Lungless Frog discovered in Borneo

[Moriarty]

Sensational journalism aside, this is on hell of a biological discovery.

Article:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[theunstrungharp]

Damn stalkers. I thought no one would find me if I moved to Borneo.

[geonerd]

Cool.

Interesting how they consider "lunglessness" as backwards evolution. Seems to me that gas exchange thru skin is a pretty efficient process.

Also, how do we know this is an endangered species just because we've only seen one?

Stupid egocentric Homo sapiens... makes me wonder when the next catastrophic extinction is going to be.

[Moriarty]

Cool.

Interesting how they consider "lunglessness" as backwards evolution. Seems to me that gas exchange thru skin is a pretty efficient process.

Also, how do we know this is an endangered species just because we've only seen one?

Stupid egocentric Homo sapiens... makes me wonder when the next catastrophic extinction is going to be.

:laugh:

Yeah, I took exception to the idea of "backwards evolution". It's an oxymoron if you ask me. I also got annoyed at the environmental slant.

What they didn't mention (and what I'm really curious about) is if the frog can respirate both above and below water with equal efficiency. The jury might still be out on that one, but it has some amazing technological implications and possibilities. The slant on the article makes it hard to tell just how critical the environmental conditions are to the animal.

I'm also interested in whether this frog evolved lungs and then reverted back to a lungless state, or if this species has always been lungless. Considering the claims of specific environmental limitations to the frog's survivability, it appears at a glance to be an example of a deleterious mutation that actually "stuck".

What do you think?

[Jakalwarrior]

Hmm... somone musta told them that evolution had a goal or something it could move away from. I dunno though, that frog could probably still make it to hypno toad without lungs.

[thod]

I thought all frogs breathed through their skin. Found that out as a kid.

[geonerd]

:laugh:

Yeah, I took exception to the idea of "backwards evolution". It's an oxymoron if you ask me. I also got annoyed at the environmental slant.

What they didn't mention (and what I'm really curious about) is if the frog can respirate both above and below water with equal efficiency. The jury might still be out on that one, but it has some amazing technological implications and possibilities. The slant on the article makes it hard to tell just how critical the environmental conditions are to the animal.

I'm also interested in whether this frog evolved lungs and then reverted back to a lungless state, or if this species has always been lungless. Considering the claims of specific environmental limitations to the frog's survivability, it appears at a glance to be an example of a deleterious mutation that actually "stuck".

What do you think?

The environmental slant is exceptionally annoying...

You also pose a good question about breathing in/out of water.

Without any detailed info about this...I would guess that this species has always been lungless. My somewhat weak argument is as follows:

1) There was no mention of a known species that is the same, except with lungs...which makes me think that a mutation can be ruled out.

2) Evolution takes a long time, and often times there are "steps" to it. If the frog had lungs before, I honestly don't think that they could become lungless again in the short amount of time that people have been rolling rocks around looking for gold. But who knows?

I am thinking that perhaps this is a species that is especially hardy, and never really had to "evolve". It was already efficient as it was, and still is. Seems like this frog totally gave natural selection the finger (or the lung??). Now tell me, which is the more advanced creature?

[Moriarty]

More on the frog:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It would appear this critter was actually discovered some time ago, but lost.

Snippet:

"By retaining the lunglessness of their tadpole stage, the frogs can flatten their bodies, which they have a tendency to do in water to help absorb oxygen and avoid being swept away. The Axolotl in Mexico is a similar case, except that it retains its gills."

So, there IS an advantage to dumping the highly buoyant lungs.

I don't know that I'd call it a very hardy species. I'd agree that it's well suited/ specialized for it's environment, but that's true across the biological board.

Despite searching, I can't come up with any evidence that this particular frog ever had lungs. Until someone can prove that it did, I'm gonna go with a highly specialized critter well adapted to the environment it lives in.

[geonerd]

Despite searching, I can't come up with any evidence that this particular frog ever had lungs. Until someone can prove that it did, I'm gonna go with a highly specialized critter well adapted to the environment it lives in.

That works for me!

[hauteur]

Despite searching, I can't come up with any evidence that this particular frog ever had lungs. Until someone can prove that it did, I'm gonna go with a highly specialized critter well adapted to the environment it lives in.

OK, maybe I'm dense here, but how exactly might they prove that the frog had lungs at one point?

[DrEast]

If it doesn't have lungs, then in what sense could it be called an amphibian?

And if that's not the case, how would it be a frog?

[dsday]

Interesting how they consider "lunglessness" as backwards evolution. Seems to me that gas exchange thru skin is a pretty efficient process.

Actually, gas exchange through the skin (or anything, for that matter) is very difficult to do well. Oxygen just doesn't naturally diffuse fast enough. Take a slightly different but molecule of similar size: water. If water were to only move through a corn leaf via diffusion, it would take 7 1/2 years to get from one end to the other! Oxygen is just the same way, which is why bigger organisms have complicated respiratory structures. To find others that do it, you need to look to the flatworms and down. This is probably the first tetrapod known to do it.

OK, maybe I'm dense here, but how exactly might they prove that the frog had lungs at one point?

Probably first because it looks like a frog. Several assumptions ensue there.

After that, comparative anatomy is important. Rarely does a discarded structure disappear, but rather it is shrunken (e.g. appendix). You likely still can find very undeveloped lung structures in the frog.

Even after that, comparative genomics is likely a big key. You could compare the genomic sequence of this species with other frog species. If it can be established this frog came from other frogs, you can assume it had lungs.

Even easier, looking at the developmental genomics of the new species is probably the easiest and most definitive. One can target various developmental genes involved in lung formation and see if and where their analogs in this new species work. Old remnants of genes involved in lung development (as well as looking at other factors like gene regulation elements) point pretty clearly to the existence of lungs at one point.

[Moriarty]

OK, maybe I'm dense here, but how exactly might they prove that the frog had lungs at one point?

Evidence for or against common ancestry is something a karyotype could tack down to a high level of confidence (example: see human chromosome number 2).