• F. S. Billett
  • A. E. Wild


Our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of animal development in general, and of vertebrate development in particular, owes much to work on amphibian embryos. This work spans the whole of the period of experimental embryology in the modern sense, starting with the establishment of fundamental operative techniques at the turn of the century and extending to contemporary studies of nuclear transplantation and biochemical analysis. The usefulness of amphibians is not confined to their embryos; the metamorphosis of their larvae and their capacity for regeneration have also contributed much to developmental studies. This emphasis on amphibian development is reflected in the special attention given to amphibia in all elementary texts dealing with embryology. This is true not only of texts of a general kind but also of the majority of practical manuals. In view of the wealth of material already available it is perhaps presumptuous to add yet more to the countless descriptions and practical suggestions already made. Yet we do so for two reasons. The first is the weaker one, namely, for the sake of completeness of the practical approach to development. Any account with no more than a mention of these embryos would be deservedly considered unbalanced and peculiarly biased.


Xenopus Laevis Nuclear Transplantation Neural Plate Animal Development Practical Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bebbington, A. and Thompson, T. E. (1967) Teaching experimental embryology, I School Science Review, 167, 85–94.Google Scholar
  2. Billett, F. S. (1968), Cellular differentiation in ectodermal explants from amphibian gastrulae, In: McGee-Russell, S. M. and Ross K. F. A. (Eds) Cell structure and its interpretation, Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  3. Billett, F. S. and Brahma, S. K. (1960), The effect of Benzimadazole on the differentiation of ectodermal explants from the gastrulae of Xenopis laevis, J. Embryo!. Exp. Morph., 8, 396–404.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. C. (1965), An immuno-fluorescent study of lens regeneration in larval Xenopus laevis, J. Embryo!. Exp. Morph., 13, 171–179.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. C. and Jones, K. W. (1968), The in vitro development of lens from cornea of larval Xenopus laevis, Dev. Biol. 17, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. C., Clayton, R. M. and Trueman, D. E. S. (1968), Antigens of the lens of Xenopus laevis, Exptl. Eye Res. 7, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayton, R. M. (1970), Problems of differentiation in the vertebrate lens. Curr. Top. Develop. Biol., 5, 115–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deuchar, E. M. (1966), Biochemical aspects of amphibian development. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  9. Etkin, W. (1968), Hormonal control of amphibian metamorphosis. In Etkin, W. and Gilbert, L. I. (Eds) Metamorphosis: A problem in Developmental Biology pp. 313–348. Appleton-CenturyCrofts, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, G. (1963) Lens regeneration from the cornea in Xenopus laevis, J. exp. Zool., 154, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frieden, E. (1968), Biochemistry of amphibian metamorphosis, In: Etkin, W. and Gilbert, L. I. (Eds) Metamorphosis: A problem in Developmental Biology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Grabar, P. and Burtin, P. (1964), Immuno-electrophoretic Analysis, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Gurdon, J. (1967), African Clawed Frogs, In: Wilt, F. and Wessels, N. K. (Eds) Methods in Developmental Biology, Crowell, New York. Hale, L. J. (1958), Biological Laboratory Data, Methuen, London. Hamburger, V. (1960), A Manual of Experimental Embryology, pp. 211–213, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Holtfreter, J. (1933), Die totale Exogastrulation, eine Selbstablosung des Ektoderms von Entomesoderm. Entwicklung and funktionelles Verhalten nervenlosen Organ, Arch. EntwMech. Org., 129, 669–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horstadius, S. (1950), The Neural Crest, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Humphrey, R. R. (1962), Mexican axolotls, dark and mutant white strains: care of experimental animals, Bull. Phila. Herpetol. Soc., 10, 21–25.Google Scholar
  17. Ingram, A. J. (1969), Tumour Induction in the Axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum), Thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  18. King, T. J. (1967) Amphibian Nuclear Transplantation, In: Wilt, F., and Wessels, N. K. (Eds) Methods in Developmental Biology, 737–791. Crowell, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Lowry, O. H. Rosebrough, N. J. Farr, A. L. and Randall, R. J. (1951) Protein measurement with the Folin-phenol reagent, J. Biol. Chem., 193, 265–275.Google Scholar
  20. Nieuwkoop, P. D. and Faber, J. (1967), Normal Tables of Xenopus laevis (Daudin), 2nd Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Rugh, R. (1962), Experimental Embryology, Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  22. Saxén, L. and Toivonen, S. (1962), Primary Embryonic Induction Logos Press/Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  23. Scheidegger, J. J. (1955), Une micro méthode de limmuno-électrophorése, Int. Arch. Allergy, 7, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwind, J. (1933), Tissue specificity at the time of metamorphosis in frog larvae, J. exp. Zool., 66, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaffer, B. M. (1963), The isolated Xenopus laevis tail: A preparation for studying the central nervous system and metamorphosis in culture, J. Embryol. exp. Morph., 11, 77–90.Google Scholar
  26. Spemann, H. (1938), Embryonic Development and Induction Reprinted in 1962 and published by Hafner Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Spiegel, M. (1951), Chemical method for decapsulating amphibian embryos, Anat. Rec., 111, 544.Google Scholar
  28. Takata, C. Albright, J. F. and Yamada, T. (1964), Lens antigens in a lens regenerating system studied by immunofluorescence, Dev. Biol., 9, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Takata, C., Albright, J. F. and Yamada, T. (1965), Lens fibre differentiation and y-crystallin: Immunoflourescent study of Wolffian regeneration, Science, N.Y., 147, 1299–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tata, J. R. (1966), Requirement for RNA and protein synthesis for induced regression of tadpole tails in organ culture, Dev. Biol., 13, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner, S. C. (1973), The endocrinology of Xenopus laevis; the thyroid and pituitary and their relationships to growth and differentiation, Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  32. Vogt, W. (1929), Gestaltungsanalyse am Amphibienkeim mit ortleicher Vitälfarbung, Arch. Entwmech, 120, p 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waggoner, P. W. (1973), Lens differentiation from the cornea following lens extirpation and cornea transplantation, J. exp. Zool., 186, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber, R. (1962) Induced metamorphosis in isolated tails of Xenopus laevis, Experientia, 18, 84–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, R. (1969), Tissue involution and lysosomal enzymes during anuran metamorphosis, In Dingle, J. R. and Fell, H. B. (Eds), Lysosomes in Biology and Pathology, 2, Frontiers of Biology, Vol. 14, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Yamada, T. (1960), A chemical approach to the problem of the organizer, Advances in Morphogenesis, 1, 1–50.Google Scholar
  37. Yamada, T. (1962), The inductive phenomenon as a tool for understanding the basic mechanism of differentiation, J. cell comp. Physiol., 60, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yamada, T. (1967), Cellular and sub-cellular events in Wolffian lens regeneration, In: Moscona, A. A. and Monroy, A. (Eds), Current Topics in Developmental Biology, Vol. 2, pp. 247–283, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Zwaan, J. (1968), Lens specific antigens and cytodifferentiation in the developing lens, J. Cell. Physiol Suppl. 72, 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zwaan, J. and Ikeda, A. (1968), Macromolecular events during differentiation of the chicken eye lens, Exp. Eye Res, 7, 301–311Google Scholar

Copyright information

© F. S. Billett and A. E. Wild 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. S. Billett
    • 1
  • A. E. Wild
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations