4.4 Article

Comparative phylogeography of mesoamerican highland rodents: Concerted versus independent response to past climatic fluctuations

Journal

AMERICAN NATURALIST
Volume 155, Issue 6, Pages 755-768

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/303362

Keywords

comparative phylogeography; Middle American highlands; Peromyscus; parametric bootstrap; Reithrodontomys sumichrasti; maximum likelihood

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The phylogeography of Sumichrast's harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys sumichrasti) was examined through maximum-likelihood and parsimony analyses of 1,130 bp of mitochondrial Cytochrome b sequence data From 43 individuals. The phylogeography of this Middle American highland forest-dwelling species was compared to that previously published for the codistributed Aztec deer mouse complex (Peromyscus aztecus/Peromyscus hylocetes complex) in order to test competing hypotheses of concerted versus independent responses of codistributed forms to past climatic fluctuations. Qualitatively, there were strong similarities in the phylogeographic patterns of the two groups, yet there were also areas of incongruence. Likelihood-ratio tests (Kishino-Hasegawa-Templeton and parametric bootstrap tests) indicated that this incongruence is significant and cannot be attributed simply to uncertainty in phylogenetic estimation, thereby falsifying the concerted-response hypothesis. Conversely, tree-reconciliation analysis of the area relationships inferred for each group separately indicated that there has been a significant history of covicariance between the two groups, falsifying the independent-response hypothesis. It appears that codistributed taxa in the geologically complex highlands of Mesoamerica share more common biogeographical history than can be accounted for by the independent-response hypothesis yet have not responded to past climatic fluctuations in the lock-step fashion predicted by the concerted-response hypothesis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available