New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

This Frog Can't Hear Its Own Calls

The frogs' calls are too high-pitched for the frog to detect, which may be an artifact of evolution. Christopher Intagliata reports.

This is an adult Brachycephalus pitanga on a finger tip.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the frog world, romance is often accompanied by a song. "It's the norm. The vast majority of frogs have males calling to attract females."

Sandra Goutte is an evolutionary biologist and herpetologist at the University of Campinas, in Brazil. And she studies frogs called 'pumpkin toadlets' from the cloud forests of coastal Brazil. "They're extremely cool, they're teeny tiny." They're neon orange, and they wave their arms around when they feel threatened, "by either predator or herpetologist."

And, true to frog form, "they make this slow call that sounds like a cricket, like "che che."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But here's the weird part: it appears the pumpkin toadlets are not able to hear the sounds they make. Goutte and her colleagues playing recordings of the calls to the frogs to look for reactions. The researchers also traced electrical impulses from the frogs' ears to their brains, and even dissected the frog inner ear.

And it turns out, the frogs just don't have the equipment to hear their own voices. The study is in the journal Scientific Reports. [Sandra Goutte et al., Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs]

"Why would they call if they cannot hear their own calls, right?" Goutte does have a few theories. Perhaps, she says, the bulging throat movement associated with calling is a sexual signal, with the sound an inadvertent accompaniment—perhaps the frogs lost the ability to hear the calls at some point in their evolutionary history, when the displays did the job well enough on their own. After all, they're a highly visual species—out during the day, brightly colored, do the hand-waving thing.

Pumpkin toadlets are the only species unable to hear themselves. At least, as far as we know. "The thing is, it was really hard to convince even some of the co-authors to do the experiments, because they were like, 'Why would you test their hearing? If they're calling, they hear, they must hear, right?' So I think it's also the way we're doing science—we're not testing these obvious things. So maybe there are more examples out there but we don't know any yet." One can only hope that future research proposals will get a fair hearing.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe