Thursday, April 10, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Lungless frog discovered in Borneo

by Reuters

Thanks to Carmine Bello for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN0929151920080410 (images in article)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A rare and primitive frog living in a remote Borneo stream has no lungs and apparently absorbs oxygen through its skin, researchers reported on Wednesday.

The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait, David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and colleagues reported.

Studying the frog could help shed light on how lungs evolved in the first place, they wrote in the journal Current Biology, adding that illegal gold mining in the area may threaten the unique species.

"The evolution of lunglessness in tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) is exceedingly rare, previously known only from amphibians -- two families of salamanders and a single species of caecilian (blindworm)," they wrote.

"Here we report the first case of complete lunglessness in a frog, Barbourula kalimantanensis, from the Indonesian portion of Borneo."

The frog may be endangered because of mining activity, the researchers said.

"In August 2007, we visited ... near NangaPinoh, Western Kalimantan but found that illegal gold mining had destroyed all suitable habitats in the vicinity," they wrote. They snorkeled, waded and turned over boulders to find their quarry.

"The originally cool, clear, fast-flowing rivers are now warm and turbid. Water quality around the ... locality is no longer suitable for the species, but we were able to re-discover two new populations upstream," they added.

"We knew that we would have to be very lucky just to find the frog," Bickford said in a statement.

Animals evolved lungs when they moved from the sea to land millions of years ago. Animals have only lost this important adaptation a few times, Bickford's team said.

"The discovery of lunglessness in a secretive Bornean frog, supports the idea that lungs are a malleable trait in the Amphibia, the sister group of all living tetrapods. Amphibians maybe more prone to lunglessness since they readily utilize other methods for gas exchange," they wrote.

"This is an endangered frog that we know practically nothing about, with an amazing ability to breathe entirely through its skin, whose future is being destroyed by illegal gold mining by people who are marginalized and have no other means of supporting themselves," Bickford said.

Only animals with small body sizes, slow metabolisms and living in fast-flowing cold water where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged quickly may be able to survive without lungs, the researchers said.

"We strongly encourage conservation of remaining habitats of this species," they recommended.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, April 10, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 33 of 33 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #158578 by aflacgirl84 on April 10, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Cool! I wonder what environmental pressures would bring this frog species back to lunglessness?

Other Comments by aflacgirl84

2. Comment #158580 by riki on April 10, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Saw this also on Yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_sc/indonesia_lungless_frog

Other Comments by riki

3. Comment #158582 by SmartLX on April 10, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Click the link for the picture. The thing's like a real-life Goomba.

"All things bright and beautiful, all - yeeaaargh!"

Other Comments by SmartLX

4. Comment #158587 by MaxD on April 10, 2008 at 7:37 pm

The article says:

"The discovery of lunglessness in a secretive Bornean frog, supports the idea that lungs are a malleable trait in the Amphibia, the sister group of all living tetrapods. Amphibians maybe more prone to lunglessness since they readily utilize other methods for gas exchange," they wrote.

I suspected that this would be why the evolutionary loss of lungs would be more likely in amphibians, many of them, perhaps most do some sort of epidermal gas exchange. I would be curious about the structures left behind. Are there any? Or was the evolution back to lunglessness, and soley aquatic life ancient enough that most of the traces are gone? Would the embryology reveal anything? I'm deeply curious about the selection pressures too.
Nifty.

Other Comments by MaxD

5. Comment #158604 by sarah95 on April 10, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Very interesting. No lungs! Epidermal gas exchange is such a thrilling concept! I wonder what that feels like...

However, a bit of an evolutionary misnomer there:

The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait, David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and colleagues reported.

Things don't necessarily always evolve in a predetermined direction. Not backwards or forwards necessarily, but simply changing.
Correct me if I'm wrong?

Other Comments by sarah95

6. Comment #158607 by MaxD on April 10, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Good point Sarah 95.
Things just evolve. .

Strictly speaking it is a moment of sloppy language. Though from the point of view of the apparatus in question, the lung, I can see why a writer might phrase it that way, even if on technical grounds it isn't correct to say it that way.

"I wonder what if feels like?"
I wonder why I never ask those kinds of questions. Though it made me imagine a tingling all over. I wonder if that it is it? Or is it like morymid fishes and completely out of my ability to envision.

Other Comments by MaxD

7. Comment #158670 by dsainty on April 10, 2008 at 10:47 pm

On selective pressures, Wikipedia suggests a couple of ideas:

"Scientists conjecture that the lungs were lost as an adaption to the naturally high oxygen content in the cold, fast rivers they live in, and the fact that decreased buoyancy from a lack of lungs makes the fast rivers easier to navigate without being swept away."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbourula_kalimantanensis

Other Comments by dsainty

8. Comment #158671 by Greyman on April 10, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Most excellent news all round! So many species of frogs have gone extinct over the past few decades. The discovery of a new and fascinating species is remarkable on so many levels.

Other Comments by Greyman

9. Comment #158672 by Pete_C on April 10, 2008 at 11:01 pm

I wonder whether there are vestigial breathing signals sent from the brain to...whatever used to be the muscles that controlled breathing.

Other Comments by Pete_C

10. Comment #158686 by AdrianB on April 11, 2008 at 12:30 am

5. Comment #158604 by sarah95 on April 10, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Very interesting. No lungs! Epidermal gas exchange is such a thrilling concept! I wonder what that feels like...

However, a bit of an evolutionary misnomer there:

The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait, David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and colleagues reported.

Things don't necessarily always evolve in a predetermined direction. Not backwards or forwards necessarily, but simply changing.
Correct me if I'm wrong?

Yes it is a bit sloppy.

This sort of language will always play into the hands of the Gumby type creationist that asks, "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Gumby can now add "scientists think we will evolve back into monkeys."

.

Other Comments by AdrianB

11. Comment #158698 by Adam Morrison on April 11, 2008 at 1:04 am

Ahhh... I thought I was the first one to submit this story. Beaten to the punch I guess :D

It is a bit sloppy to call it backwards evo, but it's probably reflective of the reporter not the scientist (I'm supposing). Unless maybe they meant backwards to a 'primitive' trait (ie one from earlier in the species' ancestry, still a little problematic term though).

Interestingly enough I had a professor once describe Chimpanzee locomotion as possibly a 'backwards' evolution (though she described it much more elegantly). Since we don't seem to have evidence for quadrapedal chimps in the fossil record of any significant age, what if the split between humans and chimps occured after the development of bipedalism and chimps reverted to a quadrapedal locomotion better suited to an arboreal habitat.

It isn't likely, even she admits it, but wouldn't it be a fantastic discovery? I think it'd be hilarious and very humbling to Homo sapiens ;D

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

12. Comment #158705 by Adam Morrison on April 11, 2008 at 1:16 am

Forgot to ask in my last post:

Anybody know if this frog has any olfactory sense? I suppose there could be chemo-receptors in the skin, but that seems like a lot of biological investment with an awful lot of sensory input resulting. Or do frogs generally not have a sense of smell to begin with?

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

13. Comment #158710 by Steve Zara on April 11, 2008 at 1:20 am

Comment #158698 by Adam Morrison on April 11

There is reasonable evidence that humans (or their close ancestors) have been arboreal. We tend to think of the area of Africa where we evolved as grassy plains where our ancestors would have been primarily bipedal, but it is far more likely that it was forested, and so climbing would have been useful.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #158730 by irate_atheist on April 11, 2008 at 1:42 am

12. Comment #158705 by Adam Morrison -

'My frog has no nose'

'How does it smell?'

'Dreadful!'

*-> coat.....

Other Comments by irate_atheist

15. Comment #158766 by mmurray on April 11, 2008 at 3:02 am

and the fact that decreased buoyancy from a lack of lungs makes the fast rivers easier to navigate without being swept away.

So there is an advantage to dumping the `floaties' excellent.

SmartLX: Just in case you haven't seen it before this is
from the Goodies

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

Other Comments by mmurray

16. Comment #158777 by fretmeister on April 11, 2008 at 3:15 am

Can I just say what a wonderful, amazing and surprising place the universe is.

More than ever before I am so annoyed I went into the law and didn't study the sciences.

Other Comments by fretmeister

17. Comment #158810 by Mitchell Gilks on April 11, 2008 at 4:08 am

Cool beans. I don't think "evoling backwards" is misused. It doesn't appear to me that they are implying that lungs are a forward evolution, while lunglessness is a backward evolution. They are merely saying that the amphibians originally had no lungs, then evolved lungs, now have gone back to not having lungs. They have evolved back an ancestrial trait that had be dropped, and dropped a recently evolved trait. I think that warrents "evolving backwards".

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

18. Comment #158825 by GregPhillips on April 11, 2008 at 5:00 am

Not wishing to be pedantic, but isnt that a Monty Python song? I am sure I have it on the Monty Python Sings CD. However I may be wrong...

Awesome song too - thats going on my ever evolving Sunday Morning Hoovering Compilation, a collection of neferous and ungodly tunes to annoy the neighbours with :)

Greg

Other Comments by GregPhillips

19. Comment #158827 by GregPhillips on April 11, 2008 at 5:02 am

Oh and nice frog BTW! :)

Well done Universe! Jolly good.

Other Comments by GregPhillips

20. Comment #158834 by MrPickwick on April 11, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #158777 by fretmeister
I just say what a wonderful, amazing and surprising place the universe is.

More than ever before I am so annoyed I went into the law and didn't study the sciences.

fretmeister: You are my brother! let's cry together!

Other Comments by MrPickwick

21. Comment #158835 by emmet on April 11, 2008 at 5:16 am

It's on YouTube: All Things Dull and Ugly

Seems it's Python: I'm amazed I never heard it before!

fretmeister, MrPickwick: I know a chemist who was called to the bar at 68. Why not the other way around?

Other Comments by emmet

22. Comment #158840 by bluebird on April 11, 2008 at 5:35 am

Our son's biology class is reviewing Darwin/evolution--he'll take in a copy of this article to share. Thanks for posting this!

2008 is Year of the Frog (leap year). It's very gratifying that these invaluable critters are getting attention/help. Specifically, Amphibian Ark (oh well, name is catchy), and I'm guessing this new species will be part of it.

Recently we heard a chorus of frogs at a local park, wonderful!! Had to look this up, our State Amphibian (Missouri) is American Bullfrog.

http://www.yearofthefrog.org/

Other Comments by bluebird

23. Comment #158850 by Darwin's badger on April 11, 2008 at 5:52 am

Bluebird, my son is also covering evolutionary biology at the moment, and he came out from school yesterday with a big grin on his face. "I knew everything that the teacher knew, plus loads of stuff that she didn't," said he. I told him about the frog this morning and he was really interested, so a big "Thank You" to the original poster of the article, and of course, to Richard Dawkins for making evolutionary biology so interesting that my son enjoys hearing me talk about it and wants to pass on what he hears! He doesn't share my enthusiasm for Reeves & Mortimer yet, but give it time...I've only just got him into Alan Partridge, so I'm hopeful of a conversion in the not-too-distant future. :)

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

24. Comment #158857 by Double Bass Atheist on April 11, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #158850 by Darwin's badger

*snip*
so a big "Thank You" to the original poster of the article
*snip*

You are quite welcome!

Before submitting this article for the website, I posted it in the Forum with a question....

How does a creationist explain this?

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

25. Comment #158859 by njwong on April 11, 2008 at 6:01 am

In Singapore's Straits Times paper, it was mentioned that the scientists nicknamed the frog as "Barbie", short for its scientific name, Barbourula kalimantanensis.

http://www.straitstimes.com:80/Free/Story/STIStory_225610.html

The Straits Times article stated that Barbie was first given to Dr Djoko (Dr Bickford's Indonesian colleague) in 1978, and Dr Djoko had been hunting for it ever since, but they couldn't find it again until now, 30 years later. Talk about dedication.

Indonesia unfortunately has a very bad track record with protecting the environment. Indonesia is notorious for having the highest rate of habitat destruction in the world.

Other Comments by njwong

26. Comment #158913 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 11, 2008 at 7:02 am

Speaking of Lungless frogs in Borneo only 38% of Britons believe in God
http://www.secularism.org.uk/only38ofbritonsbelieveingod.html

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

27. Comment #158960 by Bigorra on April 11, 2008 at 8:42 am

Double Bass Atheist:

Before submitting this article for the website, I posted it in the Forum with a question....

How does a creationist explain this?

A creationist would explain it in a way very similar to the way that Kermit the Frog "evolved" from Jim Henson's spare jacket. Snip, snip, cut, cut--lungless frog!

Other Comments by Bigorra

28. Comment #159023 by BigJohn on April 11, 2008 at 10:56 am

So, someone actually goes walking through the jungles of Borneo and says 'Hmm, a frog... I wonder if it has any lungs...' Chop, chop... 'Nope, guess not. Next frog, please...'

Other Comments by BigJohn

29. Comment #159189 by mjkawa on April 11, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Maybe im missing something very obvious,
but isnt it possible that this species never evolved lungs?
It was stated that amphibians originally had no lungs, then lungs evolved in amphibians, then this species evolved into lungless, skin breathers.
Do we know that EVERY species of amphibians evolved into having lungs in the first place?
Im certainly no expert on frogs, or amphibians, but it just seemed an obvious question.
Also, kind of nullifies the "forward" "backward" thing.

Other Comments by mjkawa

30. Comment #159190 by Prankster on April 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

A creationist would say it's god's work, put here to fuck with the minds of both atheists and darwinists...

I'd say it's just evolution making a sideways shift every so often. But then again I'm no expert on evolution

Other Comments by Prankster

31. Comment #159244 by jonjermey on April 11, 2008 at 6:17 pm

How can a frog be secretive?

"It's no use, you swine, I won't tell you where I've hidden the lungs! Even if you torture me until I croak!"

Other Comments by jonjermey

32. Comment #159878 by Adam Morrison on April 13, 2008 at 10:03 am

Re: Steve

Naturally human ancestors at one time probably lived in arboreal (or semi-arboreal) areas. Just look at the post-cranial of most early australopithecenes.

I was mostly aiming to kaibosh the 'backwards evolution' bit by giving an example of a trait normally considered advanced (ie bipedalism) being ousted by the selection of a trait usually considered primitive (both in the biological and conceptual sense)

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

33. Comment #173953 by Ascaphus on May 1, 2008 at 11:46 am

However, a bit of an evolutionary misnomer there:

The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait, David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and colleagues reported.

Yes, there are several clues that the writer has not much training in biology. Such as:

"The evolution of lunglessness in tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) is exceedingly rare, previously known only from amphibians -- two families of salamanders and a single species of caecilian (blindworm)," they wrote.

"Here we report the first case of complete lunglessness in a frog, Barbourula kalimantanensis, from the Indonesian portion of Borneo."

The 'previously' would seem to indicate that we have here an exception to that precedent. But... This frog is just another amphibian, unless there is something they haven't told us. Lungless tetrapods are still all amphibians.

mjkawa wrote:

isnt it possible that this species never evolved lungs?

Possible, but unlikely. The Anurans as an order do have lungs. For this frog to come from a line of lungless amphibians would require that this entire line (a new Order?) of frogs has evolved an identical skeletal structure and all other Anuran characteristics in what would be a nearly impossible collection of evolutionary analogies! After this amazing case of parallel evolution the clades are identical except for lungs. The simpler explanation is that an Anuran frog species has acquired lunglessness.

Matt

(you can tell from my avatar that I have a soft spot for lotic frogs. :)

Other Comments by Ascaphus