4.5 Article

Molecular dating and diversification of the South American lizard genus Liolaemus (subgenus Eulaemus) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences

期刊

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 164, 期 4, 页码 825-835

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00786.x

关键词

Bayesian estimation; divergence dating; fossil calibration; Miocene; mtDNA; nDNA

类别

资金

  1. ANPCYT-FONCYT [PICT 2006-506, 33789]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas(CONICET)
  3. Kennedy Center for International Studies
  4. Department of Biology
  5. M. L. Bean Life Science Museum of BYU
  6. NSF-PIRE [OISE 0530267]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The temperate South American lizard genus Liolaemus is the one of the most widely distributed and species-rich genera of lizards on earth. The genus is divided into two subgenera, Liolaemus sensu stricto (the Chilean group) and Eulaemus (the Argentino group), a division that is supported by recent molecular and morphological data. Owing to a lack of reliable fossil data, previous studies have been forced to use either global molecular clocks, a standardized mutation rate adopted from previous studies, or the use of geological events as calibration points. However, simulations indicate that these types of assumptions may result in less accurate estimates of divergence times when clock-like models or mutation rates are violated. We used a multilocus data set combined with a newly described fossil to provide the first calibrated phylogeny for the crown groups of the clade Eulaemus, and derive new fossil-calibrated substitution rates (with error) of both nuclear and mtDNA gene regions for Eulaemus specifically. Divergence date estimates for each of the crown groups and appropriate rate estimates will provide the foundation for understanding rates of speciation, historical biogeography, and phylogeographical history for various clades in one of the most diverse lizard genera in the poorly studied Patagonian region.

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

4.5
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