4.7 Article

The radiation of microhylid frogs (Amphibia: Anura) on New Guinea:: A mitochondrial phylogeny reveals parallel evolution of morphological and life history traits and disproves the current morphology-based classification

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 353-365

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.11.032

关键词

microhylidae; asterophryinae; systematics; parallelism; paternal care; life style

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microhylidae account for the majority of frog species on New Guinea and have evolved an extraordinarily wide range of ecological, behavioural, and morphological traits. Several species are known for their unique paternal care behaviour, which includes guarding of clutches in some and additional froglet transport in other species. We sampled 48 out of 215 New Guinean microhylid species and all but two (Mantophryne and Pherohapsis) of 18 New Guinean genera and analysed a concatenated data set of partial sequences of the mitochondrial genes 12S and 16S, which comprises 1220 aligned nucleotide positions, in order to infer the phylogenetic relationships within this diverse group of frogs. The trees do provide resolution at shallow, but not at deep branches. Monophyly is rejected for the genera Callulops, Liophryne, Austrochaperina, Copiula, and Cophixalus as currently recognized. Six clades are well supported: (1) Hylophorbus and Callulops cf. robustus, (2) its sister taxon comprising Xenorhina, Asterophrys turpicola, and Callulops except for C cf robustus, (3) Liophryne rhododactyla, L. dentata, Oxydactyla crassa, and Sphenophryne cornuta, (4) Copiula and Austrochaperina, (5) Barygenys exsul, Cophixalus spp., and Oreophryne, (6) Cophixalus sphagnicola, Albericus laurini, and Choerophryne. The phylogenies provide evidence for the parallel evolution of parental care modes, life styles, and morphological traits that have thus far been emphasized in recent classifications. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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