4.3 Article

Phylogenetics of Kingsnakes, Lampropeltis getula Complex (Serpentes: Colubridae), in Eastern North America

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEREDITY
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 226-238

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esw086

关键词

biogeography; divergence dating; mtDNA; speciation

资金

  1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [NG00-002]
  2. Everglades National Park [940015]
  3. South Florida Water Management District [1069]
  4. United States Forest Service [2670]
  5. UF Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) [A187]
  6. Central Florida
  7. Volusia County
  8. Suncoast herpetological societies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kingsnakes of the Lampropeltis getula complex range throughout much of temperate and subtropical North America. Studies over the last century have used morphology and color pattern to describe numerous subspecies. More recently, DNA analyses have made invaluable contributions to our understanding of their evolution and taxonomy. We use genetic and ecological methods to test previous hypotheses of distinct evolutionary lineages by examining 66 total snakes and 1) analyzing phylogeographic structure using 2 mtDNA loci and 1 nuclear locus, 2) estimating divergence dates and historical demography among lineages in a Bayesian coalescent framework, and 3) applying ecological niche modeling (ENM). Our molecular data and ENMs illustrate that 3 previously recognized subspecies in the eastern United States comprise well-supported monophyletic lineages that diverged during the Pleistocene. The geographic boundaries of these 3 lineages correspond closely to known biogeographic barriers (Florida peninsula, Appalachian Mountains, and Apalachicola River) previously identified for other plants and animals, indicating shared geographic influences on evolutionary history. We conclude that genetic, ecological, and morphological data support recognition of these 3 lineages as distinct species (Lampropeltis floridana, Lampropeltis getula, and Lampropeltis meansi).

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

4.3
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