoles of four Hyla and three Rana with notes on tadpole color patterns,” Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, vol. 88, pp. 113–119, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
  135. J. T. Bagnara, “The tail darkening reaction of phyllomedusine tadpoles,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 149–154, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
  136. T. Moriya, Y. Miyashita, J. L. Arai, S. Kusunoki, M. Abe, and K. Asami, “Light-sensitive response in melanophores of Xenopus laevis. 1. Spectral characteristics of melanophore response in isolated tail fin of Xenopus tadpole,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 276, pp. 11–18, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  137. N. Oshima, “Direct reception of light by chromatophores of lower vertebrates,” Pigment Cell Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 312–319, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. W. C. A. Bokermann, “Girinos de Anfíbios Brasileiros—1 (Amphibia-Salientia),” Academia Brasileira Ciências, vol. 35, pp. 465–474, 1963. View at: Google Scholar
  139. P. J. Fernandez and J. T. Bagnara, “Observations on the development of unusual melanization of leopard frog ventral skin,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 216, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  140. C. A. G. Da Cruz and O. L. Peixoto, “Notas sobre o girino de Dasypops schirchi Miranda-Ribeiro (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae),” Revista Brasileira Biologia, vol. 38, pp. 297–299, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
  141. D. G. Thibaudeau and R. Altig, “Sequence of ontogenetic development and atrophy of the oral apparatus of six anuran tadpoles,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 197, pp. 63–69, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  142. R. Altig, A. Lathrop, and R. W. Murphy, “Morphology of southeast Asian tadpoles: Hoplobatrachus chinensis (Dicroglossidae), Leptolalax pelodytoides (Megophryidae), and other megophryids,” Russian Journal of Herpetology, vol. 16, pp. 126–130, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  143. M. Sears, “Responses of deep-seated melanophores in fishes and amphibians,” Biological Bulletin, vol. 68, pp. 7–24, 1935. View at: Google Scholar
  144. D. Hunsaker and C. Johnson, “Internal pigmentation and ultraviolet transmission of the integument of amphibians and reptiles,” Copeia, vol. 1959, pp. 311–315, 1959. View at: Google Scholar
  145. J. A. Hall, J. H. Larsen, and R. E. Fitzner, “Morphology of the prometamorphic larva of the spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus intermontanus (Anura: Pelobatidae), with an emphasis on the lateral line system and mouthparts,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 252, no. 2, pp. 114–130, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. W. P. Porter, “Solar radiation through the living body walls of vertebrates with emphasis on desert reptiles,” Ecological Monographs, vol. 37, pp. 273–296, 1967. View at: Google Scholar
  147. D. F. Cisneros-Heredia and R. W. Mcdiarmid, “Revision of the characters of Centrolenidae (Amphibia: Anura: Athesphatanura), with comments on its taxonomy and the description of new taxa of glassfrogs,” Zootaxa, no. 1572, pp. 1–82, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  148. I. Yajima and L. Larue, “The location of heart melanocytes is specified and the level of pigmentation in the heart may correlate with coat color,” Pigment Cell and Melanoma Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 471–476, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. G. Frangioni, G. Borgioli, and S. Pillozzi, “Relationships between hepatic melanogenesis and respiratory conditions in the newt, Triturus carnifex,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 287, pp. 120–127, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  150. G. S. Surova, “Color variation of common toad (Bufo bufo) larvae,” Russian Journal of Herpetology, vol. 16, pp. 139–142, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  151. C. L. Booth, “Evolutionary significance of ontogenetic colour change in animals,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 125–163, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  152. S. A. McCollum and J. Van Buskirk, “Costs and benefits of a predator-induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis,” Evolution, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 583–593, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  153. M. McClure and A. R. McCune, “Evidence for developmental linkage of pigment patterns with body size and shape in Danios (Teleostei: Cyprinidae),” Evolution, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1863–1875, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  154. G. F. Grether, J. Hudon, and J. A. Endler, “Carotenoid scarcity, synthetic pteridine pigments and the evolution of sexual coloration in guppies (Poecilia reticulata),” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 268, no. 1473, pp. 1245–1253, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. P. Joly, A. Morand, S. Plénet, and O. Grolet, “Canalization of size at metamorphosis despite temperature and density variations in Pelodytes punctatus,” Herpetological Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 45–50, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  156. M. A. Gile and E. M. Attas, “Rare earth elements as internal batch marks for rainbow trout—retention, distribution, and effects on growth of injected Dysprosium, Europium and Samarium,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 2, pp. 289–297, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  157. S. D. Peacor, “Behavioural response of bullfrog tadpoles to chemical cues of predation risk are affected by cue age and water source,” Hydrobiologia, vol. 573, no. 1, pp. 39–44, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. T. J. Hossie, B. Ferland-Raymond, G. Burness, and D. L. Murray, “Morphological and behavioural responses of frog tadpoles to perceived predation risk: a possible role for corticosterone mediation?” Ecoscience, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. T. M. Hulscher-Emeis, “The variable colour patterns of Tilapia zilli, (Cichlidae): integrating ethology, chromatophore regulation and the physiology of stress,” Netherlands Journal of Zoology, vol. 42, pp. 525–560, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  160. J. Bertoluci, “Diel activity of the tadpoles of Hyla hylax (Anura: Hylidae) at Boracéia, southeastern Brazil,” Phyllomedusa, vol. 1, pp. 41–43, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  161. D. R. Golden, G. R. Smith, and J. E. Rettig, “Effects of age and group size on habitat selection and activity level in Rana pipiens tadpoles,” Herpetological Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 69–73, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  162. N. C. Hiragond and S. K. Saidapur, “Microhabitat choice of tadpoles of seven anuran species,” Current Herpetology, vol. 20, pp. 51–60, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  163. L. Schley, R. A. Griffiths, and A. Román, “Activity patterns and microhabitat selection of Mallorcan midwife toad (Alytes muletensis) tadpoles in natural torrent pools,” Amphibia Reptilia, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 143–151, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  164. S. H. Chan and C. Goh, “Frogs of Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (Amphibia: Anura),” Nature in Singapore, vol. 3, pp. 103–116, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  165. C. Inthara, V. Lauhachinda, J. Nabhitabhata, Y. Chuaynkern, and P. Kumtong, “Mouth part structures and distribution of some tadpoles from Thailand,” Thailand Natural History Museum Journal, vol. 1, pp. 55–78, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  166. M. Anstis, M. J. Tyler, J. D. Roberts, L. C. Price, and P. Doughty, “A new species of Litoria (Anura: Hylidae) with a highly distinctive tadpole from the north-western Kimberley region of Western Australia,” Zootaxa, no. 2550, pp. 39–57, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  167. D. W. Pfennig, H. K. Reeve, and P. W. Sherman, “Kin recognition and cannibalism in spadefoot toad tadpoles,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 87–94, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  168. B. L. Storz and T. S. Moerland, “Spadefoot-tadpole polyphenism: histological analysis of differential muscle growth in carnivores and omnivores,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 270, no. 10, pp. 1262–1268, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. J. Van Der Winden, H. Strijbosch, and S. Bogaerts, “Habitat related disruptive pattern distribution in the polymorphic lizard Mabuya vittata,” Acta Oecologica, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 423–430, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  170. B. Gollmann and G. Gollmann, “Geographic variation of larval traits in the Australian frog Geocrinia victoriana,” Herpetologica, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 181–187, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  171. J. M. Savage, “Geographic variation in the tadpole of the toad, Bufo marinus,” Copeia, vol. 1960, pp. 233–236, 1960. View at: Google Scholar
  172. D. G. Dunlap and C. K. Satterfield, “Habitat selection in larval anurans: early experience and substrate pattern selection in Rana pipiens,” Developmental Psychobiology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 37–58, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  173. T. Moriya, K. Kito, Y. Miyashita, and K. Asami, “Preference for background color of the Xenopus laevis tadpole,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 276, pp. 335–344, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  174. J. A. Wiens, “Effects of early experience on substrate pattern selection in Rana aurora tadpoles,” Copeia, vol. 1970, pp. 543–548, 1970. View at: Google Scholar
  175. J. A. Wiens, “Anuran habitat selection: Early experience and substrate selection in Rana cascadae tadpoles,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 218–220, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
  176. R. Jones, D. C. Culver, and T. C. Kane, “Are parallel morphologies of cave organisms the result of similar selection pressures?” Evolution, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 353–365, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  177. R. A. Alford, “Ecology: resource use, competition, and predation,” in Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae, R. W. McDiarmid and R. Altig, Eds., pp. 240–278, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  178. S. G. Faragher and R. G. Jaeger, “Tadpole bullies: examining mechanisms of competition in a community of larval anurans,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 144–153, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  179. S. Vilhunen, K. Tiira, A. Laurila, and H. Hirvonen, “The bold and the variable: Fish with high heterozygosity act recklessly in the vicinity of predators,” Ethology, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  180. N. J. Dingemanse, F. Van Der Plas, J. Wright et al., “Individual experience and evolutionary history of predation affect expression of heritable variation in fish personality and morphology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1660, pp. 1285–1293, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  181. L. C. Fitzpatrick, “Life history patterns of storage and utilization of lipids for energy in amphibians,” American Zoologist, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 725–732, 1976. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  182. N. P. Gramapurohit, B. A. Shanbhag, and S. K. Saidapur, “Pattern of growth and utilization of abdominal fat bodies during larval development and metamorphosis in five South Indian anurans,” Current Science, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 1188–1192, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  183. C. T. Garten, “Relationships between aggressive behavior and genic heterozygosity in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus,” Evolution, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 59–72, 1976. View at: Google Scholar
  184. E. Höglund, P. H. M. Balm, and S. Winberg, “Behavioural and neuroendocrine effects of environmental background colour and social interaction in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus),” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 205, no. 16, pp. 2535–2543, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  185. Ø. Øverli, C. A. Harris, and S. Winberg, “Short-term effects of fights for social dominance and the establishment of dominant-subordinate relationships on brain monoamines and cortisol in rainbow trout,” Brain, Behavior and Evolution, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 263–275, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  186. S. Winberg, G. E. Nilsson, and K. H. Olsen, “Social rank and brain levels of monoamines and monoamine metabolites in arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.),” Journal of Comparative Physiology, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 241–246, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  187. R. A. Relyea and J. R. Auld, “Predator- and competitor-induced plasticity: how changes in foraging morphology affect phenotypic trade-offs,” Ecology, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 1723–1729, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  188. J. C. Touchon and K. M. Warkentin, “Thermally contingent plasticity: temperature alters expression of predator-induced colour and morphology in a Neotropical treefrog tadpole,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 79–88, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  189. O. Hasson, D. Cohen, and A. Shmida, “Providing or hiding information: on the evolution of amplifiers and attenuators of perceived quality differences,” Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 269–283, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  190. P. W. Taylor, O. Hasson, and D. L. Clark, “Body postures and patterns as amplifiers of physical condition,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 267, no. 1446, pp. 917–922, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  191. A. Ortolani, “Spots, stripes, tail tips and dark eyes: predicting the function of carnivore colour patterns using the comparative method,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 433–476, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  192. H. C. Schaefer, M. Vences, and M. Veith, “Molecular phylogeny of Malagasy poison frogs, genus Mantella (Anura: Mantellidae): Homoplastic evolution of colour pattern in aposematic amphibians,” Organisms Diversity and Evolution, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 97–105, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  193. J. C. Anderson, R. J. Baddeley, D. Osorio et al., “Modular organization of adaptive colouration in flounder and cuttlefish revealed by independent component analysis,” Computation in Neural Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 321–333, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  194. H. Katakura, S. Saitoh, K. Nakamura, and I. Abbas, “Multivariate analyses of elytral spot patterns in the phytophagous ladybird beetle Epilachna vigintioctopunctata (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) in the Province of Sumatera Barat, Indonesia,” Zoological Science, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 889–894, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  195. N. Kenyon, A. D. Phillott, and R. A. Alford, “Temporal variation in dorsal patterns of juvenile green-eyed tree frogs, Litoria genimaculata (Anura: Hylidae),” Herpetological Conservation and Biology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 126–131, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  196. K. Tanaka and A. Mori, “Quantitative evaluation of individual snake colorations by use of principal components analysis with variable selection,” Current Herpetology, vol. 26, pp. 117–137, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  197. D. R. Charles, “Studies on spotting patterns. IV. Pattern variation and its developmental significance,” Genetics, vol. 23, pp. 523–547, 1938. View at: Google Scholar
  198. J. W. Armbruster and L. M. Page, “Convergence of a cryptic saddle pattern in benthic freshwater fishes,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 249–257, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  199. J. D. Murray, “How the leopard got its spots,” Scientific American, vol. 1988, pp. 80–87, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  200. G. F. Oster and J. D. Murray, “Pattern formation models and developmental constraints,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 251, no. 2, pp. 186–202, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  201. J. A. Endler, “On the measurement and classification of colour in studies of animal colour patterns,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 315–352, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  202. A. Foreman and S. Appelqvist, “Visual predators impose correlational selection on prey color pattern and behavior,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 409–413, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  203. J. Bailey, A. Alanärä, and E. Brannas, “Methods for assessing social status in Arctic charr,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 258–261, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  204. L. C. Branch, “Social behavior of the tadpoles of Phyllomedusa vaillanti,” Copeia, vol. 1983, pp. 420–428, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  205. R. J. Wassersug, “On the comparative palatability of some dry-season tadpoles from Costa Rica,” American Midland Naturalist, vol. 86, pp. 101–109, 1971. View at: Google Scholar
  206. M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier et al., “Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 1232–1237, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  207. R. F. Lachlan, L. Crooks, and K. N. Laland, “Who follows whom? Shoaling preferences and social learning of foraging information in guppies,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 181–190, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  208. R. A. Johnstone, “Multiple displays in animal communication: “backup signals” and “multiple messages”,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 351, no. 1337, pp. 329–338, 1996. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Giselle Thibaudeau and Ronald Altig. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views4473
Downloads1567
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.