Cycloramphus, Tschudi, 1838

Colaço, Gustavo, Batista, Marcelo, Limp, Gabriel & Silva, Hélio Ricardo da, 2021, The tadpole of an insular population of Cycloramphus boraceiensis Heyer, 1983 (Anura: Cycloramphidae) with a review of larval descriptions for species in the genus, Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 61, pp. 1-11 : 6-7

Species of Cycloramphus

The descriptions of the tadpoles for different species of Cycloramphus indicate that they are morphologically similar, yet little information about phenotypic and ontogenetic variation is available, making it difficult to use their morphology for species diagnoses ( Lima et al., 2010; Nunes-de-Almeida et al., 2016; Verdade et al., 2019). A summary comparing morphological traits for all known larvae is presented in Table 2. Tadpoles of C. boraceiensis differ from C. brasiliensis and C. lithomimeticus by having a shallow bilobed abdominal flap; the flap is deeply bilobed in the latter two. The absence of gap on P 1 in C.fuliginosus , C.lutzorum and C.rhyakonastes distinguishes these three tadpoles from C. boraceiensis . The tadpole of C.izecksoni differs by the relative position of the nares, which are closer to eyes. In C. bandeirensis the nares are instead closer to snout. Cycloramphus boraceiensis differs from C. valae by its eye diameter, which is proportionally (relative to body length) larger than in C. boraceiensis (although we did not take into consideration stages of development). Lastly, C. stejnegeri has the most distinctive tadpole from C. boraceiensis . Tadpoles of C. stejnegeri have a reduced and bilobed abdominal flap, in addition to differences in larval mouthparts (papillae and keratodonts); LTRF 2(1,2)/2(1) and the spiracle is absent (but see discussion). We refrain from using morphometrics for diagnostic comparisons because, properly done, this would require data from across developmental stages to estimate comparative allometric curves, and collecting such data was not possible due to the small sample size.

species in the genus Cycloramphus . Data took from original descriptions,except for C.boraceiensis from Heyer et al., (1990) and C.stejnegeri from Heyer,(1983a).

Morphological misinterpretation and Improper Use of Terminology Associated to Tadpoles of Species of Cycloramphus

Our survey of the literature resulted in the identification of a series of morphological misinterpretations associated with the descriptions of tadpoles of Cycloramphus . These may refer to errors in reporting observations or not reporting features that are present in anuran larvae in general and in Cycloramphus . We also found erroneous use of anatomical terminology and inconsistencies in stage determination. Some of these errors were replicat- ed in follow-up publications and also include improper citation of information presented in the original descriptions. To facilitate the presentation of this material, we organized it as presented below, by characters.