Hylid frog phylogeny and sampling strategies for speciose clades

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 719-748

  Wiens, John J ^a   Fetzner Jr , James W ^b   Parkinson, Christopher L ^c   Reeder, Tod W ^d  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SECTION OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^d SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Amphibians; Anurans; Combined analysis; Hylid frogs; Missing data; Taxon sampling

Indexed keywords

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; HYLA; HYLIDAE;

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA; PRIMER DNA; PROOPIOMELANOCORTIN;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DNA SEQUENCE; FROGS AND TOADS; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; LARVA; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; ONCOGENE MYC; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE;

ANIMALS; ANURA; BASE SEQUENCE; BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; DNA PRIMERS; DNA, MITOCHONDRIAL; GENES, MYC; LARVA; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; PRO-OPIOMELANOCORTIN; SAMPLE SIZE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 28644436536     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150500234625     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Alfaro, M. E., S. Zoller, and F. Lutzoni. 2003. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:255-266.
2. AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application]. 2004. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available: http://amphibiaweb.org/ (Accessed: August 30, 2004).
3. Biju, S. D., and F. Bossuyt. 2003. New frog family from India reveals an ancient biogeographical link with the Seychelles. Nature 425:711-714.
4. Brandley M. C., A. Schmitz, and T. W. Reeder. 2005. Partitioned Bayesian analyses, partition choice, and the phylogenetic relationships of scincid lizards. Syst. Biol. 54:373-390.
5. Cannatella, D. C. 1980. A review of the Phyllomedusa buckleyi group (Anura: Hylidae). Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 87:1-40.
6. Chek, A. A., S. C. Lougheed, J. P. Bogart, and P. T. Boag. 2001. Perception and history: Molecular phylogeny of a diverse group of Neotropical frogs, the 30-chromosome Hyla (Anura: Hylidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 18:370-385.
7. Crawford, A. J. 2003. Huge populations and old species of Costa Rican and Panamanian dirt frogs inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences. Mol. Ecol. 12:2525-2540.
8. Darst, C. R., and D. C. Cannatella. 2004. Novel relationships among hyloid frogs inferred from 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31:462-475.
9. da Silva, H. R. 1997. Two character states new for hylines and the taxonomy of the genus Pseudacris. J. Herpetol. 31:609-613.
10. da Silva, H. R. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of the family Hylidae with emphasis on the relationships within the subfamily Hylinae (Amphibia: Anura). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Kansas.
11. De Queiroz, A. 1993. For consensus (sometimes). Syst. Biol. 42:368-372.
12. Dingerkus, G., and L. D. Uhler. 1977. Enzyme clearing of alcian blue stained whole small vertebrates for demonstration of cartilage. Stain Technol. 52:229-232.
13. Driskell, A. C., C. Ané, J. G. Burleigh, M. M. McMahon, B. C. O'Meara, and M. J. Sanderson. 2004. Prospects for building the, Tree of Life from large sequence databases. Science 306:1172-1174.
14. Duellman, W. E. 1968. The genera of phyllomedusine frogs (Anura: Hylidae). Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 18:1-10.
15. Duellman, W. E. 1970. Hylid frogs of Middle America, 1st edition. University of Kansas.
16. Duellman, W. E. 1975. On the classification of frogs. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 42:1-15.
17. Duellman, W. E. 2001. Hylid frogs of Middle America, 2nd edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.
18. Duellman, W. E., and L. Trueb. 1983. Frogs of the Hyla columbiana group: Taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships. Pages 33-51 in Recent advances in herpetology and evolutionary biology (A. G. J. Rhodin and K. Miyata, eds.). Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
19. Duellman, W. E., and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York.
20. Duellman, W. E., and J. J. Wiens. 1992. The status of the hylid frog genus Ololygon and the recognition of Scinax Wagler, 1830. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 151:1-23.
21. Dunon-Bluteau, D., and G. Brun. 1986. The secondary structures of the Xenopus laevis and human mitochondrial small ribosomal subunit RNA are similar. FEBS Lett. 198:333-338.
22. Emerson, S. B., and P. A. Hastings. 1998. Morphological correlations in evolution: Consequences for phylogenetic analysis. Quart. Rev. Biol. 73:141-162.
23. Erixon, P., B. Svennblad, T. Britton, and B. Oxelman. 2003. Reliability of Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap frequencies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 52:665-673.
24. Faivovich, J., P. C. A. Garcia, F. Ananias, L. Lanari, N. G. Basso, and W. C. Wheeler. 2004. A molecular perspective on the phylogeny of the Hyla pulchella species group. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32:938-950.
25. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
26. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
27. Ford, L. S., and D. C. Cannatella. 1993. The major clades of frogs. Herpetol. Monogr. 6:94-117.
28. Frost, D. R. 2001. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. Version 3.0 (22 August, 2004). Electronic database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.
29. Gao, K., and M. A. Norell. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Carusia (Reptilia: Squamata) from the Late Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert and phylogenetic relationships of anguimorphan lizards. Am. Mus. Nov. 3230:1-51.
30. Gauthier, J. 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Mem. Calif. Acad. Sci. 8:1-47.
31. Goldman, N., J. P. Anderson, and A. G. Rodrigo. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:652-670.
32. Graybeal, A. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships of bufonid frogs and tests of alternate macroevolutionary hypotheses characterizing their radiation. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 119:297-338.
33. Graybeal, A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17.
34. Gu, X., Y.-X. Fu, and W.-H. Li. 1995. Maximum likelihood estimation of the heterogeneity of substitution rate among nucleotide sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:546-557.
35. Hasegawa, M., H. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. Dating the human-ape spit by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
36. Hass, C. A., L. R. Maxson, and S. B. Hedges. 2001. Relationships and divergence times of West Indian amphibians and reptiles: Insights from albumin immunology. Pages 157-174 in Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and perspectives (C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile, eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
37. Hay, J. M., I. Ruvinsky, S. B. Hedges, and L. R. Maxson. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships of amphibian families inferred from DNA sequences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S ribosomal genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:928-937.
38. Hedges, S. B. 1996. The origin of West Indian amphibians and reptiles. Pages 95-128 in Contributions to West Indian herpetology: A tribute to Albert Schwartz (R. Powell and R. W. Henderson, eds.). Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Contributions to Herpetology, vol. 12, Ithaca, New York.
39. Hendy, M. D., and D. Penny. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
40. Hillis, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:130-131.
41. Hillis, D. M. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
42. Hillis, D. M., and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
43. Hillis, D. M., B. K. Mable, and C. Moritz. 1996. Applications of molecular systematics: The state of the field and a look to the future. Pages 515-543 in Molecular systematics, 2nd edition (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
44. Hillis, D. M., D. D. Pollock, J. A. McGuire, and D. J. Zwickl. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-126.
45. Hoegg, S., M. Vences, H. Brinkmann, and A. Meyer. 2004. Phylogeny and comparative substitution rates of frogs inferred from sequences of three nuclear genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1188-1200.
46. Huelsenbeck, J. P., D. M. Hillis, and R. Jones. 1996. Parametric bootstrapping in molecular phylogenetics: Applications and performance. Pages 19-45 in Molecular zoology: Advances, strategies, and protocols (J. D. Ferraris and S. R. Palumbi, eds.). Wiley-Liss, New York.
47. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and B. Rannala. 2004. Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities. Syst. Biol. 53:904-913.
48. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
49. Jukes, T. H., and C. R. Cantor. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. Pages 21-132 in Mammalian protein metabolism (H. Munro, ed.). Academic Press, New York.
50. Kass, R. E., and A. E. Raftery. 1995. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90:773-795.
51. Kim, J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: Effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-374.
52. Kim, J. 1998. Large-scale phylogenies and measuring the effects of phylogenetic estimators. Syst. Biol. 47:43-60.
53. Leviton, A. E., R. H. Gibbs, E. Heal, and C. E. Dawson. 1985. Standards in herpetology and ichthyology: Part 1. Standard symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology. Copeia 1985:802-832.
54. Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to inferring phylogeny from discrete morphological characters. Syst. Biol. 50:913-925.
55. Lynch, J. D. 1971. Evolutionary relationships, osteology, and zoogeography of leptodactyloid frogs. Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 53:1-238.
56. Lynch, J. D. 1973. The transition from archaic to advanced frogs. Pages 131-182 in Evolutionary biology of the anurans (J. L. Vial, ed.), University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri.
57. Lynch, J. D. 1978. A re-assessment of the telmatobiine leptodactylid frogs. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 72:1-57.
58. Macey, J. R., J. A. Schulte II, A. Larson, N. B. Ananjeva, Y. Wang, R. Pethiyagoda, N. Rastegar-Pouyani, and T. J. Papenfuss. 2000. Evaluating trans-Tethys migration: An example using acrodont lizard phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:233-256.
59. Mendelson, J. R. III, H. R. Da Silva, and A. M. Maglia. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among marsupial frog genera (Anura: Hylidae: Hemiphractinae) based on evidence from morphology and natural history. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 128:125-148.
60. Moriarty, E. C., and D. C. Cannatella. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the North American chorus frogs (Pseudacris: Hylidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30:409-420.
61. Murphy, W. J., E. Eizirik, W. J. Johnson, Y. P. Zhang, O. A. Ryder, and S. J. O'Brien. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614-618.
62. Novacek, M. J. 1992. Fossils, topologies, missing data, and the higher level phylogeny of eutherian mammals. Syst. Biol. 41:58-73.
63. Nylander, J. A. A. 2004. MrModeltest 2.0. Program distributed by the author. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University. (http://www.ebc.uu.se/ systzoo/staff/nylander.html).
64. Nylander, J. A. A., F. Ronquist, J. P. Huelsenbeck, and J. L. Nieves-Aldrey. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53:47-67.
65. Phillipe, H., E. A. Snell, E. Bapteste, P. Lopez, P. W. H. Holland, and D. Casane. 2004. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: Impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1740-1752.
66. Poe, S. 1998. Sensitivity of phylogeny estimation to taxonomic sampling. Syst. Biol. 47:18-31.
67. Poe, S., and D. L. Swofford. 1999. Taxon sampling revisited. Nature 398:299-300.
68. Powell, R., and R. W. Henderson. 2003. A second set of addenda to the checklist of West Indian amphibians and reptiles. Herp. Rev. 34:341-345.
69. Rannala, B., J. P. Huelsenbeck, Z. Yang, and R. Nielsen. 1998. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of large phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 47:702-710.
70. Rodríguez, J., L. Oliver, A. Marín, and R. Medina. 1990. The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J. Theor. Biol. 142:485-501.
71. Roelants, K., and F. Bossuyt. 2005. Archaeobatrachian paraphyly and pangaean diversification of crown-group frogs. Syst. Biol. 54:111-126.
72. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2001. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:10751-10756.
73. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2003. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52:119-124.
74. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony*, version 4.0b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
75. Takezaki, N., F. Figueroa, Z. Zaleska-Rutczynska, and H. Takahata. 2004. The phylogenetic relationship of tetrapod, coelecanth, and lungfish revealed by the sequences of forty-four nuclear genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1512-1524.
76. Templeton, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
77. Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680.
78. Tyler, M. J. 1971. The phylogenetic significance of vocal sac structure in hylid frogs. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 19:319-360.
79. Wiens, J. J. 1998a. The accuracy of methods for coding and sampling higher-level taxa for phylogenetic analysis: A simulation study. Syst. Biol. 47:381-397.
80. Wiens, J. J. 1998b. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47:625-640.
81. Wiens, J. J. 1998c. Combining data sets with different phylogenetic histories. Syst. Biol. 47:568-581.
82. Wiens, J. J. 1999. Polymorphism in systematics and comparative biology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:327-362.
83. Wiens, J. J. 2001. Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: Problems and solutions. Syst. Biol. 50:689-699.
84. Wiens, J. J. 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 52:528-538.
85. Wiens, J. J., R. M. Bonett, and P. T. Chippindale. 2005. Ontogeny discombobulates phylogeny: paedomorphosis and higher-level salamander relationships. Syst. Biol. 54:91-110.
86. Wiens, J. J., P. T. Chippindale, and D. M. Hillis. 2003. When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders. Syst. Biol. 52:501-514.
87. Wiens, J. J., and T. W. Reeder. 1995. Combining data sets with different numbers of taxa for phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 44:548-558.
88. Wiens, J. J., and T. W. Reeder. 1997. Phylogeny of the spiny lizards (Sceloporus) based on molecular and morphological evidence. Herpetol. Monogr. 11:1-101.
89. Wilcox, T. P., D. J. Zwickl, T. A. Heath, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. Mol. Phylogenetic. Evol. 25:361-371.
90. Wilkinson, M., and M. J. Benton. 1995. Missing data and rhynchosaur phylogeny. Hist. Biol. 10:137-150.
91. Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
92. Yang, Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: Approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.
93. Zwickl, D. J., and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51:588-598.