Karyotypic Data on 28 Species of Scinax (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae): Diversity and Informative Variation

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Conventional and ultrastructural analyses of the chromosomes of Discocyrtus pectinifemur (Opiliones, Laniatores, Gonyleptidae)

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

Extreme degree of chromosome number variability in species of the spider genus Scytodes (Araneae, Haplogynae, Scytodidae)

Genus Scytodes includes most species of the spider family Scytodidae. Until now, 187 species of the genus have been described. In spite of this great diversity, only three Scytodes species were karyotyped so far. The present paper provides for the first time karyotype analysis of two synanthropic species, Scytodes fusca and Scytodes itapevi. Furthermore, new data on karyotype of Scytodes globula are also provided using conventional and differential cytogenetical procedures. The diploid number in the genus Scytodes varied considerably, namely from 2n = 13 to 2n = 31. The diploid number found in S. globula (2n male = 13) is the lowest in haplogyne spiders with monocentric chromosomes. Except S. globula, this number has been found only in one haplogyne spider with monocentric chromosomes, namely Ochyrocera sp. (Ochyroceratidae). on the contrary, the diploid number of S. fusca (2n male = 31) is one of the highest diploid numbers recorded in haplogyne spiders. The degree of intrageneric variation found in the genus Scytodes is the highest recorded in araneomorph spiders with monocentric chromosomes so far. Some karyotype characteristics (diploid number, chromosome morphology, total chromosome length, and distribution of constitutive heterochromatin) allowed us to postulate a close relationship between S. globula and S. itapevi. According to the karyotype data, S. fusca is not closely related to these two species. This conclusion corroborates a recent taxonomic work that grouped S. globula, S. itapevi, and other four Scytodes species in the 'globula group'.

Description of the Immatures of Workers of the Weaver Ant, Camponotus textor (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Description of the immatures of Linepithema humile Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Description of the immatures of workers of the Ant Camponotus vittatus (Hymenoptera: formicidae)

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Phylogeny of leafcutter ants in the genus Atta Fabricius (Formicidae: Attini) based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences

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

Nesting biology and fungiculture of the fungus-growing ant, Mycetagroicus cerradensis: New light on the origin of higher-attine agriculture

The genus Mycetagroicus is perhaps the least known of all fungus-growing ant genera, having been first described in 2001 from museum specimens. A recent molecular phylogenetic analysis of the fungus-growing ants demonstrated that Mycetagroicus is the sister to all higher attine ants (Trachymyrmex, Sericomyrmex, Acromyrmex, Pseudoatta, and Atta), making it of extreme importance for understanding the transition between lower and higher attine agriculture. Four nests of Mycetagroicus cerradensis near Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil were excavated, and fungus chambers for one were located at a depth of 3.5 meters. Based on its lack of gongylidia (hyphal-tip swellings typical of higher attine cultivars), and a phylogenetic analysis of the ITS rDNA gene region, M. cerradensis cultivates a lower attine fungus in Clade 2 of lower attine (G3) fungi. This finding refines a previous estimate for the origin of higher attine agriculture, an event that can now be dated at approximately 21-25 mya in the ancestor of extant species of Trachymyrmex and Sericomyrmex.

Floral anatomy of Bromeliaceae, with particular reference to the evolution of epigyny and septal nectaries in commelinid monocots

Floral anatomy is described in ten genera of Bromeliaceae, including three members of subfamily Bromelioideae, three Tillandsioideae, and four genera of the polyphyletic subfamily Pitcairnioideae (including Brocchinia, the putatively basal genus of Bromeliaceae). Bromeliaceae are probably unique in the order Poales in possessing septal nectaries and epigynous or semi-epigynous flowers. Evidence presented here from floral ontogeny, vasculature, and the relative positions of nectary and ovules indicates that there could have been one or more reversals to apparent hypogyny in Bromeliaceae, although this hypothesis requires a better-resolved phylogeny. Such evolutionary reversals probably evolved in response to specialist pollinators, and in conjunction with other aspects of floral morphology of Bromeliaceae, such as the petal appendages of some species. The ovary is initiated in an inferior position even in semi-epigynous or hypogynous species. The ovary of all so-called hypogynous Bromeliaceae is actually semi-inferior, because the septal nectary is infralocular; in these species the nectaries have a labyrinthine surface and many vascular bundles. Brocchinia differs from most other fully epigynous species in that each carpel is secretory at the apex and reproductive, rather than secretory, at the base.

A new species of Tontelea from Amazonian Peru and Ecuador, and notes on the Tontelea attenuata species group (Celastraceae, Hippocrateoideae)

Tontelea fuliginea differs from other species whose stamens alternate with undivided stigma-lobes by its profusely ramified, many flowered, and densely dirty-brown puberulous inflorescences. This paper also provides a synopsis and key of the group of species with alternate stamens and 3-lobed stiomas with undivided lobes (T. attenuata group). Four lectotypes are designated for previously published names: Tontelea longifolia, Tontelea micrantha, Tontelea corrugulata, and Salacia micrantha var. lancifolia.

Reproductive morphology of the early-divergent grass Streptochaeta and its bearing on the homologies of the grass spikelet

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Intraspecific variability of flavonoid glycosides and styrylpyrones from leaves of Cryptocarya mandioccana Meisner (Lauraceae)

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

Morphology, development and homologies of the perianth and floral nectaries in Croton and Astraea (Euphorbiaceae-Malpighiales)

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

Leaf anatomy as a contribution to the taxonomy of Salacioideae N.Hall, ex Thorne & Reveal (Celastraceae)

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

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.