|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Order: Anura
Family: Cycloramphidae
The Cycloramphidae is a family of nearly a hundred species that diverged from all other amphibian lineages some 65 million years ago, around the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. In terms of mammalian evolutionary comparisons, they are as dissimilar from their closest relatives as whales are from giraffes.
Darwin’s frogs – 2 small species in the genus Rhinoderma – formally constituted their own separate family, the Rhinodermatidae. The genus Rhinoderma is only known from the temperate forests of southern Chile and Argentina, and there is some overlap in range of the two species. Their classification as a distinct family was chiefly on the basis of their highly unusual mouth-brooding behaviour. Both species of Darwin’s frog undertake partial care of the offspring in their mouths or, more specifically, their vocal sacs. The males of these two species guard the eggs until hatching and then swallow the tadpoles into their vocal sac. In the case of the Chile Darwin’s frog, the tadpoles are then transported from the damp nest site to pools of water where they are released. However, in the slightly less endangered relative, simply named Darwin’s frog, the tadpoles develop into froglets within the vocal sac, hopping out of the mouth about 50 days later. The male’s vocal sac is particularly large and extends half way down his belly.
Darwin’s frogs – 2 small species in the genus Rhinoderma – formally constituted their own separate family, the Rhinodermatidae. The genus Rhinoderma is only known from the temperate forests of southern Chile and Argentina, and there is some overlap in range of the two species. Their classification as a distinct family was chiefly on the basis of their highly unusual mouth-brooding behaviour. Both species of Darwin’s frog undertake partial care of the offspring in their mouths or, more specifically, their vocal sacs. The males of these two species guard the eggs until hatching and then swallow the tadpoles into their vocal sac. In the case of the Chile Darwin’s frog, the tadpoles are then transported from the damp nest site to pools of water where they are released. However, in the slightly less endangered relative, simply named Darwin’s frog, the tadpoles develop into froglets within the vocal sac, hopping out of the mouth about 50 days later. The male’s vocal sac is particularly large and extends half way down his belly.
The Chile Darwin’s frog is a small species, measuring 31 mm in total length for males and 33 mm for females. A distinguishing feature of the Darwin’s frogs is the presence of a fleshy “proboscis” or narrow pointed projection of the tip of the snout which resembles a tiny Pinocchio’s nose. The forelimbs and hindlimbs are slender, and the toes are extensively webbed. This species can be highly variable in colour. The back or dorsal surface may be uniformly tan, brown, reddish brown, pale green, dark green, or a mixture of brown and green. The ventral (or lower) surface has black and white splotches. Brooding males show enlarged vocal sacs.
Both species in the genus Rhinoderma (the Chile Darwin’s frog, R. rufum and Darwin’s frog, R. darwinii) exhibit a highly unusual form of parental care. They are commonly referred to Darwin’s frogs or the “mouth-brooding“ frogs. This second epithet is derived from the fact that in both species, the tadpoles spend part of their development in the vocal sac of their father. Darwin’s frog produces non-feeding tadpoles which, upon hatching in a damp nest on the ground, are swallowed by the male and may spend around 50 days metamorphosing in his vocal sac. The may also receive some nutrients from the males during this time, and hop out of the male’s mouth as fully formed froglets. In the Chile Darwin’s frog, however, the tadpoles stay in the male’s mouth is not so protracted, and they merely hitch a ride in their father’s vocal sacs to a pool of water, where they continue their development as free-living tadpoles. In the Chile Darwin’s frogs, the tadpoles only undergo the first stages of their development in the male’s mouth.
During the mating season, male Chile Darwin’s frogs start producing a mating call consisting of a rapid “pip, pip, pip, pip...“ with long pauses between repetitions. Calls are made while the males are hidden in vegetation, on the surface of moist soil. The dominant frequency of the call is about 3000 Hz, which is at the upper limit of the range for frogs found in this species’ temperate forest habitat. The call of the Chile Darwin’s frog is very similar to that of the Darwin’s frog, which is a rare finding for frogs that are both related and sympatric (co-occurring). It is not known how tadpole transport inside the vocal sacs might affect male calling characteristics.
The female lays a clutch of 12-24 small eggs on moist ground in leaf litter, which are fertilised and then guarded by the male. They start to move after about eight days later, when the developing tadpoles first wriggle within the eggs. This prompts the males Chile Darwin’s frog to take up the eggs into his vocal sac. The eggs subsequently hatch there and the tadpoles remain in the male frog’s vocal sacs. They are incubated in the males mouth to the point of developing fully-formed keratinized jaws and a functioning digestive system, where upon the male releases the tadpoles into a pool of water or stream. The tadpoles complete their development and undergo metamorphosis in the water.
The Chile Darwin’s frog is presumed to be a sit-and-wait predator which preys on small insects and other small invertebrates. This frog is terrestrial, and primarily diurnal or day-active.
During the mating season, male Chile Darwin’s frogs start producing a mating call consisting of a rapid “pip, pip, pip, pip...“ with long pauses between repetitions. Calls are made while the males are hidden in vegetation, on the surface of moist soil. The dominant frequency of the call is about 3000 Hz, which is at the upper limit of the range for frogs found in this species’ temperate forest habitat. The call of the Chile Darwin’s frog is very similar to that of the Darwin’s frog, which is a rare finding for frogs that are both related and sympatric (co-occurring). It is not known how tadpole transport inside the vocal sacs might affect male calling characteristics.
The female lays a clutch of 12-24 small eggs on moist ground in leaf litter, which are fertilised and then guarded by the male. They start to move after about eight days later, when the developing tadpoles first wriggle within the eggs. This prompts the males Chile Darwin’s frog to take up the eggs into his vocal sac. The eggs subsequently hatch there and the tadpoles remain in the male frog’s vocal sacs. They are incubated in the males mouth to the point of developing fully-formed keratinized jaws and a functioning digestive system, where upon the male releases the tadpoles into a pool of water or stream. The tadpoles complete their development and undergo metamorphosis in the water.
The Chile Darwin’s frog is presumed to be a sit-and-wait predator which preys on small insects and other small invertebrates. This frog is terrestrial, and primarily diurnal or day-active.
This species has been recorded in leaf litter in temperate mixed forests, and also in bogs surrounded by forests. Chile Darwin’s frogs have been found near slowly running streams in wet temperate southern beech (Nothofagus) forest at elevations from 0 to 500 metres above sea level.
This species occurs in Chile from Curico (Curico Province) to Ramadillas (Arauco Province) at elevations of between 0-500 metres above sea level across a range of nearly 30,000 km sq..
The Chile Darwin’s frog formerly occurred in small, isolated populations, and was fairly regularly seen until around 1978. Since around 1980 there have been no confirmed reports despite several attempts to relocate the species. This species may already be extinct.
This species is registered as being in decline in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
The Chile Darwin’s frog is listed as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species because of an observed population decline, estimated to be more than 80% over the last ten years, based on the apparent disappearance of most or all of the population for reasons that are not understood.
This species has probably been negatively impacted by the destruction of the native vegetation through the planting of pine plantations and for the building of second home. However, this is unlikely to fully explain its disappearance, causes of which are not fully understood. Declines that have taken place in suitable habitat might be the result of threats such as climate change or disease, such as chytridiomycosis caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which has been responsible for many amphibian declines globally, although this has not previously been reported from Chile. This species has not been seen for over 25 years and may already be extinct.
The Chile Darwin’s frogs are not known from any protected areas and there are currently no conservation measures ongoing for this species.
This project is investigating the enigmatic declines of the Darwin's frogs in Chile.
The species may already be extinct, but further survey work is urgently required to determine whether this is indeed the case. Concurrent with new field surveys, comprehensive disease monitoring of the habitat should take place to find out if the range of the Chile Darwin’s frog contains any amphibian pathogens, such as Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the chytrid fungus.
In view of the possible risk of disease, any surviving individuals may need to form the basis of an ex situ captive breeding programme.
In view of the possible risk of disease, any surviving individuals may need to form the basis of an ex situ captive breeding programme.
Claudio is investigating the causes behind the enigmatic declines of the Rhinoderma Darwins frogs.
AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation [web application]. 2006. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available: amphibiaweb. Accessed: 08 December 2006.
Busse, K. 1970. Care of the young by male Rhinoderma darwini. Copeia 1970: 395.
Busse, K. 1991. Bemerkungen zum Fortpflanzungsverhalten und zur Zucht von Rhinoderma darwinii. Herpetofauna 13: 11-21.
Cei, J.M. 1962. Batracios de Chile. Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile.
Cei, J.M. 1980. Amphibians of Argentina. Monitore Zoologico Italiano N.S. Monografia.
Duellman, W. E. and Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Formas, J.R. 1995. Anfibios. In: J.M. Simonetti, T.K. Arroyo, A. Spotorno and E. Loz (eds), Diversidad Biológica de Chile. Comisión nacional de ciencia y tecnología (CONICYT), Santiago-Chile.
Formas, J.R., Pugin, E. and Jorquera, B. 1975. La identidad del batracio chileno Heminectes rufus Philippi 1902. Physis (Argentina) 34: 147-157.
Frost, Darrel R. 2006. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 4 (17 August 2006). Electronic Database accessible at:. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.
Glade, A. (ed.) 1993. Red List of Chilean Terrestrial vertebrates. Corporación nacional forestal (CONAF) Santiago-Chile.
Groombridge, B. (ed.) 1994. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Halliday, T. and Adler, C. (eds.). 2002. The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
IUCN, Conservation International and NatureServe. 2006. Global Amphibian Assessment. Global Amphibian Assessment. Accessed on 08 December 2006.
Jorquera, B. 1986. Biología de la reproducción del género Rhinoderma. Anales del Museo de Historia Natural. Valparaíso, Chile 17: 53-62.
Jorquera, B., Garrido, O. and Pugín, E. 1982. Comparative studies of the digestive tract development between Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum. Journal of Herpetology 16: 204-214.
Jorquera, B., Pugín, E. and Goicoechea, O. 1972. Tabla de desarrollo normal de Rhinoderma darwini. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 4: 5-19.
Lavilla, E.O. 1987. La Larva de Rhinoderma darwinii D. and B. (Anura: Rhinodermatidae). Acta Zoologica Lilloana 39: 81-88.
Lavilla, E.O., Ponssa, M.L., Baldo, D., Basso, N., Bosso, A., Cespedez, J., Chebez, J.C., Faivovich, J., Ferrari, L., Lajmanovich, R., Langone, J.A., Peltzer, P., Ubeda, C., Vaira, M. and Vera Candioti, F. 2000. Categorización de los Anfibios de Argentina. In: Lavilla, E.O., Richard, E. and Scrocchi, G.J. (eds), Categorización de los Anfibios y Reptiles de la República Argentina, pp. 11-34. Asociación Herpetológica Argentina, Tucumán, Argentina.
Mattison, C. 1987. Frogs and toads of the world. Blandford Press, U.K.
Obst, F.J., Richter, K. and Jacob, U. 1984. The Completely Illustrated Atlas of Reptiles and Amphibians for the Terrarium. T.F.H. Publication Inc., N.J., U.S.A.
Servicio Agrícola Ganadero. 1998. Cartilla der caza. Subdepartamento de vida silvestre (DIPROREN). Imp. I. Flores Santiago de Chile.
Úbeda, C., Veloso, A., Núñez, H. & Lavilla, E. 2004. Rhinoderma darwinii. In: IUCN 2006. 2006
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 27 July 2007.
Veloso, A. 1998. Variabilidad genética y distribución geográfica de Rhinoderma darwinii (Amphibia, Rhinodermatidae). In: Simposio Darwin en Chiloé. Reflexiones sobre Historia, Ecología y Evolución. 22 al 26 de noviembre de 1998. Ancud, Chiloé, Chile.
Veloso, A. and Navarro, J. 1988. Lista Sistemática y distribución geográfica de anfibios y reptiles de Chile. Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali - Torino 6(2): 481-539.
Veloso, A., Núñez, H., Díaz-Paéz, H. & Formas, R. 2004. Rhinoderma rufum. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.. Downloaded on 06 September 2007.
Busse, K. 1970. Care of the young by male Rhinoderma darwini. Copeia 1970: 395.
Busse, K. 1991. Bemerkungen zum Fortpflanzungsverhalten und zur Zucht von Rhinoderma darwinii. Herpetofauna 13: 11-21.
Cei, J.M. 1962. Batracios de Chile. Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile.
Cei, J.M. 1980. Amphibians of Argentina. Monitore Zoologico Italiano N.S. Monografia.
Duellman, W. E. and Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Formas, J.R. 1995. Anfibios. In: J.M. Simonetti, T.K. Arroyo, A. Spotorno and E. Loz (eds), Diversidad Biológica de Chile. Comisión nacional de ciencia y tecnología (CONICYT), Santiago-Chile.
Formas, J.R., Pugin, E. and Jorquera, B. 1975. La identidad del batracio chileno Heminectes rufus Philippi 1902. Physis (Argentina) 34: 147-157.
Frost, Darrel R. 2006. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 4 (17 August 2006). Electronic Database accessible at:
Glade, A. (ed.) 1993. Red List of Chilean Terrestrial vertebrates. Corporación nacional forestal (CONAF) Santiago-Chile.
Groombridge, B. (ed.) 1994. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Halliday, T. and Adler, C. (eds.). 2002. The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
IUCN, Conservation International and NatureServe. 2006. Global Amphibian Assessment. Global Amphibian Assessment. Accessed on 08 December 2006.
Jorquera, B. 1986. Biología de la reproducción del género Rhinoderma. Anales del Museo de Historia Natural. Valparaíso, Chile 17: 53-62.
Jorquera, B., Garrido, O. and Pugín, E. 1982. Comparative studies of the digestive tract development between Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum. Journal of Herpetology 16: 204-214.
Jorquera, B., Pugín, E. and Goicoechea, O. 1972. Tabla de desarrollo normal de Rhinoderma darwini. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 4: 5-19.
Lavilla, E.O. 1987. La Larva de Rhinoderma darwinii D. and B. (Anura: Rhinodermatidae). Acta Zoologica Lilloana 39: 81-88.
Lavilla, E.O., Ponssa, M.L., Baldo, D., Basso, N., Bosso, A., Cespedez, J., Chebez, J.C., Faivovich, J., Ferrari, L., Lajmanovich, R., Langone, J.A., Peltzer, P., Ubeda, C., Vaira, M. and Vera Candioti, F. 2000. Categorización de los Anfibios de Argentina. In: Lavilla, E.O., Richard, E. and Scrocchi, G.J. (eds), Categorización de los Anfibios y Reptiles de la República Argentina, pp. 11-34. Asociación Herpetológica Argentina, Tucumán, Argentina.
Mattison, C. 1987. Frogs and toads of the world. Blandford Press, U.K.
Obst, F.J., Richter, K. and Jacob, U. 1984. The Completely Illustrated Atlas of Reptiles and Amphibians for the Terrarium. T.F.H. Publication Inc., N.J., U.S.A.
Servicio Agrícola Ganadero. 1998. Cartilla der caza. Subdepartamento de vida silvestre (DIPROREN). Imp. I. Flores Santiago de Chile.
Úbeda, C., Veloso, A., Núñez, H. & Lavilla, E. 2004. Rhinoderma darwinii. In: IUCN 2006. 2006
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 27 July 2007.
Veloso, A. 1998. Variabilidad genética y distribución geográfica de Rhinoderma darwinii (Amphibia, Rhinodermatidae). In: Simposio Darwin en Chiloé. Reflexiones sobre Historia, Ecología y Evolución. 22 al 26 de noviembre de 1998. Ancud, Chiloé, Chile.
Veloso, A. and Navarro, J. 1988. Lista Sistemática y distribución geográfica de anfibios y reptiles de Chile. Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali - Torino 6(2): 481-539.
Veloso, A., Núñez, H., Díaz-Paéz, H. & Formas, R. 2004. Rhinoderma rufum. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
if you can provide new information to update this species account or to correct any errors, please email us at info@edgeofexistence.org
Associated Blog Posts
27th Apr 11
The unique early development of Darwin’s frogs
By EDGE Fellow Claudio Soto-Azat
Darwin’s frogs are two species of endemic anurans: the Northern Darwi...
Read
18th Oct 10
A second update from EDGE Fellow Claudio Soto-Azat.
Darwin’s frogs are two species of endangered anurans endemic to the native template beech forests of C...
Read
11th Oct 10
An update from EDGE Fellow Claudio Soto-Azat
Darwin’s frogs (Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum) are two endangered amphibians species only known from the t...
Read
23rd Apr 10
In the last year, EDGE Fellow for the conservation of Darwin’s frogs, wildlife veterinarian, Claudio Soto, has undertaken several activities in order to kn...
Read
12th Apr 10
Today's Species of the Day is the Darwin's frog (Rhinoderma darwinii). This is one of our EDGE amphibian focal species, along with its only close relative, t...
Read
17th Dec 09
Intrepid frog fan and documentary-maker Lucy Cooke recently embarked upon a South American odyssey to document the curious lives of amphibians and highlight ...
Read
11th Sep 09
Since the Global Amphibian Assessment came out in 2004, statistics detailing the sinister predicament of the amphibians have been widely and frequently quote...
Read
ARKive
