Search

The relationships of the hyline tribe Dendropsophini remain poorly studied, with most published analyses dealing with few of the species groups of Dendropsophus. In order to test the monophyly of Dendropsophini, its genera, and the species groups currently recognized in Dendropsophus, we performed a total evidence phylogenetic analysis. The molecular dataset included sequences of three mitochondrial and five nuclear genes from 210 terminals, including 12 outgroup species, the two species of Xenohyla, and 93 of the 108 recognized species of Dendropsophus. The phenomic dataset includes 46 terminals, one per species (34 Dendropsophus, one Xenohyla, and 11 outgroup species). Our results corroborate the monophyly of Dendropsophini and the reciprocal monophyly of Dendropsophus and Xenohyla. Some species groups of Dendropsophus are paraphyletic (the D. microcephalus, D. minimus, and D. parviceps groups, and the D. rubicundulus clade). On the basis of our results, we recognize nine species groups; for three of them (D. leucophyllatus, D. microcephalus, and D. parviceps groups) we recognize some nominal clades to highlight specific morphology or relationships and facilitate species taxonomy. We further discuss the evolution of oviposition site selection, where our results show multiple instances of independent evolution of terrestrial egg clutches during the evolutionary history of Dendropsophus., (© The Willi Hennig Society 2020.)

Alopoglossidae is a family of Neotropical lizards composed of 23 species allocated in two genera (Alopoglossus and Ptychoglossus). There is a lack of knowledge about the phylogenetic relationships and systematics of this family. Published phylogenies that include alopoglossid species have very low taxon coverage within the family, and are usually based on limited character sampling. Considering these shortcomings, we infer the phylogenetic relationships of Alopoglossidae-including all but one species in the family-based on the combined analyses of DNA sequences and morphological characters. We use four loci (the mitochondrial 12S, 16S and ND4; the nuclear C-mos) and a matrix of 143 phenotypic characters from scutellation, tongue morphology, hemipenis morphology, and osteology. The dataset is analyzed with Maximum Parsimony, with four alternative weighting schemes: three under Extended Implied Weighting, and one with equal weighting. The respective resulting topologies are compared in a sensitivity analysis framework. Our analyses support the paraphyly of Ptychoglossus, with Alopoglossus nested within it. We provide an updated classification for the family, where Ptychoglossus Boulenger, 1890 is considered a junior synonym of Alopoglossus Boulenger, 1885., (© The Willi Hennig Society 2020.)

Despite considerable progress in unravelling the phylogenetic relationships of microhylid frogs, relationships among subfamilies remain largely unstable and many genera are not demonstrably monophyletic. Here, we used five alternative combinations of DNA sequence data (ranging from seven loci for 48 taxa to up to 73 loci for as many as 142 taxa) generated using the anchored phylogenomics sequencing method (66 loci, derived from conserved genome regions, for 48 taxa) and Sanger sequencing (seven loci for up to 142 taxa) to tackle this problem. We assess the effects of character sampling, taxon sampling, analytical methods and assumptions in phylogenetic inference of microhylid frogs. The phylogeny of microhylids shows high susceptibility to different analytical methods and datasets used for the analyses. Clades inferred from maximum-likelihood are generally more stable across datasets than those inferred from parsimony. Parsimony trees inferred within a tree-alignment framework are generally better resolved and better supported than those inferred within a similarity-alignment framework, even under the same cost matrix (equally weighted) and same treatment of gaps (as a fifth nucleotide state). We discuss potential causes for these differences in resolution and clade stability among discovery operations. We also highlight the problem that commonly used algorithms for model-based analyses do not explicitly model insertion and deletion events (i.e. gaps are treated as missing data). Our results corroborate the monophyly of Microhylidae and most currently recognized subfamilies but fail to provide support for relationships among subfamilies. Several taxonomic updates are provided, including naming of two new subfamilies, both monotypic., (© The Willi Hennig Society 2015.)