Digits Lost or Gained? Evidence for Pedal Evolution in the Dwarf Salamander Complex (Eurycea, Plethodontidae)

Change in digit number, particularly digit loss, has occurred repeatedly over the evolutionary history of tetrapods. Although digit loss has been documented among distantly related species of salamanders, it is relatively uncommon in this amphibian order. For example, reduction from five to four toes appears to have evolved just three times in the morphologically and ecologically diverse family Plethodontidae. Here we report a molecular phylogenetic analysis for one of these four-toed lineages – the Eurycea quadridigitata complex (dwarf salamanders) – emphasizing relationships to other species in the genus. A multilocus phylogeny reveals that dwarf salamanders are paraphyletic with respect to a complex of five-toed, paedomorphic Eurycea from the Edwards Plateau in Texas. We use this phylogeny to examine evolution of digit number within the dwarf−Edwards Plateau clade, testing contrasting hypotheses of digit loss (parallelism among dwarf salamanders) versus digit gain (re-evolution in the Edwards Plateau complex). Bayes factors analysis provides statistical support for a five-toed common ancestor at the dwarf-Edwards node, favoring, slightly, the parallelism hypothesis for digit loss. More importantly, our phylogenetic results pinpoint a rare event in the pedal evolution of plethodontid salamanders

Species Interactions during Diversification and Community Assembly in an Island Radiation of Shrews

Closely related, ecologically similar species often have adjacent distributions, suggesting competitive exclusion may contribute to the structure of some natural communities. In systems such as island archipelagos, where speciation is often tightly associated with dispersal over oceanic barriers, competitive exclusion may prevent population establishment following inter-island dispersal and subsequent cladogenesis.) species in the Philippines are the result of competitive exclusion preventing secondary invasion of occupied islands. We first compare ecological niche models between two widespread, allopatric species and find statistical support for their ecological similarity, implying that competition for habitat between these species is possible. We then examine dispersion patterns among sympatric species and find some signal for overdispersion of body size, but not for phylogenetic branch length. Finally, we simulate the process of inter-island colonization under a stochastic model of dispersal lacking ecological forces. Results are dependent on the geographic scope and colonization probability employed. However, some combinations suggest that the number of inter-island dispersal events necessary to populate the archipelago may be much higher than the minimum number of colonization events necessary to explain current estimates of species richness and phylogenetic relationships. If our model is appropriate, these results imply that alternative factors, such as competitive exclusion, may have influenced the process of inter-island colonization and subsequent cladogenesis.We interpret the combined results as providing tenuous evidence that similarity in body size may prevent co-occurrence in Philippine shrews and that competitive exclusion among ecologically similar species, rather than an inability to disperse among islands, may have limited diversification in this group, and, possibly other clades endemic to island archipelagos

Gono_7gene

Concatenated alignment of 7 loc

Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles

Number of researchers, journals and articles has significantly increased in the last few years and peer review is still the most reliable instrument to sort out innovative, valuable, scientifically sound information from the pool of submitted results. Editors and publishers join their efforts to improve peer review process and to be able to do so properly, they need "field information" from contributors. Editorial board of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society performed its own survey to find out what reviewers recognize as priority criteria in manuscript evaluation and whether the professional background (title, number of years in research or experience in reviewing) influences these criteria. Most reviewers declared that they consider peer review as an essential component of the scientific professionalism. Scientific contribution and originality were the most important criteria in the evaluation of papers. Most reviewers preferred to see conclusions completely supported by experimental data, without additional speculations. Although there were no large differences between early stage and experienced researchers, early stage researchers and less experienced reviewers used grade 5 (indicating the highest priority) much more often in their evaluation of priority criteria than experienced researchers and/or reviewers, suggesting possible evolution of tolerance with experience