Phylogeny of snakes (Serpentes): combining morphological and molecular data in likelihood Bayesian and parsimony analyses

Copyright © 2007 The Natural history MuseumThe phylogeny of living and fossil snakes is assessed using likelihood and parsimony approaches and a dataset combining 263 morphological characters with mitochondrial (2693 bp) and nuclear (1092 bp) gene sequences. The ‘no common mechanism’ (NCMr) and ‘Markovian’ (Mkv) models were employed for the morphological partition in likelihood analyses; likelihood scores in the NCMr model were more closely correlated with parsimony tree lengths. Both models accorded relatively less weight to the molecular data than did parsimony, with the effect being milder in the NCMr model. Partitioned branch and likelihood support values indicate that the mtDNA and nuclear gene partitions agree more closely with each other than with morphology. Despite differences between data partitions in phylogenetic signal, analytic models, and relative weighting, the parsimony and likelihood analyses all retrieved the following widely accepted groups: scolecophidians, alethinophidians, cylindrophiines, macrostomatans (sensu lato) and caenophidians. Anilius alone emerged as the most basal alethinophidian; the combined analyses resulted in a novel and stable position of uropeltines and cylindrophiines as the second-most basal clade of alethinophidians. The limbed marine pachyophiids, along with Dinilysia and Wonambi, were always basal to all living snakes. Other results stable in all combined analyses include: Xenopeltis and Loxocemus were sister taxa (fide morphology) but clustered with pythonines (fide molecules), and Ungaliophis clustered with a boine-erycine clade (fide molecules). Tropidophis remains enigmatic; it emerges as a basal alethinophidian in the parsimony analyses (fide molecules) but a derived form in the likelihood analyses (fide morphology), largely due to the different relative weighting accorded to data partitions.Michael S. Y. Lee, Andrew F. Hugall, Robin Lawson & John D. Scanlo

Shark fossil diversity (Squalomorphii, Squatinomorphii, and Galeomorphii) from the Langhian of Brielas (Lower Tagus Basin, Portugal)

The fossiliferous marine Miocene sediments of the Lower Tagus Basin (Portugal) present a great diversity of Chondrichthyes forms. The current study focuses on the fossil sharks from the Langhian Vc unit of the Brielas section, located in the Setúbal Peninsula. A total of 384 isolated fossil teeth were analysed and ascribed to 17 species from the Orders Hexanchiformes, Squaliformes, Squatiniformes, Lamniformes, and Carcharhiniformes. Centrophorus granulosus and Iago angustidens are described for the first time in Portuguese sediments, whereas Pachyscyllium dachiardii and Rhizoprionodon ficheuri represent only their second reported occurrence. Galeorhinus goncalvesi was already known from the Portuguese uppermost Miocene (Alvalade Basin), but it is now recognized in older sediments. Furthermore, the new material seems to include the first reported occurrence of Hexanchus cf. agassizi in Miocene sediments. As a whole, these new findings support the previous palaeoenvironment characterization of a warm infralittoral setting gradually deepening to a circalittoral one, where seasonal upwelling phenomena could have occurred

A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

Fishes are both extremely diverse and morphologically disparate. Part of this disparity can be observed in the numerous possible fin configurations that may differ in terms of the number of fins as well as fin shapes, sizes and relative positions on the body. Here, we thoroughly review the major patterns of disparity in fin configurations for each major group of fishes and discuss how median and paired fin homologies have been interpreted over time. When taking into account the entire span of fish diversity, including both extant and fossil taxa, the disparity in fin morphologies greatly complicates inferring homologies for individual fins. Given the phylogenetic scope of this review, structural and topological criteria appear to be the most useful indicators of fin identity. We further suggest that it may be advantageous to consider some of these fin homologies as nested within the larger framework of homologous fin‐forming morphogenetic fields. We also discuss scenarios of appendage evolution and suggest that modularity may have played a key role in appendage disparification. Fin modules re‐expressed within the boundaries of fin‐forming fields could explain how some fins may have evolved numerous times independently in separate lineages (e.g., adipose fin), or how new fins may have evolved over time (e.g., anterior and posterior dorsal fins, pectoral and pelvic fins). We favour an evolutionary scenario whereby median appendages appeared from a unique field of competence first positioned throughout the dorsal and ventral midlines, which was then redeployed laterally leading to paired appendages.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151971/1/faf12402_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151971/2/faf12402.pd

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