================================================================= Water frog information -- Newsletter October 1998 ================================================================= Website: http://waterfrogs.scs.fsu.edu/waterfrogs.html Distribution: Peter Beerli (beerli@scs.fsu.edu) Address Questions/Remarks to items in this newsletter to frog@genetics.washington.edu or the respective authors of chapters/columns. Organizational questions to beerli@scs.fsu.edu ================================================================= Contributions from: Trevor Beebee, Dirk Schmeller, Nusa Vogrin ================================================================= EDITORIAL Dear colleagues- A year after the reactivation of an electronic water frog newsletter and many additions and changes to the WIP-website at http://waterfrogs.scs.fsu.edu (maintained by Peter Beerli with help from contributors), it is time to review our progress. Right now 64 scientists are listed at the server, but about another 50 also get the newsletter from colleagues. On average, one new scientist is added to the list every month. The number of visitors to the site increased from approximately 10000 in 1997 to over 16000 up to September 1998 Although this increase may partly result from growth of the internet, it also probably reflects improvements in the site that make it both more attractive and more useful. Many questions from pupils, students and others were addressed to us; these questions give us an idea of the amount and kind of interest in the WIP-site. Despite this considerable progress, the newsletter is kind of a sick child. We started a healthy newsletter service in 1997 and early 1998, but the information flow from users and readers towards Peter and me decreased very quickly. This is the main reason that we have not distributed a monthly newsletter; right now we have not had a newsletter for several month. I want, therefore, to stress some ideas how each of you can help make a better newsletter. In every lab problems occur, meetings are announced, and other questions discussed. Collect these tidbits of information and send them to Peter (beerli@scs.fsu.edu) or Dirk (dirk@hydra.biologie.Uni-Mainz.DE). If you send general information, we will include it in the next newsletter. If it is urgent, Peter will send it immediately to all scientists on the list. Now that I have complained about missing contributions, I wish you lots of success and hope that, together, we will be able to heal our sick child. Dirk Schmeller Mainz, 3 September 1998 CONTENTS (1) A short description of one of the "water frog labs." Trevor Beebee sent us this letter at the beginning of 1998, but the content still describes at least part of his interest. (Peter Beerli/Thomas Uzzell) (2) Summary of a meeting of people interested in water frogs at the last SEH meeting (Nusa Vogrin/Dirk Schmeller) (3) Initiation of a new column on Morphology/Development/Gametogenesis (edited by Maria Ogielska) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) Trevor Beebee's group in Sussex (UK): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At Sussex we have recently begun studies in two areas of water frog Ecology. (1) The question as to whether Rana lessonae might be native to Britain. Conventional wisdom has it that all water frog populations in Britain (we have R. lessonae, R. esculenta and R. ridibunda) are the result of deliberate introductions over the past 150+ years. Recent (mostly circumstantial) evidence suggests, however, that R. lessonae may have been native to some fenland areas of eastern England, though the last population has recently become extinct there. Subfossil bone fragments have been found, but their identification is controversial. We have therefore begun to attempt the use of molecular methods for identifying frog bone fragments. To this end we have developed a procedure for extracting DNA from frog bones that gives material suitable for PCR. So far we have only tried RAPD tests (not an ideal approach to this problem) using species-specific primers. To our surprise this worked on some frog bones of unknown age from a cave in Ireland, but not with the fen samples. Now we are considering the development of specific mtDNA primers, which should provide a better and more sensitive test. (2) The effects of bottlenecks on introduced populations. The introduction of Rana ridibunda into Britain is known in great detail (i.e. where the frogs came from, how many, and exactly where and when they were released). This provides a good "experiment" to look at bottlenecking effects. We are presently developing RAPD primers suitable for population genetic studies, with a view to analyzing the genetic structures of British, Hungarian (source of origin) and Swiss (also introduced) R. ridibunda populations. In this project, mainly undertaken by Inga Zeisset in this laboratory, we are collaborating with Miklos Puky (Budapest) and Uli Reyer (Zurich). We would also be very interested in collaborating with other groups, especially with a view to the development of microsatellite marker loci for these frogs. So far we have just one publication: Zeisset, Inga, and Trevor J. C. Beebee. RAPD identification of north European water frogs. AMPHIBIA-REPTILIA 19(2): 163-170 (May 1998). Abstract: A technique for the identification of north European water frogs (Rana lessonae, R. ridibunda and R. esculenta) based on PCR (polymerase chain reaction)-amplification of DNA using random primers (RAPD) is presented. The method requires very small amounts (< 2 mg) of tissue and reliably distinguished the three types of frogs using samples taken from two widely separate localities (Britain and Poland). In addition, the primers distinguished the DNA of water frogs from that of a brown frog (R. temporaria) and from that of two toad species (Bufo bufo and B. calamita Trevor Beebee (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------- SEH congress ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The SEH congress took place between 25 and 29 August at the University of Savoie, near the city of Chambery (France). About 150 participants presented their work in two poster sessions and nine oral sessions. Four plenary lectures were scheduled, one each day before the morning session. The originally-announced duration of four days was prolonged to five days, mostly because each paper was allotted 30 min. At the end of the congress, several people discussed the duration of presentations. We shared the opinion that the optimal duration for lectures is 20 min. A shorter duration would also have prevented large gaps in the program caused by the absence of many Russian colleagues, who were unable to attend the meeting because of the sudden changes in the Russian monetary system. Because of these absences, up to three talks had to be cancelled per session. During the congress, two workshops were held independently from the congress. The workshop on the problem of fishes in alpine lakes excited a lot of interest among the scientists, especially among the groups interested in conservation. The result of this workshop is a declaration that is supposed to be ready for ratification at the next ordinary SEH meeting. The attending scientists interested in research on water frog met at the second workshop. Ten persons showed various interests in water frogs, and several topics were discussed. The main problem in studies of water frogs seems to be methodological. Different working groups use different methods, which causes problems in comparing their results. Some discussants suggested that, because they are commercially prepared, cellulose acetate plates give more consistent and therefore more comparable results, than starch gels. On the other hand, the translation products of different alleles may behave differently on the two media, which may raise problems for establishing an accepted allelic nomenclature. Evidence of introgression that was presented suggests that at least five rather than one to three diagnostic loci should be considered in taxon identification. On another point, the lack of contributions from users/readers was pointed out as the important deficiency of WIP. At the extraordinary meeting of the SEH, we discussed having the SEH serving as roof organization for all other national herpetological societies from Europe, including the possibility of combining different journals to gain value in the competition with American herpetological journals. Establishment of a Pan-European information network for scientists interested in amphibians and reptiles was discussed. The positive voting of all the scientists present supported this idea. The network will be built up during the next year. The next SEH meeting will be at Iraklion (Crete) during the last week of August 1999 (not 2000). Vransko, Mainz 3.9.1998 Nusa Vogrin and Dirk Schmeller -Important information - Amphibia-Reptilia is now indexed in Current Contents. (3)--------------------------------------------------------------------- Development/Morphology/Gametogenesis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We will start a new column on the topics mentioned in the title. Any recent literature/thoughts /ideas etc. that you want to share are welcome. Send them directly to Maria Ogielska (ogielska@biol.uni.wroc.pl). ------ If you write to us it would be helpful if you would use a subject line like this "WIP: ......some useful text...." (Peter Beerli)