Systematics of the Neotropical Genus Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leptodactylidae): Phylogeny, the Relevance of Non-molecular Evidence, and Species Accounts

A phylogeny of the species-rich clade of the Neotropical frog genus Leptodactylus sensu stricto is presented on the basis of a total evidence analysis of molecular (mitochondrial and nuclear markers) and non-molecular (adult and larval morphological and behavioral characters) sampled from > 80% of the 75 currently recognized species. Our results support the monophyly of Leptodactylus sensu stricto, with Hydrolaetare placed as its sister group. The reciprocal monophyly of Hydrolaetare and Leptodactylus sensu stricto does not require that we consider Hydrolaetare as either a subgenus or synonym of Leptodactylus sensu lato. We recognize Leptodactylus sensu stricto, Hydrolaetare, Adenomera, and Lithodytes as valid monophyletic genera. Our results generally support the traditionally recognized Leptodactylus species groups, with exceptions involving only a few species that are easily accommodated without proposing new groups or significantly altering contents. The four groups form a pectinate tree, with the Leptodactylus fuscus group diverging first, followed by the L. pentadactylus group, which is sister to the L. latrans and L. melanonotus groups. To evaluate the impact of non-molecular evidence on our results, we compared our total evidence results with results obtained from analyses using only molecular data. Although non-molecular evidence comprised only 3.5% of the total evidence matrix, it had a strong impact on our total evidence results. Only one species group was monophyletic in the molecular-only analysis, and support differed in 86% of the 54 Leptodactylus clades that are shared by the results of the two analyses. Even though no non-molecular evidence was included for Hydrolaetare, exclusion of that data partition resulted in that genus being nested within Leptodactylus, demonstrating that the inclusion of a small amount of non-molecular evidence for a subset of species can alter not only the placement of those species, but also species that were not scored for those data. The evolution of several natural history and reproductive traits is considered in the light of our phylogenic framework. Invasion of rocky outcrops, larval oophagy, and use of underground reproductive chambers are restricted to species of the Leptodactylus fuscus and L. pentadactylus groups. In contrast, larval schooling, larval attendance, and more complex parental care are restricted to the L. latrans and L. melanonotus groups. Construction of foam nests is plesiomorphic in Leptodactylus but their placement varies extensively (e.g., underground chambers, surface of waterbodies, natural or excavated basins). Information on species synonymy, etymology, adult and larval morphology, advertisement call, and geographic distribution is summarized in species accounts for the 30 species of the Leptodactylus fuscus group, 17 species of the L. pentadactylus group, eight species of the L. latrans group, and 17 species of the L. melanonotus group, as well as the three species that are currently unassigned to any species group.Se presenta una filogenia del género Leptodactylus, un ciado neotropical rico en especies, basada en análises combinados de datos moleculares (marcadores nuclear y mitocondriales) y no moleculares (caracteres de la morfología de adultos y larvas así como de comportamiento) se muestrearon > 80% de las 75 especies reconocidas. Los resultados apoyan la monofília de Leptodactylus sensu stricto, con Hydrolaetare como su grupo hermano. La monofília recíproca de Hydrolaetare y Leptodactylus no requiere considerar a Hydrolaetare como un subgénero o sinónimo de Leptodactylus sensu lato. Se reconocen Leptodactylus sensu stricto, Hydrolaetare, Adenomera y Lithodytes como géneros monofiléticos válidos. Los resultados en general resuelven los grupos tradicionalmente reconocidos de Leptodactylus, con excepciones de algunas especies que son reasignadas sin la necesidad de proponer nuevos grupos o alterar significativamente el contenido de los grupos tradicionales. Los cuatro grupos de especies forman una topología pectinada donde el grupo de L. fuscus tiene una posición basal, seguido por el grupo de L. pentadactylus que es el grupo hermano al clado formado por los grupo de L. latrans y L. melanonotus. Se estimó el impacto de los datos no moleculares en los resultados, comparándose los resultados de evidencia total con los de los análises de datos moleculares solamente. Los datos no moleculares representan un 3.5% de la matriz de evidencia total, pero estos datos tuvieron un impacto significativo en los resultados del análisis de evidencia total. En el análisis estrictamente molecular solamente un grupo de especies resultó monofilético, y el apoyo difirió en 86% de los 54 ciados de Leptodactylus compartidos entre los dos análises. A pesar que datos no moleculares no fueron incluidos para Hydrolaetare, la exclusión de evidencia no molecular resultó en el género estar dentro de Leptodactylus, demostrando que la inclusión de evidencia no molecular pequeña para un subgrupo de especies altera no solamente la posición topológica de esas especies, sino tambien de las especies para las cuales dichos datos no fueron codificados. La evolución de patrones de historia natural y reprodución se evalúan en el contexto filogenético. La invasión de afloramientos rocosos y la construción de cámaras de reprodución subterraneas está limitada a los grupos de Leptodactylus fuscus y L. pentadactylus, mientras que la oofagia larval está restringida al grupo de L. pentadactylus. Por otro lado, los cárdumenes larvales, la proteción del cárdumen, y otros comportamientos parentales complejos carecterizan al clado formado por los grupos de especies de L. latrans y L. melanonotus. Los resúmenes de especies incluyen información de sinonimias, etimología, morfología de adultos y larvas, cantos, y distribución geográfica para las 30 especies del grupo de Leptodactylus fuscus, 17 especies del grupo L. pentadactylus, ocho especies del grupo de L. latrans, 17 especies del grupo de L. melanonotus, así como para las tres especies que actualmente no se encuentran asociadas a ninguno de los grupos de especies.Taran Grant was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico Proc. 307001/2011-3 and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo Proc. 2012/10000-5

Stationary Random Fields on the Unitary Dual of a Compact Group

We generalise the notion of wide-sense stationarity from sequences of complex-valued random variables indexed by the integers, to fields of random variables that are labelled by elements of the unitary dual of a compact group. The covariance is positive definite, and so it is the Fourier transform of a finite central measure (the spectral measure of the field) on the group. Analogues of the Cramer and Kolmogorov theorems are extended to this framework. White noise makes sense in this context and so, for some classes of group, we can construct time series and investigate their stationarity. Finally we indicate how these ideas fit into the general theory of stationary random fields on hypergroups

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 with 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. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74688/1/j.1096-0031.2007.00181.x.pd