4.2 Article

A dated phylogeny of marsupials using a molecular supermatrix and multiple fossil constraints

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 175-189

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1644/06-MAMM-A-437.1

关键词

Ameridelphia; Australidelphia; Bayesian analysis; fossil record; marsupials; phylogenetic fuse; phylogeny; relaxed molecular clock; supermatrix

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylogenetic relationships within marsupials were investigated based on a 20.1-kilobase molecular supermatrix comprising 7 nuclear and 15 mitochondrial genes analyzed using both maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches and 3 different partitioning strategies. The study revealed that base composition bias in the 3rd codon positions of mitochondrial genes misled even the partitioned maximum-likelihood analyses, whereas Bayesian analyses were less affected. After correcting for base composition bias, monophyly of the currently recognized marsupial orders, of Australidelphia, and of a clade comprising Dasyuromorphia, Notoryctes, and Peramelemorphia, were supported strongly by both Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum-likelihood bootstrap values. Monophyly of the Australasian marsupials, of Notoryctes + Dasyuromorphia; and of Caenolestes + Australidelphia were less well supported. Within Diprotodontia, Burramyidae + Phalangeridae received relatively strong support. Divergence dates calculated using a Bayesian relaxed molecular clock and multiple age constraints suggested at least 3 independent dispersals of marsupials from North to South America during the Late Cretaceous or early Paleocene. Within the Australasian clade, the macropodine radiation, the divergence of phascogaline and. dasyurine dasyurids, and the divergence of perameline and peroryctine peramelemorphians all coincided with periods of significant environmental change during the Miocene. An analysis of unrepresented basal branch lengths suggests that the fossil record is particularly poor for didelphids and most groups within the Australasian radiation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据