4.7 Article

Cretaceous-Tertiary diversification among select Scolopendrid centipedes of South India

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 287-294

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.04.024

关键词

Gondwanan origin; Out-of-India hypothesis; Molecular dating; Molecular phylogeny; Scolopendra; Digitipes

资金

  1. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India
  2. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, India [37(1346)/08/EMR-II]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given that peninsular India was part of the Gondwanan super continent, part of its current biota has Gondwanan origin. To determine the Gondwanan component of the peninsular Indian biota, a large number of species spanning diverse taxonomic groups need to be sampled from multiple, if not all, of the former Gondwanan fragments. Such a large scale phylogenetic approach will be time consuming and resource intensive. Here, we explore the utility of a limited sampling approach, wherein sampling is confined to one of the Gondwanan fragments (peninsular India), in identifying putative Gondwanan elements. To this end, samples of Scolopendrid centipedes from Western Ghats region of peninsular India were subjected to molecular phylogenetic and dating analyses. The resulting phylogenetic tree supported monophyly of the family Scolopendridae which was in turn split into two clades constituting tribes Otostigmini and Scolopendrini-Asanadini. Bayesian divergence date estimates suggested that the earliest diversifications within various genera were between 86 and 73 mya, indicating that these genera might have Gondwanan origin. In particular, at least four genera of Scolopendrid centipedes, Scolopendra, Cormocephalus, Rhysida and Digitipes, might have undergone diversification on the drifting peninsular India during the Late Cretaceous. These putative Gondwanan taxa can be subjected to more extensive sampling to confirm their Gondwanan origin. (C) 2011 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