4.3 Article

Convergent evolution of aposematic coloration in Neotropical poison frogs: a molecular phylogenetic perspective

期刊

ORGANISMS DIVERSITY & EVOLUTION
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 215-226

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1078/1439-6092-00076

关键词

Amphibia; Dendrobatidae; Hylodinae; aposematic color; skin toxins; phylogeny

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae contain cryptic as well as brightly colored, presumably aposematic species. The prevailing phylogenetic hypothesis assumes that the aposematic taxa form a monophyletic group while the cryptic species (Colostethus sensu lato) are basal and paraphyletic. Analysis of 86 dendrobatid sequences of a fragment of the 16S rRNA gene resulted in a much more complex scenario, with several clades that contained aposematic as well as cryptic taxa. Monophyly of the aposematic taxa was significantly rejected by SH-tests in an analysis with additional 12S and 16S rDNA fragments and reduced taxon sampling. The brightly colored Allobates femoralis and A. zaparo (Silverstone) comb. nov. (previously Epipedobates) belong in a clade with cryptic species of Colostethus. Additionally, Colostethus pratti was grouped with Epipedobates, and Colostethus bocagei with Cryptophyllobates. In several cases, the aposematic species have general distributions similar to those of their non-aposematic sister groups, indicating multiple instances of regional radiations in which some taxa independently acquired bright color. From a classificatory point of view, it is relevant that the type species of Minyobates, M. steyermarki, resulted as the sister group of the genus Dendrobates, and that species of Mannophryne and Nephelobates formed monophyletic clades, corroborating the validity of these genera. Leptodactylids of the genera Hylodes and Crossodactylus were not unambiguously identified as the sister group of the Dendrobatidae; these were monophyletic in all analyses and probably originated early in the radiation of Neotropical hyloid frogs.

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