Abstract
Frogs (Lissamphibia: Anura) use adhesive tongues to capture fast moving, elusive prey. For this, the tongues are moved quickly and adhere instantaneously to various prey surfaces. Recently, the functional morphology of frog tongues was discussed in context of their adhesive performance. It was suggested that the interaction between the tongue surface and the mucus coating is important for generating strong pull-off forces. However, despite the general notions about its importance for a successful contact with the prey, little is known about the surface structure of frog tongues. Previous studies focused almost exclusively on species within the Ranidae and Bufonidae, neglecting the wide diversity of frogs. Here we examined the tongue surface in nine different frog species, comprising eight different taxa, i.e., the Alytidae, Bombinatoridae, Megophryidae, Hylidae, Ceratophryidae, Ranidae, Bufonidae, and Dendrobatidae. In all species examined herein, we found fungiform and filiform papillae on the tongue surface. Further, we observed a high degree of variation among tongues in different frogs. These differences can be seen in the size and shape of the papillae, in the fine-structures on the papillae, as well as in the three-dimensional organization of subsurface tissues. Notably, the fine-structures on the filiform papillae in frogs comprise hair-like protrusions (Megophryidae and Ranidae), microridges (Bufonidae and Dendrobatidae), or can be irregularly shaped or absent as observed in the remaining taxa examined herein. Some of this variation might be related to different degrees of adhesive performance and may point to differences in the spectra of prey items between frog taxa.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AmphibiaWeb. http://www.amphibiaweb.org. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
Barnes, W. J. P., Baum, M., Peisker, H., & Gorb, S. N. (2013). Comparative Cryo-SEM and AFM studies of hylid and rhacophorid tree frog toe pads. Journal of Morphology, 274, 1384–1396.
Crnobrnja-Isailović, J., Ćurčić, S., Stojadinović, D., Tomašević-Kolarov, N., Aleksić, I., & Tomanović, Ž. (2012). Diet composition and food preferences in adult common toads (Bufo bufo) (Amphibia: Anura: Bufonidae). Journal of Herpetology, 46, 562–567.
Deban, S. M., & Nishikawa, K. C. (1992). The kinematics of prey capture and the mechanism of tongue protraction in the Green Tree Frog Hyla cinerea. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 170, 235–256.
Duellman, W. E., & Lizana, M. (1994). Biology of a sit-and-wait predator, the leptodactylid frog Ceratophrys cornuta. Herpetologica, 50, 51–64.
Elsheikh, E. H., Atta, K. E., & Al-Zahaby, S. A. (2013). Comparative study on the tongue of Bufo regularis and Chalcides ocellatus in relation to their habitats. The Journal of Basic & Applied Zoology, 66, 131–138.
Emerson, S. B. (1977). Movement of the hyoid in frogs during feeding. The American Journal of Anatomy, 149, 115–120.
Emerson, S. B. (1985). Skull shape in frogs: Correlations with diet. Herpetologica, 41, 177–188.
Eşrefoğlu, M., Temelli, A., & Eşrefoğlu, M. (2000). Fine structure of the dorsal lingual epithelium of the frog, Rana ridibunda. Journal of Inonu University Medical Faculty, 7, 67–72.
Frost, D. R., Grant, T., Faivovich, J., Bain, R. H., Haas, A., Haddad, C. F. B., de Sá, R. O., Channing, A., Wilkinson, M., Donnellan, S. C., Raxworthy, C. J., Campbell, J. A., Blotto, B. L., Moler, P., Drewes, R. C., Nussbaum, R. A., Lynch, J. D., Green, D. M., & Wheeler, W. C. (2006). The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 297, 1–370.
Gans, C., & Gorniak, G. C. (1982a). Functional morphology of lingual protrusion in marine toads (Bufo marinus). The American Journal of Anatomy, 163, 195–222.
Gans, C., & Gorniak, G. C. (1982b). How does the toad flip its tongue? Test of two hypotheses. Science, 216, 1335–1337.
Gilman, C. A., Imburgia, M. J., Bartlett, M. D., King, D. R., Crosby, A. J., & Irschick, D. J. (2015). Geckos as springs: Mechanics explains across-species scaling of adhesion. PLoS One, 10, e0134604.
Gorb, S. N., & Filippov, A. E. (2014). Fibrillar adhesion with no clusterisation: Functional significance of material gradient along adhesive setae of insects. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 5, 837–845.
Guiraldelli, M. F., Lopes, R. A., Sala, M. A., & Lopes, T. R. V. P. (2011). Morphological, morphometrical and histochemical study of the lining and glandular epithelia of the tongue of the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana. International Journal of Morphology, 29, 226–233.
Helff, O., & Mellicker, M. (1941a). Studies on amphibian metamorphosis. XIX. Development of the tongue in Rana sylvatica, including the histogenesis of “premetamorphic” and filiform papillae and the mucous glands. The American Journal of Anatomy, 68, 339–369.
Helff, O. M., & Mellicker, M. C. (1941b). Studies on amphibian metamorphosis. XX. Development of the fungiform papillae of the tongue in Rana sylvatica. The American Journal of Anatomy, 68, 371–395.
Iwasaki, S. (2002). Evolution of the structure and function of the vertebrate tongue. Journal of Anatomy, 201, 1–13.
Iwasaki, S., & Kobayashi, K. (1988). Fine structure of the dorsal tongue surface in the japanese toad, Bufo japonicus (Anura, Bufonidae). Zoological Science, 5, 331–336.
Iwasaki, S., & Wanichanon, C. (1991). Fine structure of the dorsal lingual epithelium of the frog, Rana rugosa. Tissue and Cell, 23, 385–391.
Iwasaki, S., & Wanichanon, C. (1993). An ultrastructural study of the dorsal lingual epithelium of the crab-eating frog, Rana cancrivora. Journal of Morphology, 215, 89–100.
Iwasaki, S., Miyata, K., & Kobayashi, K. (1989). Fine structure of the lingual dorsal epithelium of the japanese toad, Bufo japonicus (Anura: Bufonidae). Zoological Science, 6, 681–689.
Iwasaki, S., Iwabuchi, Y., & Asami, T. (1997). Histological and ultrastructural study of the effects of cholinergic and adrenergic agonists on salivary secretion from the lingual epithelium and the lingual gland of the Tokyo Daruma pond frog. Tissue and Cell, 29, 323–338.
Iwasaki, S., Iwabuchi, Y., & Okumura, Y. (1998). Histological and ultrastructural studies of the effects of tachykinins on protein secretion from the lingual epithelium and the lingual gland of the Tokyo daruma pond frog (Rana porosa porosa). Archives of Oral Biology, 43, 463–471.
Jaeger, C. B., & Hillman, D. E. (1976). Morphology of gustatory organs. In R. Llinás & W. Precht (Eds.), Frog neurobiology (pp. 588–606). Heidelberg: Springer.
Kleinteich, T. (2015). To have a frog in the throat: Micro-CT imaging of anuran prey in Ceratophrys ornata (Anura: Ceratophryidae). Salamandra, 51, 209–211.
Kleinteich, T., & Gorb, S. N. (2014). Tongue adhesion in the horned frog Ceratophrys sp. Scientific Reports, 4, 5225.
Kleinteich, T., & Gorb, S. N. (2015). Frog tongue acts as muscle-powered adhesive tape. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150333.
Kleinteich, T., & Gorb, S. N. (2016). Frog tongue surface microstructures: Functional and evolutionary patterns. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 7, 893–903.
Metscher, B. D. (2009). MicroCT for comparative morphology: Simple staining methods allow high-contrast 3D imaging of diverse non-mineralized animal tissues. BMC Physiology, 9, 11.
Nishikawa, K. C. (2000). Feeding in frogs. In K. Schwenk (Ed.), Feeding: Form, function, and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates (pp. 117–147). London: Academic Press.
Nishikawa, K. C., & Gans, C. (1996). Mechanisms of tongue protraction and narial closure in the marine toad Bufo marinus. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, 2511–2529.
Ojima, K., Takeda, M., Saiki, C., Takahashi, T., & Matsumoto, S. (1997). Angioarchitectural classification of the fungiform papillae on the dorsal surface of the bullfrog tongue. Annals of Anatomy – Anatomischer Anzeiger, 179, 393–397.
Osculati, F., & Sbarbati, A. (1995). The frog taste disc: A prototype of the vertebrate gustatory organ. Progress in Neurobiology, 46, 351–399.
Parsons, C. W. (1932). Habits of the toad, Ceratophrys. Nature, 130, 279–279.
Peisker, H., Michels, J., & Gorb, S. N. (2013). Evidence for a material gradient in the adhesive tarsal setae of the ladybird beetle Coccinella septempunctata. Nature Communications, 4, 1661.
Perez Goodwyn, P., Peressadko, A., Schwarz, H., Kastner, V., & Gorb, S. (2006). Material structure, stiffness, and adhesion: Why attachment pads of the grasshopper (Tettigonia viridissima) adhere more strongly than those of the locust (Locusta migratoria) (Insecta: Orthoptera). Journal of Comparative Physiology. A, 192, 1233–1243.
Pyron, R. A., & Wiens, J. J. (2011). A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 61, 543–583.
Regal, P. J., & Gans, C. (1976). Functional aspects of the evolution of frog tongues. Evolution, 30, 718–734.
Ritter, D., & Nishikawa, K. C. (1995). The kinematics and mechanism of prey capture in the African pig-nosed frog (Hemisus marmoratum): Description of a radically divergent anuran tongue. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 198, 2025–2040.
Roelants, K., Gower, D. J., Wilkinson, M., Loader, S. P., Biju, S. D., Guillaume, K., Moriau, L., & Bossuyt, F. (2007). Global patterns of diversification in the history of modern amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 887–892.
Santana, A. S., & Juncá, F. A. (2007). Diet of Physalaemus cf. cicada (Leptodactylidae) and Bufo granulosus (Bufonidae) in a semideciduous forest. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 67, 125–131.
Silva, N. R., Souza, P. R., Gonçalves, M. F., Demétrio, M. F., & Prado, C. P. A. (2014). A voracious female during the courtship of Ceratophrys cranwelli (Anura: Ceratophryidae) in the Brazilian Chaco. Herpetology Notes, 7, 93–95.
Sperry, D. G., & Wassersug, R. J. (1976). A proposed function for microridges on epithelial cells. The Anatomical Record, 185, 253–257.
Stensaas, L. J. (1971). The fine structure of fungiform papillae and epithelium of the tongue of a South American toad, Calyptocephalella gayi. The American Journal of Anatomy, 131, 443–461.
Wells, K. D. (2010). The ecology and behavior of amphibians (1400 p). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Acknowledgements
This book chapter is adapted from the publication Kleinteich T. and Gorb S.N. (2016) Frog tongue surface microstructures: functional and evolutionary patterns, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 7, 893–903, doi: 10.3762/bjnano.7.81. We wish to thank the members of the Functional Morphology and Biomechanics group at Kiel University for numerous insightful discussions on adhesion in biological systems. The help of Esther Appel and Joachim Oesert in preparing the specimens for scanning electron microscopy is much appreciated. We are grateful for the support by Alexander Haas and Jakob Hallermann from the Centre of Natural History and Zoological Museum in Hamburg who provided specimens and granted permission to dissect the tongues from the museums specimens examined herein. TK was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG grant KL2707/2-1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kleinteich, T., Gorb, S.N. (2017). Comparative Study of Tongue Surface Microstructure and Its Possible Functional Significance in Frogs. In: Gorb, S., Gorb, E. (eds) Functional Surfaces in Biology III. Biologically-Inspired Systems, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74144-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74144-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74143-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74144-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)