4.7 Article

Insights into Himalayan biogeography from geckos: A molecular phylogeny of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae)

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 145-155

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.07.018

关键词

Divergence dating; India-Asia collision; Lizards

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST grant) [SR/SO/AS-57/2009]
  2. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India
  3. National Science Foundation (U.S.A.) [DEB 0844523, DEB 1019443]
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1019443] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The India-Asia collision profoundly influenced the climate, topography and biodiversity of Asia, causing the formation of the biodiverse Himalayas. The species-rich gekkonid genus Cyrtodactylus is an ideal clade for exploring the biological impacts of the India-Asia collision, as previous phylogenetic hypotheses suggest basal divergences occurred within the Himalayas and Indo-Burma during the Eocene. To this end, we sampled for Cyrtodactylus across Indian areas of the Himalayas and Indo-Burma Hotspots and used three genes to reconstruct relationships and estimate divergence times. Basal divergences in Cyrtodactylus, Hemidactylus and the Palaearctic naked-toed geckos were simultaneous with or just preceded the start of the India-Asia collision. Diversification within Cyrtodactylus tracks the India-Asia collision and subsequent geological events. A number of geographically concordant clades are resolved within Indo-Burmese Cyrtodactylus. Our study reveals 17 divergent lineages that may represent undescribed species, underscoring the previously undocumented diversity of the region. The importance of rocky habitats for Cyrtodactylus indicates the Indo-Gangetic flood plains and the Garo-Rajmahal Gap are likely to have been important historical barriers for this group. (C) 2014 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