![]() ![]() Some exemplary studies include cranial anatomy of tadpoles (Haas et al. Digital dissections are rare among frogs. CT scans) in online repositories such as DigiMorph ( or MorphoSource ( which are open access and for anyone to use for teaching or research purposes.Įxtant amphibians ( ) comprise ~6.700 anurans, which is about 90% of the whole class, and around one‐fifth of all extant tetrapods (Jetz & Pyron, 2018). Such datasets are referred to as digital dissections (Brocklehurst et al., 2019 Collings & Richards, 2019 Cox & Faulkes, 2014 Jones et al., 2019 Klinkhamer et al., 2017 Lautenschlager et al., 2014 Porro & Richards, 2017) that provide several advantages: (i) inclusion of annotations for bones, muscles and a variety of other organs for comparative or teaching purposes, (ii) availability as interactive *.PDF files for enhanced understanding of 3D structures and comparison to other species and (iii) deposition of the original image data (i.e. 2019 Holliday et al., 2013 Sullivan et al., 2019) and becomes more widespread in vertebrate morphology. To date, micro‐computed tomography (microCT) is a suitable tool for a wide range of specimen sizes (Handschuh et al. This problem was partially overcome by microscopic dual‐energy CT (microDECT) imaging protocols that allow automatic spectral separation of mineralized tissue and stained soft tissues (Handschuh et al., 2017) and enable effective segmentation and fast visualization of, for example, musculoskeletal systems (Schwarz et al., 2020). Intensities of stained soft tissues, however, often overlap with skeletal structures, which impedes easy visualization of mineralized structures alone. Soft tissue staining allows accurate three‐dimensional (3D) reconstructions of muscles, cartilages and other non‐mineralized tissues. In contrast, non‐mineralized tissue shows poor X‐ray contrast and only became feasible for CT imaging by the advent of new staining techniques (Gignac et al., 2016 Metscher, 2009). This enabled fast and easy visualization of skeletons of geometrically undistorted datasets, compared with traditional physical sectioning techniques or drawings based on destructive dissections. Initially, X‐ray CT was used to study high‐density materials such as the mineralized vertebrate skeleton (Bever et al., 2005 Carpenter et al., 2004 Maisano et al., 2002 Rowe et al., 2005) or fossils (Polcyn et al., 2002 Tykoski et al., 2002), which can be easily visualized via thresholding or other automatic segmentation methods. Since the beginning of this century, morphological studies hugely profited from advances in imaging techniques such as X‐ray computed tomography (CT) and from image processing and analysis tools. gayi is able to employ various methods of feeding. Nevertheless, by keeping a certain amount of flexibility of the design of its feeding apparatus, C. gayi provide a clear picture of necessities prescribed by the habitat. pentadactylus, the skeletal and muscular adaptations of the aquatic species C. This study brings new insights into the relation of the anatomy of the feeding apparatus to the preferred feeding method via 3D imaging techniques. Moreover, due to the different skull morphology, the origins of two of the five musculi adductores vary between the species. sternohyoideus) is more massive in the aquatic species C. pentadactylus is more massively built and with a broader interdigitating area of the two main muscles, the protractor musculus genioglossus and the retractor musculus hyoglossus. Differences in this regard are evident in the tongue musculature, which in L. MicroCT scans of both species were conducted in order to reconstruct the complete anatomical condition of the whole feeding apparatus for the first time. These two frog species are of similar size, feed on similar diet but within different main habitats. This called for a detailed investigation of the morphology of its feeding apparatus and a comparison to a fully terrestrial species that is known to feed by lingual prehension such as Leptodactylus pentadactylus. Calyptocephalella gayi, known for its aquatic lifestyle, is not restricted to aquatic feeding but also feeds terrestrially using lingual prehension. Here, we present the cranial anatomy of two frog species providing descriptions of bone structures and soft tissues of the feeding apparatus with comments to possible relations to habitat and feeding ecology. Micro‐computed tomography (microCT) of small animals has led to a more detailed and more accurate three‐dimensional (3D) view on different anatomical structures in the last years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |