Phylogeny of Celastraceae subfamily Hippocrateoideae inferred from morphological characters and nuclear and plastid loci

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Phylogeny, Ecology, and Heart Position in Snakes

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

From Amazonia to the Atlantic forest: Molecular phylogeny of Phyzelaphryninae frogs reveals unexpected diversity and a striking biogeographic pattern emphasizing conservation challenges

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Molecular phylogeny and karyotype differentiation in Paratelmatobius and Scythrophrys (Anura, Leptodactylidae)

Paratelmatobius and Scythrophrys are leptodactylid frogs endemic to the Brazilian Atlantic forest and their close phylogenetic relationship was recently inferred in an analysis that included Paratelmatobius sp. and S. sawayae. To investigate the interspecific relationships among Paratelmatobius and Scythrophrys species, we analyzed a mitochondrial region (approximately 2.4 kb) that included the ribosomal genes 12S and 16S and the tRNAval in representatives of all known localities of these genera and in 54 other species. Maximum parsimony inferences were done using PAUP* and support for the clades was evaluated by bootstrapping. A cytogenetic analysis using Giemsa staining, C-banding and silver staining was also done for those populations of Paratelmatobius not included in previous cytogenetic studies of this genus in order to assess their karyotype differentiation. Our results suggested Paratelmatobius and Scythrophrys formed a clade strongly supported by bootstrapping, which corroborated their very close phylogenetic relationship. Among the Paratelmatobius species, two clades were identified and corroborated the groups P. mantiqueira and P. cardosoi previously proposed based on morphological characters. The karyotypes of Paratelmatobius sp. 2 and Paratelmatobius sp. 3 described here had diploid chromosome number 2n = 24 and showed many similarities with karyotypes of other Paratelmatobius representatives. The cytogenetic data and the phylogenetic analysis allowed the proposal/corroboration of several hypotheses for the karyotype differentiation within Paratelmatobius and Scythrophrys. Namely the telocentric pair No. 4 represented a synapomorphy of P. cardosoi and Paratelmatobius sp. 2, while chromosome pair No. 5 with interstitial C-bands could be interpreted as a synapomorphy of the P. cardosoi group. The NOR-bearing chromosome No. 10 in the karyotype of P. poecilogaster was considered homeologous to chromosome No. 10 in the karyotype of Scythrophrys sp., chromosome No. 9 in the karyotype of Paratelmatobius sp. 1, chromosome No. 8 in the karyotypes of Paratelmatobius sp. 2 and of Paratelmatobius sp. 3, and chromosome No. 7 in the karyotype of P. cardosoi. A hypothesis for the evolutionary divergence of these NOR-bearing chromosomes, which probably involved events like gain in heteochromatin, was proposed.

Is The amphibian tree of life really fatally flawed?

Wiens (2007, Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55-56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.'s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1-370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is a disaster and recommending that readers simply ignore this study. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as fatal flaws: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates; and (4) the results were at times clearly erroneous, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23-90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed strong support for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719-748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579-596) also found them to be non-monophyletic.Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not wth the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within Eleutherodactylus, and Lineatriton within Pseudoeurycea), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny. (C) The Willi Hennig Society 2007.

Realized evolvability: quantifying phenotypic evolution in a Drosophila clade

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

SYSTEMATICS of THE BATRACHOSPERMALES (RHODOPHYTA)-A SYNTHESIS

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Permian bivalve molluscs from the Gai-As Formation, northern Namibia: systematics, taphonomy and biostratigraphy

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

When decisions on homologous structures cause ambiguous taxa relationships: the Neomorphinae (Aves, Cuculidae) example

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Molecular phylogeny, morphology and their implications for the taxonomy of Eriocaulaceae

Eriocaulaceae é uma família pantropical com dez gêneros e cerca de 1.400 espécies, com centro de diversidade no Novo Mundo, especialmente no Brasil. A última revisão da família foi publicada há mais de 100 anos, e até recentemente, as relações genéricas e infra-genéricas ainda eram pouco resolvidas. Entretanto, tem havido nos últimos 30 anos, um grande esforço por parte de pesquisadores brasileiros para preencher as lacunas existentes, utilizando caracteres morfológicos e anatômicos, complementados por dados adicionais de diferentes fontes, como palinologia, química, embriologia, genética de populações, citologia e, mais recentemente, estudos de filogenia molecular. Tal conjunto de dados tem levado a uma re-avaliação do relacionamento filogenético dentro da familia. Neste trabalho são apresentados novos dados para as regiões de ITS e trnL-F, analisadas separadamente e em combinação, usando máxima parcimônia e inferência Bayesiana. Os dados obtidos confirmam resultados já publicados, e mostram que muitos caracteres tradicionalmente usados para diferenciação e circunscrição dos gêneros dentro da família são homoplásicos. Uma nova descrição e chave genérica para a família, utilizando caracteres de várias fontes são apresentadas, refletindo a taxonomia atual das Eriocaulaceae.

Morfo-anatomia do embrião de leguminosas arbóreas nativas

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Molecular systematics of Thorea (Rhodophyta, Thoreales) species in Brazil

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)