A new and bizarre shape-shifting frog

March 29, 2015 • 9:50 am

Instead of going to church today, we can have our special Alain de Botton-Approved Religion Substitute by worshiping at the church of Our Lady of Natural History. There is in fact a wonderful new discovery about frogs, one described in a new paper in the Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society by Juan Guayasamin et al. (reference and free link below; there’s also a precis in LiveScience).

I can state the results concisely: the authors found a new species of frog in Ecuador that can dramatically change its body shape from spiky to smooth in a matter of only a few minutes.  They then found another species, somewhat but not extremely closely related to the first, that can do the same thing. This kind of change in morphology, induced by the environment, is called phenotypic plasticity. And its observation in the frogs suggests two conclusions:

1. A lot more frogs can do this than have been described, but you need special conditions to see it, so it’s been largely undescribed. Other abilities of amphibians to change shape or color within a short time may also have been missed.

2. Since new frog species are often identified by their appearance after having been collected and pickled in alcohol, there may be described species that are identical to species with other names, but were misidentified because frogs collected at different stages of shape-changing could be mistaken for two different species. This is especially problematic because a large proportion of new species in both invertebrates and vertebrates (18% and 19%, respectively) are described from only a single specimen.

The paper gives other information as well, including genetic data, a phylogenetic analysis of the genus showing how the two shape-shifting species are related,  other genetic information about differences between populations, and a description of the frog’s call and morphology, important for describing it as a new species. But those issues are of more professional interest and need not detain us.

In amphibians, most variation among individuals of a species is in color, but those differences are permanent (like hair and skin color in humans) and don’t change over time. Those traits that do change over time in amphibian species, like crests in newts or tubercules in frogs, change during the breeding season, usually in males as a way to attract mates, and then revert back after the season. They thus change seasonally rather than over just a few minutes, like the frog described in this paper. The rapidity of change in the species is thus novel.

The new species, Pristimantis mutabilis (note the species name!), was first spotted in 2006 in the cloud forests of the Ecuadorian Andes, but its ability to change shape wasn’t detected until three years later. Under normal conditions the frog is spiky, with tubercules and points, but it changes when they’re picked up. As the authors describe in the paper:

All individuals of Prismantis mutabilis presented a markedly tubercular skin texture when found on vegetation or hidden in moss during the night. Large tubercles were evident on the dorsum, upper and lower lips, upper eyelid, arms and legs. After frogs were captured, they all showed a sudden and drastic change in skin texture; all tubercles became reduced in size, and the dorsal skin became smooth or nearly smooth (i.e., few tubercles are visible, mainly on the upper eyelid and heel). When frogs were returned to mossy, wet en- vironments, they recovered a tuberculate skin texture. We speculate that explanatory variables involved in frog skin texture change are stress, humidity, and back-ground. Our observations do not support light availability as a source of texture variation as we observed skin texture change at day and night. The time rate of skin texture variation might depend on the variables mentioned above; we only have one quantitative measure, which is summarized in Figure 2.

Here’s Figure 2: As you can see, the spiky frogs become relatively smooth within five minutes after capture. It’s not yet clear what physiological/biochemical systems are involved in this dramatic change:

Fig_xx_grandisonae_photos

Here are two more pictures of individuals changing:

In this photo, from Figure 3, a sub-adult male is first photographed in its natural habitat (A) and then in the laboratory (B). You can see the change very clearly:

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 8.28.26 AM

And here’s one more with the caption from the paper. These are small frogs, ranging in snout-vent length between 17 and 23 mm (0.7-0.9 inches):

Screen Shot 2015-03-28 at 8.35.04 AM

The authors also identified another species that does the same thing: a congener (frog in the same genus) named Prismantes sobetes. Since the two shape-shifting species are not closely related—a phylogeny shows many other species are more closely related to either than the two are to each other—either the ability to change body texture has evolved twice, or it’s present in some of the intervening species since it evolved in a common ancestor, or it is the remnant of a feature in their common ancestor that has been lost in all other species in the group. Since we don’t know about the abilities of those other species to shape-shift, more work is needed to distinguish among these explanations.

This leaves one big question: Why on earth do the frogs do this? Let’s assume as a working hypothesis that the shape change is an evolved one, and that individuals that could change shape had a selective advantage in the ancestral lineage. (It’s also possible that this is simply a nonadaptive physiological response to stress.) The authors suggest, probably correctly, that the tubercles and spiky appearance help camouflage the frog in the cloud forest, where it often sits among moss, vegetation, and epiphytes (plants growing on other plants); and they also raise one possibility for how they change their shape:

We suggest that skin plasticity is associated with environmental camouflage rather than sexual selection or dimorphism. Pristimantis mutabilis and P. sobetes are geographically distributed in montane cloud forest habitats that are abundant in epiphytes, vegetation, and moss. In these habitats, skin texture that has the appearance of moss or detritus likely conceals the individual from visual predators, such as birds and arachnids. While the physiological mechanisms of how texture changes in such a short time are unknown, we speculate that it could involve allocation of more or less water to existing small structures (e.g. warts and tubercles) on the skin.

But what’s missing here is an explanation for the change itself, which I can’t find in the paper. That is, why do they change from the presumably camouflaged shape to a smooth shape? And here I, who have no knowledge about amphibians, come up short. Perhaps being smooth helps you escape from predators if you’re caught, or helps the frogs jump better.  Experiments (some of them involving predation!) could help settle this.  I suspect some readers who know more about frogs than I (I’m looking at you, Lou Jost) can suggest evolutionary reasons why shape-shifting may be adaptive.  Please give your suggestions in the comments.

__________

Guayasmin, J. M. et al. 2015. Phenotypic plasticity raises questions for taxonomically important traits: a remarkable new Andean rainfrog (Pristimantis) with the ability to change skin texture.  Zool. J. Linnaean Soc. 173:913-928.

h/t: Barry

Readers’ wildlife photographs

March 29, 2015 • 8:10 am

Three oddments today, the first a trio of rescue birds from reader Joe Dickinson (and yes, non-domestic rescue animals count as wildlife!):

Didn’t know rescue birds counted as wildlife.  Here are three from the Sitka Raptor Center, Alaska.  First, a Northern Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium gnoma), then a Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca) and, of course, a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

raptors1

raptors2

raptors3

From reader Harry C.:

While vacationing in Telluride, Colorado, I looked out the window and saw this bobcat (Lynx rufus). I took these with my cellphone. The third photo is my cat, Woodstock.

IMG_5037

From Wikipedia:

In a Shawnee tale, the bobcat is outwitted by a rabbit, which gives rise to its spots. After trapping the rabbit in a tree, the bobcat is persuaded to build a fire, only to have the embers scattered on its fur, leaving it singed with dark brown spots.

IMG_5038

Harry slipped in his own moggie which, according to Timetree, is about 7 million years diverged from the bobcat:

IMG_5051

From reader Tim Anderson:

Here is a picture of part of the Milky Way showing the Southern Cross (just to the left of the dark area in the middle) and the Pointers (the two bright stars toward the bottom).

If you draw an imaginary line through the long axis of the Southern Cross and second one at right angles through the midpoint between the Pointers, the lines cross very close to the Southern Celestial Pole (true south).

The bright collection of stars above the dark area is the Running Chicken Nebula. [JAC: What??]
Taken with a Canon 70D paired with an 18-35mm zoom lens, made from a stack of 41 15-second exposures.
SouthernCross

God-Man not good

March 29, 2015 • 7:15 am

A “Tom the Dancing Bug” strip at The Nib, by Ruben Bolling. Its title is “Is God-Man Good?” and the answer is clear. Now this is Sophisticated Cartooning™.

As always, click twice, waiting between clicks, to enlarge it without overlapping the books on the right.

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 5.57.42 AM

It was just a metaphor!

(From Ruben Bolling on Twi**er, via Jesus & Mo author on Twi**er via Matthew Cobb)

“I kissed her, and it tasted like chocolate”

March 28, 2015 • 3:00 pm

This is just adorable. On my afternoon peregrination around Hyde Park, I came across this new historical marker, which sits in front of the former location of Baskin-Robbins. Although my photo cut it off a bit, you can read what it’s about:

IMG_0478

This is the kind of historical marker I like.

Transcript:

“On our first date, I treated her to the finest ice cream Baskin-Robbins had to offer, our dinner table doubling as the curb. I kissed her, and it tasted like chocolate.”

President Barack Obama. From an interview in OThe Oprah Magazine, Image courtesy of Blackpast.org

On this site, President Barack Obama first kissed Michelle Obama.

Google revealed that this marker is apparently well known. The Chicago Tribune describes it, along with a comment by a cynical member of Generation Z:

But things are a lot different today than they were back in 1989.

Fifteen-year-old Justen Jackson, a ninth-grader at Hyde Park Academy, said it would be hard to find a girl who would be impressed with a first date at an ice cream shop.

“It’s nice, but I wouldn’t bring anyone here on a first date,” Justen said. “They’re going to want to go somewhere better than Subway or Baskin-Robbins.”

Since when did love become more about fancy repasts than togetherness?

 

OMG: $6100!

March 28, 2015 • 2:00 pm

Bidding on the autographed and Houle-illustrated copy of WEIT has gone up another thousand simoleons, and there’s still a bit more than a day left:

Screen Shot 2015-03-28 at 10.01.11 AM

I take no credit for that high price, which I attribute to all the nice autographs that festoon the book and the spiffy artwork, but I’m still pleased that it will provide unexpected help for Doctors Without Borders (the recipient of all the proceeds), who say that donations can do stuff like this:

Screen Shot 2015-03-28 at 10.04.57 AM

So we now have 6000 treatments for children with malaria, and 200 months of therapeutic food for a malnourished child. I hope the well-heeled remember that when they’re putting in their bids.

Note as well that at Kelly’s Books Illuminated auction site, 100% of the money for her beautiful cover painting (a full-sized version of the final cover of The Illuminated Origin, with bids now at $970) goes to DwB, as well as $36 out of the $120 for the Darwin’s orchid + pollinator print, of which there are 4 left.  Here’s one of the latter with her description of how it’s done:

I’ve been illuminating orchid and moth prints, a limited edition of 30. I’m painting directly on the surface of the print with mica-based pearlescent paint (made by Fine-Tec in Germany) and shell gold to represent sunlight reflecting off the leaves, flower, and insect wings. It’s not easy to capture the effect in a photo, but this one comes close.

10849963_821645187905858_5500463065554003158_n

Kelly says she’ll continue to add items with charitable donations to the site, so keep checking back.

And, if you want a nice gift that isn’t as pricey, there are lovely greeting cards featuring Darwin’s first phylogenetic tree in gold letters, 10% of the price also going to DwB (I have a box of those, which I send out only on special occasions). I can’t imagine better presents for the evolution-friendly, especially since you’re helping a good cause at the same time.

Finally, let me leave a link to Kelly’s Facebook page, where she explains the various techniques she uses to create her paintings, prints, and illuminations.

 

The first U.S. penny touts science, not God

March 28, 2015 • 1:00 pm

Reader Will called my attention to a new piece in CNN News describing the auction of the first U.S. one cent coin for a cool 1.2 million dollars. Now that’s a pretty penny! It’s the famous “Birch Cent,” made in 1792, and apparently only ten of them are in existence.

But what’s nice about it is what Will imparted in his email:

The interesting part is the motto on the coin: “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry”. Now we all know that the “In God We Trust” motto is a relatively recent innovation, but I was surprised to find (although I shouldn’t have been) that the founders rated science as one of the boons of liberty. And nary a mention of the creator. Just another little nail in the coffin of “America founded as a Christian nation.” I’ve attached the image.

Sure enough, on the face it clearly says “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry”. If Republicans had their way, it would have said, “Liberty, Offspring of God.”

First Penny 1

My review of “Evolving Ourselves” in WaPo

March 28, 2015 • 11:45 am

A while back I wrote a review of a new book by Juan Enriquez and Steve Gullans: Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection and Nonrandom Mutation Are Changing Life on Earth. That review has just appeared in the Washington Post (free online at the link). For reasons that escape me, it’s in the “opinion” section, though perhaps the Post doesn’t have a book-review section.  As you’ll see, my “opinion” wasn’t very high.

The main problem, as you’ll see in my short review, is that the authors failed to distinguish possible factors that could produce selection with selection itself, so the book was largely an exercise in speculation. One excerpt:

When the authors examine our own species, the evidence is even less convincing. Recent increases in diagnoses of autism, allergies and obesity are certainly real, but they have no obvious connection with how we’re evolving. Obesity makes that point: As hunter-gatherers we evolved to prize sweet and fatty foods, for they were uncommon but nutritious. Today these foods are ubiquitous — witness the yellow arches on every street corner — and our evolved penchant for such fare has become harmful. But the advent of McDonald’s and Big Gulps is not a genetic change; it’s an environmental one. While it’s possible that the health stresses created by obesity — diabetes among them — will produce natural selection for avoiding fats and sweets, that would be a glacially slow process, especially since selection is dampened because obesity-related health issues often arise late in life, after people have had their children. By the time selection eliminates Mom and Dad, the I-love-fats-and-sweets genes will already have been passed to their children.

The authors describe many more big changes in our society, including the heavy prescription of antidepressants and Ritalin. But what has this got to do with evolution? The authors’ point seems to be that these changes could potentially affect evolution by exerting selection on the human genome. But we don’t know that, because evolution depends on whether those cultural changes affect our reproduction and, if so, whether individuals differ genetically in their reproductive response.

At the beginning of the piece I reprise the evidence for modern-day evolution in H. sapiens—something I’m always asked about in my talks for the public.  And, although we’re surely still evolving, we don’t have much hard evidence about what traits are involved and in what direction they’re changing. (I’m not counting the genetic evidence, based on DNA analysis, for “selective sweeps” in the last ten millennia or so.)