4.7 Article

Fourteen nuclear genes provide phylogenetic resolution for difficult nodes in the turtle tree of life

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 1189-1194

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.11.005

关键词

Turtle; Phylogenetics; Multiple locus; Nuclear gene; Platysternon

资金

  1. NSF [DEB-0507916, DEB-0710380, DEB-0817042]
  2. UC Davis Agricultural Experiment Station
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1239961] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [0817042] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [1239961] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in molecular biology have expanded our understanding of patterns of evolution and our ability to infer phylogenetic relationships. Despite many applications of molecular methods in attempts at resolving the evolutionary relationships among the major clades of turtles, some nodes in the tree have proved to be extremely problematic and have remained unresolved. In this study, we use 14 nuclear loci to provide an in depth look at several of these troublesome nodes and infer the systematic relationships among 11 of the 14 turtle families. We find strong support for two of the most problematic nodes in the deep phylogeny of turtles that have traditionally defied resolution. In particular, we recover strong support for a sister relationship between the Emydidae and the monotypic bigheaded-turtle, Platysternon megacephalum. We also find strong support for a clade consisting of sea turtles, mud and musk turtles, and snapping turtles. Within this clade, snapping turtles (Chelydridae) and mud/musk turtles (Kinosternidae) are sister taxa, again with strong support. Our results emphasize the utility of multi-locus datasets in phylogenetic analyses of difficult problems. (C) 2009 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