4.7 Article

Phylogeny and cryptic diversity in geckos (Phyllopezus; Phyllodactylidae; Gekkota) from South America's open biomes

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 943-953

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.11.033

关键词

Biodiversity; Bogertia; Brazil; Caatinga; Cerrado; Chaco; Conservation; Cryptic species; Lizard; Phyllopezus; Reptile; Species tree; Taxonomy

资金

  1. NSF [DEB 0515909]
  2. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Conservation Biology
  3. FAPESP
  4. CNPq
  5. CAPES
  6. FAPDF
  7. Bell Museum of Natural History
  8. CAPES/Fulbright
  9. Department of Biology, BYU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gecko genus Phyllopezus occurs across South America's open biomes: Cerrado, Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests (SDTF, including Caatinga), and Chaco. We generated a multi-gene dataset and estimated phylogenetic relationships among described Phyllopezus taxa and related species. We included exemplars from both described Phyllopezus pollicaris subspecies, P. p. pollicaris and P. p. przewalskii. Phylogenies from the concatenated data as well as species trees constructed from individual gene trees were largely congruent. All phylogeny reconstruction methods showed Bogertia lutzae as the sister species of Phyllopezus maranjonensis, rendering Phyllopezus paraphyletic. We synonymized the monotypic genus Bogertia with Phyllopezus to maintain a taxonomy that is isomorphic with phylogenetic history. We recovered multiple, deeply divergent, cryptic lineages within P. pollicaris. These cryptic lineages possessed mtDNA distances equivalent to distances among other gekkotan sister taxa. Described P. pollicaris subspecies are not reciprocally monophyletic and current subspecific taxonomy does not accurately reflect evolutionary relationships among cryptic lineages. We highlight the conservation significance of these results in light of the ongoing habitat loss in South America's open biomes. (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