Does behavior reflect phylogeny in swiftlets (Aves: Apodidae)? A test using cytochrome b mitochondrial DNA sequences

Swiftlets are small insectivorous birds, many of which nest in caves and are known to echolocate. Due to a lack of distinguishing morphological characters, the taxonomy of swiftlets is primarily based on the presence or absence of echolocating ability, together with nest characters. To test the reliability of these behavioral characters, we constructed an independent phylogeny using cytochrome b mitochondrial DNA sequences from swiftlets and their relatives. This phylogeny is broadly consistent with the higher classification of swifts but does not support the monophyly of swiftlets. Echolocating swiftlets (Aerodramus) and the nonecholocating "giant swiftlet" (Hydrochous gigas) group together, but the remaining nonecholocating swiftlets belonging to Collocalia are not sister taxa to these swiftlets. While echolocation may be a synapomorphy of Aerodramus (perhaps secondarily lost in Hydrochous), no character of Aerodramus nests showed a statistically significant fit to the molecular phylogeny, indicating that nest characters are not phylogenetically reliable in this group.

Cranial osteology and systematic implications in Crotophaginae (Aves, Cuculidae)

Recognizing the scarcity of anatomical and phylogenetic studies on Crotophaginae, the authors set Out to add to the anatomical knowledge of the group based on a detailed description of cranial osteology. Another objective was to verify whether this source of data could be used to infer relationships by performing the first cladistic analysis of the four species of Crotophaginae. The shortest-length cladogram (consistency index = 1.0) indicated that cranial osteology is an important source of characters for cladistic analysis of cuckoos. The findings corroborated the monophyly of Crotophaginae, showing that Guira guira is (lie most divergent and plesiomorphic taxon and that Crotophaga ani and Crotophaga sulcirostris are more closely related to each other than to Crotophaga major.

Spermatic characteristics and sperm evolution on the subfamily Stevardiinae (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Characidae)

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

Spermiogenesis and spermatozoal ultrastructure in Trichomycteridae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Siluriformes)

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

Phylogenetic relationships within the speciose family Characidae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on multilocus analysis and extensive ingroup sampling

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

Molecular phylogeny of Aphyocharacinae (Characiformes, Characidae) with morphological diagnoses for the subfamily and recognized genera

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

Larval stages of Paradasygyius depressus (Bell, 1835) (Crustacea : Decapoda : Brachyura : Majidae) and a phylogenetic analysis for 21 genera of Majidae

All larval stages and the first crab instar of Paradasygyius depressus (Bell) were obtained in laboratory culture. Larval development consists of two zoeal stages, followed by the megalopa. Each larval stage is described in detail. Beginning with the first zoea, the duration of each stage was 4--7 (4.5 +/- 0.7), 4-5 (4.5 +/- 0.5), and 7 days, the megalopa and first crab instar appearing 11 +/- 1 and 15 days after hatching, respectively. A phylogenetic analysis of 21 genera of Majidae is provided based on 34 zoeal and three megalopal characters. The phylogenetic analysis resulted in four equally parsimonious trees 173 steps long (CI = 0.66, RI = 0.71, and RC = 0.47) supporting the monophyly of Oregoniinae, Majinae, and Inachinae (with the exclusion of Macrocheira de Haan incertae sedis). Based on general agreement of sister-group hypotheses, we provide sets of larval characters that define Oregoniinae, Majinae, and Inachinae. Our phylogenetic hypothesis suggests that Oregoniinae is the most basal clade within the Majidae, and Majinae and the clade (Epialtus H. Milne Edwards + Inachinae [excluding Macrocheira incertae sedis]) are sister taxa. Within Inachinae, all trees suggest that Inachus Weber and Macropodia Leach are sister taxa nested as the most derived clade, followed by Achaeus Leach, Pyromaia Stimpson, Paradasygyius Garth, Anasimus A. Milne-Edwards, and the most basal Stenorhynchus Lamarck. The sister-group relationships of the clade (Pisa Leach (Taliepus A. Milne-Edwards + Libinia Leach)), Mithrax Latreille and Microphrys H. Milne Edwards remained unresolved.

Searching for larval support for majoid families (Crustacea : Brachyura) with particular reference to Inachoididae Dana, 1851

We re-evaluated the larval support for families within majoids using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with emphasis on Inachoididae. To accomplish our objectives, we added 10 new taxa, two of which are traditionally assigned to the family of special interest, to a previous larval database for majoids, and re-appraised the larval characters used in earlier studies. Phylogenetic analysis was performed with PAUP* using the heuristic search with 50 replicates or the branch-and-bound algorithm when possible. Multi-state transformation series were considered unordered; initially characters were equally weighted followed by successive weighting, and trees were rooted at the Oregoniidae node. Ten different topological constraints were enforced for families to evaluate tree length under the assumption of monophyly for each taxonomic entity. Our results showed that the tree length of most constrained topologies was not considerably greater than that of unconstrained analysis in which most families nested as paraphyletic taxa. This may indicate that the present larval database does not provide strong support for paraphyly of the taxa in question. For Inachoididae, although the Wilcoxon signed-rank test rejected a significant difference between unconstrained and constrained cladograms, we were unable to provide a single synapomorphy for this clade. Except for the conflicting position of Leurocyclus and Stenorhynchus, the two clades correspond to the traditional taxonomic arrangement. Among inachoidids, the clade (Anasimus (Paradasygyius (Collodes + Pyromaia))) is supported, whereas for inachids, the clade (Inachus (Macropodia + Achaeus)) is one of the most supported clades within majids. As often stated, only additional characters will provide a better test for the monophyly of Inachoididae and other families within Majoidea.

Cladistic analysis of Abracrini genera (Orthoptera, Acrididae, Ommatolampinae)

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

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)

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

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.

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)

Phylogenetic relationships within anuran clade Terrarana, with emphasis on the placement of Brazilian Atlantic rainforest frogs genus Ischnocnema (Anura: Brachycephalidae)

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

The phylogenetic relationships of the charismatic poster frogs, Phyllomedusinae (Anura, Hylidae)

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

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.