Advertisement

PalZ

pp 1–9 | Cite as

New discoveries in the frog Latonia seyfriedi (Anura: Alytidae) and their impact on taxonomy of the genus Latonia

  • Elena SyromyatnikovaEmail author
  • Zbyněk Roček
  • Sabrina van de Velde
Research Paper

Abstract

Latonia seyfriedi, the type species of the genus Latonia, was described by von Meyer (1843) based on an articulated skeleton from the middle Miocene (Serravallian) of Öhningen, Germany. Besides the holotype, four additional articulated skeletons are known from the type locality; all display only the ventral aspect. A similar frog reported by Lartet (1851) from the middle Miocene of Sansan, France was later assigned to the genus Latonia as L. gigantea based on disarticulated skull roof bones covered with sculpture. In the course of time, similar bones were recovered from numerous localities, but, because the dorsal surface of the cranial roof was not known for L. seyfriedi, they were mostly identified as L. gigantea. The crucial question of whether the skull roof bones of L. seyfriedi, especially the frontoparietal and maxilla, bear sculpture or not remained unresolved until recently, when specimen TMH 8438 from Öhningen was made available for micro-computed tomography (CT) investigations. The present study reveals that the frontoparietal is covered by pustular sculpture as in the L. gigantea neotype, and that the sculpture on the maxillae is similar in both taxa. Since other bones are also similar, we suggest that L. gigantea is a junior synonym of L. seyfriedi. Micro-CT scanning of TMH 8438 made it possible to reconstruct the original positions of the bones. It turned out that the nasals are sculptured and overlapped with the frontal processes of the maxillae as well as with the anterior end of the frontoparietal. This allowed us to reconstruct the shape and proportions of the skull.

Keywords

Latonia seyfriedi Latonia gigantea Anura Miocene Öhningen 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Alexey Tesakov (Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia), who greatly assisted in organization of CT scanning, and Paula Muzzopappa (CONICET, Fundación Azara, Caba, Argentina), who made the reconstruction of the skull roof of Latonia (Fig. 6) during her long-term visit to the Department of Palaeobiology, Geological Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Prague. Sandra Chapman (Natural History Museum, London) provided additional information on the London specimen; Anne S. Schulp, Herman J. Voogd, and Jan Willem Pette (Teylers Museum, Haarlem) provided technical assistance. Dirk van der Marel, Arjen Speksnijder, and Rob Langelaan (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden) helped with CT scanning. Alexander Averianov (Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and Dmitry Ponomarenko (Borissiak Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences) helped with data visualizations. We would like to acknowledge also the late Jean-Claude Rage for valuable discussions on relationships between Latonia seyfriedi and L. gigantea. We thank Nadia Fröbisch and two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments. E.S. was supported by the government theme AAAA-A17-117030310017-8 (Russia) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grants № 19-04-00514; Z.R. was supported from the research plan of the Institute of Geology of the Czech Academy of Sciences (RVO67985831).

Author contributions

The coauthors of this paper made the following contributions: S.V. scanned the specimen; E.S. worked on CT scan reconstruction and prepared an early version of the manuscript; Z.R. provided the data on L. gigantea and other specimens of L. seyfriedi, and prepared the last version of the manuscript; all authors contributed to manuscript preparation and approved the manuscript.

References

  1. Biton, R., R. Boistel, R. Rabinovich, S. Gafny, V. Brumfeld, and S. Bailon. 2016. Osteological observations on the alytid anura Latonia nigriventer with comments on functional morphology, biogeography, and evolutionary history. Journal of Morphology 277 (9): 1131–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biton, R., E. Geffen, M. Vences, O. Cohen, S. Bailon, R. Rabinovich, Y. Malka, T. Oron, R. Boistel, V. Brumfel, and S. Gafny. 2013. The rediscovered Hula painted frog is a living fossil. Nature Communications 4: 1959.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhme, M. 2010. Ectothermic vertebrates (Actinopterygii, Allocaudata, Urodela, Anura, Crocodylia, Squamata) from the Miocene of Sandelzhausen (Germany, Bavaria) and their implications for environment reconstruction and palaeoclimate. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 84: 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolkay, S. 1913. Additions to the fossil herpetology of Hungary from the Pannonian and Praeglacial periods. Mittheilungen aus dem Jahrbuch der königlichen Ungarischen geologischen Reichsanstalt 21: 217–230.Google Scholar
  5. Delfino, M. 2002. Erpetofaune italiane del Neogene e del Quaternario. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena.Google Scholar
  6. Gervais, P. 1859. Zoologie et Paleontologie francaises. Nouvelles recherches sur les animaux vertébrés dont on trouve les ossements enfouis dans le sol de la France et sur leur comparaison avec les espèces propres aux autres régions du globe, 2nd ed. Paris: Arthus Bertand.Google Scholar
  7. Friant, M. 1944. Caracteres anatomiques d’un batracien oligocene de la Limagne, le Prodiscoglossus Vertaizoni nov. gen. nov. spec. Comptes-Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l’Academie des Sciences 219: 561–562.Google Scholar
  8. Hír, J., J. Kókay, M. Venczel, E. Gál, and E. Kessler. 2001. A preliminary report on the revised investigation of the paleontological locality-complex “Güdör-kert” at Felsőtárkány, Northern Hungary. Folia Historico-Naturalia Musei Matraensis 25: 41–64.Google Scholar
  9. Hossini, S. 1993. A new species of Latonia (Anura, Discoglossidae) from the lower Miocene of France. Amphibia-Reptilia 14: 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/. (Accessed 25 Jan 2019).
  11. Lartet, E. 1851. Notice sur la Colline de Sansan, Suivie D’une Récapitulation des Diverses Espèces d’animaux Vertébrés Fossiles, Trouvés soit à Sansan, soit dans D’autres Gisements du Terrain Tertiaire Miocène dans le Bassin Sous-Pyrénéen. Auch: J.A. Portes.Google Scholar
  12. Lydekker, R. 1890. Catalogue of the fossil Amphibia and Reptilia in the British Museum (Natural History). IV. Anomodontia, Ecaudata, Caudata, and Labyrinthodontia. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
  13. Mendelssohn, H., and H. Steinitz. 1943. A new frog from Palestine. Copeia 1943: 231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyer, H. von. 1843. Summarische Uebersicht der fossilen Wirbelthiere des Mainzer Tertiär-Beckens, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Weisenau. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde 1843: 379–410.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer, H. von. 1845. Zur Fauna der Vorwelt. Fossile Saeugethiere,Voegel und Reptilien aus dem Molasse-Mergel von Oeningen. Schmerber: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  16. Miklas, P.M. 2002. Die Amphibienfauna (Amphibia: Caudata, Anura) der obermiozänen Fundstelle Götzendorf an der Leitha (südliches Wiener Becken, Niederösterreich). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 103: 161–211.Google Scholar
  17. Młynarski, M. 1976. Discoglossus giganteus Wettstein-Westersheimb, 1955 (Discoglossidae, Anura) from the Miocene of Przeworno in Silesia (Poland). Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 21: 1–12.Google Scholar
  18. Prieto, J., M. Böhme, H. Maurer, K. Heissig, and H. Abdul Aziz. 2009. Biostratigraphy and sedimentology of the Fluviatile Untere Serie (Early and Middle Miocene) in the central part of the North Alpine Foreland Basin: implications for palaeoenvironment and climate. International Journal of Earth Sciences 98: 1767–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rage, J.-C., and S. Bailon. 2005. Amphibians and squamate reptiles from the late early Miocene (MN 4) of Béon 1 (Montréal-du-Gers, southwestern France). Geodiversitas 2: 413–441.Google Scholar
  20. Rage, J.-C., and S. Hossini. 2000. Les Amphibiens du Miocène moyen de Sansan. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 183: 177–217.Google Scholar
  21. Roček, Z. 1994. Taxonomy and distribution of Tertiary discoglossids (Anura) of the genus Latonia v. Meyer, 1843. Geobios 27: 717–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roček, Z. 2005. Late Miocene Amphibia from Rudabánya. Palaeontographia Italica 90: 11–29.Google Scholar
  23. Roček, Z. 2013. Mesozoic and Tertiary Anura of Laurasia. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 93: 397–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sanchiz, B. 1998a. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology, part 4, Salientia. München: F. Pfeil.Google Scholar
  25. Sanchiz, B. 1998b. Vertebrates from the Early Miocene lignite deposits of the opencast mine Oberdorf (Western Styrian Basin, Austria). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien A99: 31–38.Google Scholar
  26. Selmeier, A. 1990. Die Molasseflora von Öhningen. In Klassische Fundstellen der Paläontologie, vol. 2, ed. W.K. Weidert, 214–220. Korb: Goldschneck.Google Scholar
  27. Špinar, Z. 1975. Miopelobates fejfari n. sp., a new representative of the family Pelobatidae (Anura) from the Miocene of Czechoslovakia. Věstník Ústředního Ústavu Geologického 50: 41–45.Google Scholar
  28. Špinar, Z. 1978. Latonia kolebabi Špinar. (In 1976 (Amphibia) and remarks on the “genus Miopelobates”) In Paleontologická konference 1977, ed. V. Pokorný, 289–303. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
  29. Stauber, H. 1939. Erforschungsgeschichte der Öhninger Fundstätten und ihrer Versteinerungen. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie Paläontologie (B: Geologie und Paläontologie) 1939: 314–332.Google Scholar
  30. Syromyatnikova, E., and Z. Roček. 2018. New Latonia (Amphibia: Alytidae) from the late Miocene of northern Caucasus (Russia). Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12549-018-0350-3.Google Scholar
  31. Venczel, M. 2001. Anurans and squamates from the Lower Pliocene (MN14) Osztramos 1 locality (northern Hungary). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 19: 79–90.Google Scholar
  32. Venczel, M. 2004. Middle Miocene anurans from the Carpathian Basin. Palaeontographica (A: Paläozoologie und Stratigraphie) 271: 151–174.Google Scholar
  33. Venczel, M., and J. Hír. 2013. Amphibians and Squamates from the Miocene of Felsőtárkány Basin, N-Hungary. Palaeontographica (A: Paläozoologie und Stratigraphie) 300: 117–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venczel, M., and J. Hír. 2015. Lissamphibians and squamate reptiles from the early middle Miocene of Litke, Northern Hungary. Geobios 48: 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Venczel, M., and E. Ştiucă. 2008. Late middle Miocene amphibians and squamate reptiles from Tauţ, Romania. Geodiversitas 30: 731–763.Google Scholar
  36. Villa, A., M. Delfino, À. Luján, S. Almécija, and D. Alba. 2017. First record of Latonia gigantea (Anura, Alytidae) from the Iberian Peninsula. Historical Biology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2017.1371712.Google Scholar
  37. Westphal, F. 1978. Tylototriton (Amphibia, Urodela) aus dem Obermiozän von Öhningen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 1978(8): 491–501.Google Scholar
  38. Wettstein-Westersheimb, O. 1955. Die Fauna der miozänen Spaltenfüllung von Neudorf a.d. March (ČSR). Amphibia (Anura) et Reptilia. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 164: 801–815.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paläontologische Gesellschaft 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Borissiak Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Laboratory of Palaeobiology, Institute of GeologyCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Naturalis Biodiversity CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations