Multiple data sets, high homoplasy, and the phylogeny of softshell turtles (Testudines: Trionychidae)

Systematic Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 693-710

  Engstrom, Tag N ^a,c   Shaffer, H Bradley ^a   McCord, William P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b East Fishkill Animal Hospital   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Homoplasy; Mitochondrial DNA; Multiple data sets; Nuclear intron; Phylogeny; Rank free classification; Trionychidae

Indexed keywords

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA; PRIMER DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL; TURTLE;

ANIMALS; BASE COMPOSITION; BASE SEQUENCE; DNA PRIMERS; DNA, MITOCHONDRIAL; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TURTLES;

AMPHIBIA; MYA ARENARIA; REPTILIA; TESTUDINES; TRIONYCHIDAE;

EID: 9644265549     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150490503053     Document Type: Article

References (126)

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. Allard, M. W., and J. M. Carpenter. 1996. On weighting and congruence. Cladistics 12:183-198.
3. Arctander, P. 1995. Comparison of a mitochondrial gene and a corresponding nuclear pseudogene. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 262:13-19.
4. Arevalo, E., S. K. Davis, and J. W. Sites. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence and phylogenetic relationships among eight chromosome races of the Sceloporus grammicus complex (Phrynosomatidae) in central Mexico. Syst. Biol. 43:387-418.
5. Armstrong, M. H., E. L. Braun, and R. T. Kimball. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of avian ovomucoid intron G: A comparison of nuclear and mitochondrial phylogenies in galliformes. Auk 118:799-804.
6. Baker, R. H., G. S. Wilkinson, and R. DeSalle. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of different types of molecular data used to infer evolutionary relationships among stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Syst. Biol. 50:87-105.
7. Barker, F. K., and S. M. Lanyon. 2000. The impact of parsimony weighting schemes on inferred relationships among toucans and Neotropical barbets (Aves: Piciformes). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 15:215-234.
8. Bensasson, D., D. X. Zhang, and G. M. Hewitt. 2000. Frequent assimilation of mitochondrial DNA by grasshopper nuclear genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:406-415.
9. Birks, S. M., and S. V. Edwards. 2002. A phylogeny of the megapodes (Aves: Megapodiidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 23:408-421.
10. Boulenger, G. A. 1889. Catalogue of the chelonians, rhynchocephalians, and crocodiles in the British Museum (Natural History), new edition. British Museum of Natural History, London.
11. Broughton, R. E., S. E. Stanley, and R. T. Durrett. 2000. Quantification of homoplasy for nucleotide transitions and transversions and a reexamination of assumptions in weighted phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 49:617-627.
12. Brown, W. M., M. George Jr, and A. C. Wilson. 1979. Rapid evolution of animal mitochondrial DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76:1967-1971.
13. Buckley, T. R., and C. W. Cunningham. 2002. The effects of nucleotide substitution model assumptions on estimates of nonparametric bootstrap support. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:394-405.
14. Caterino, M. S., R. D. Reed, M. M. Kuo, and F. A. H. Sperling. 2001. A partitioned likelihood analyses of swallowtail butterfly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Syst. Biol. 50:106-127.
15. Chippindale, P. T., and J. J. Wiens. 1994. Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 43:278-287.
16. Chkhikvadze, V. M. 2000. Systematic status of extinct soft-shelled turtles of the subgenus Rafetus (Axestemys). J. Vert. Paleo. 20:35A.
17. Conant, G. C., and P. O. Lewis. 2001. Effects of nucleotide composition bias on the success of the parsimony criterion in phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1024-1033.
18. de Broin, F. 1977. Contribution a l'etuude des cheloniens, cheloniens continentaux de Cretace et du Treriare de France. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Memoires ser. C 38:1-366.
19. de Queiroz, K., and P. D. Cantino. 2001. Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bull. Zool. Nom. 58:254-271.
20. de Queiroz, K., and J. Gauthier. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:27-31.
21. DeBry, R. W. 1999. Maximum likelihood analyses of gene-based and structure-based process partitions, using mammalian mitochondrial genomes. Syst. Biol. 48:286-299.
22. Degli, E. M., V. S. De, M. Crimi, A. Ghelli, T. Patarnello, and A. Meyer. 1993. Mitochondrial cytochrome b: Evolution and structure of the protein. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1143:243-271.
23. DeWoody, J. A., R. K. Chesser, and R. J. Baker. 1999. A translocated mitochondrial cytochrome b pseudogene in voles (Rodentia: Microtus). J. Mol. Evol. 48:380-382.
24. Engstrom, T. N., and W. P. McCord. 2002. Molecular support for the taxonomic conclusions of McCord and Pritchard (2002), regarding Chitra. Hamadryad 27:57-61.
25. Engstrom, T. N., H. B. Shaffer, and W. P. McCord. 2002. Phylogenetic diversity of endangered and critically endangered southeast Asian softshell turtles (Trionychidae: Chitra). Biol. Conserv. 104:173-179.
26. 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.
27. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1989. Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
28. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
29. Friedel, R. H., J. Stubbusch, Y. A. Barde, and H. Schnuerch. 2001. A novel 7-transmembrane receptor expressed in nerve growth factor-dependent sensory neurons. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 17:31-40.
30. Friesen, V. L., B. C. Congdon, M. G. Kidd, and T. P. Birt. 1999. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers for the amplification of five nuclear introns in vertebrates. Mol. Ecol. 8:2147-2149.
31. Frost, D. R., M. T. Rodrigues, T. Grant, and T. A. Titus. 2001. Phylogenetics of the lizard genus Tropidurus (Squamata: Tropiduridae: Tropidurinae): Direct optimization, descriptive efficiency, and sensitivity analyses of congruence between molecular data and morphology. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21:352-371.
32. Fujita, M. K., T. N. Engstrom, D. E. Starkey, and H. B. Shaffer. 2004. Turtle phylogeny: Insights from a novel nuclear intron. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31:1031-1040.
33. Gaffney, E. S. 1979a. Fossil trionychids of Australia. J. Paleont. 54:1354-1360.
34. Gaffney, E. S. 1979b. Description of a large trionychid turtle shell from the Eocene Bridger Formation of Wyoming. Contrib. Geol. 17:53-57.
35. Gaffney, E. S., and P. A. Meylan. 1988. A phylogeny of turtles. Pages 157-219 in The phylogeny and classification of tetrapods (M. J. Benton, ed.). Claredon Press, Oxford, England.
36. Garcia-Machado, E., M. Pempera, N. Dennebouy, M. Oliva-Suarez, J. C. Mounolou, and M. Monnerot. 1999. Mitochondrial genes collectively suggest the paraphyly of Crustacea with respect to insecta. J. Mol. Evol. 49:142-149.
37. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, M. 1809a. Sur les tortues molles, nouveau genre sous le nom de Trionyx et sur la formation des carapaces. Ann. Mus. Hist. Natur. Paris 14:1-20.
38. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, M. 1809b. Mémoire sur les tortues molles. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 1809:363-367.
39. Georges, A., J. Birrell, K. M. Saint, W. McCord, and S. C. Donnellan. 1999. A phylogeny for side-necked turtles (Chelonia: Pleurodira) based on mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequence variation. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67:213-246.
40. Gray, J. E. 1864. Revision of the species of Trionychidae, found in Asia and Africa, with description of some new species. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1864:76-98.
41. Gray, J. E. 1872. On Indian mud-tortoises (Trionyx). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 4:326-340.
42. Gray, J. E. 1873. Notes on mud-tortoises (Trionyx: Geoffoy) and on the skulls of the different kinds. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1873:38-72.
43. Graybeal, A. 1993. The phylogenetic utility of cytochrome b: Lessons from bufonid frogs. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:256-269.
44. Graybeal, A. 1994. Evaluating the phylogenetic utility of genes: A search for genes informative about deep divergences among vertebrates. Syst. Biol. 43:174-193.
45. Graybeal, A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17.
46. Greenhalgh, P., C. E. M. Olesen, and L. A. Steiner. 1993. Characterization and expression of recombination activating genes (RAG-1 and RAG-2) in Xenopus laevis. J. Immunol. 151:3100-3110.
47. Griffiths, C. S. 1997. Correlation of functional domains and rates of nucleotide substitution in cytochrome b. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7:352-365.
48. Groth, J. G., and G. F. Barrowclough. 1999. Basal divergences in birds and the phylogenetic utility of the nuclear RAG-1 gene. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12:115-123.
49. Gu, X., and W.-H. Li. 1998. Estimation of evolutionary distances under stationary and nonstationary models of nucleotide substituion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95:5899-5905.
50. Hay, O. P. 1903. On the existing genera of the Trionychidae. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 42:268-274.
51. Hedges, S. B., and L. L. Poling. 1999. A molecular phylogeny of reptiles. Science 283:998-1001.
52. Hillis, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:130-131.
53. Hillis, D. M. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
54. 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, second edition. (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
55. Huelsenbeck, J. P., D. M. Hillis, and R. Nielsen. 1996. A likelihood-ratio test of monophyly. Syst. Biol. 45:546-558.
56. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
57. Huelsenbeck, J. P., F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310-2314.
58. Hummel, K. 1929. Die fossilen Weichschildkroten (Trionychia). Eine morphologisch-systematische und stammensgeschichtliche. Studie. Geol. Palaeont. Abh. 16:359-487.
59. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. Fourth Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
60. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately published, Richmond, Indiana.
61. Irwin, D. M., T. D. Kocher, and A. C. Wilson. 1991. Evolution of the cytochrome b gene of mammals. J. Mol. Evol. 32:128-144.
62. Joyce, W. G., J. F. Parham, and J. A. Gauthier. 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. J. Paleontol. 78:989-1013.
63. Källersjo, M., V. A. Albert, and J. S. Farris. 1999. Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure. Cladistics 15:91-93.
64. Källersjo, M., J. S. Farris, M. W. Chase, B. Bremer, M. F. Fay, C. J. Humphries, G. Petersen, O. Seberg, and K. Bremer. 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analyses of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants and flowering plants. Pl. Syst. Evol. 213:259-287.
65. Kordikova, E. G. 1991. Review of fossil trionychids of Kazakhstan (in Russian). And. Geol. Mineral. Nauk. Tbilisi 1991:1-13.
66. Kjer, K. M., R. J. Blahnik, and R. W. Holzenthal. 2001. Phylogeny of Trichoptera (Caddisflies): Characterization of signal and noise within multiple datasets. Syst. Biol. 50:781-816.
67. Kumazawa, Y., and M. Nishida. 1999. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequences of the green turtle and blue-tailed mole skink: Statistical evidence for Archosaurian affinity of turtles. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:784-792.
68. Leaché, A. D., and T. W. Reeder. 2002. Molecular systematics of the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A comparison of parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian approaches. Syst. Biol. 51:44-68.
69. Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 50:913-925.
70. Loveridge, A., and E. E. Williams. 1957. Revision of the African tortoises and turtles of the suborder Cyrtodira. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 115:163-557.
71. Lü, X. M., Y. X. Fu, and Y. P. Zhang. 2002. Evolution of mitochondrial cytochrome b pseudogene in genus Nycticebus. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2337-2341.
72. Lydekker, R. 1889. Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Part III (containing the order Chelonia). Taylor and Francis, London.
73. McCord, W. P., and P. C. H. Pritchard. 2002. A review of the softshell turtles of the genus Chitra, with the description of new taxa from Myanmar and Indonesia (Java). Hamadryad 27:11-56.
74. Macey, J. R., A. Larson, N. B. Ananjeva, Z. Fang, and T. J. Papenfuss. 1997b. Two novel gene orders and the role of light-strand replication in the rearrangement of the vertebrate mitochondrial genome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:91-104.
75. Macey, J. R., A. Larson, N. B. Ananjeva, and T. J. Papenfuss. 1997a. Evolutionary shifts in three major structural features of the mitochondrial genome among iguanian lizards. J. Mol. Evol. 44:660-674.
76. Maddison, W. P., and D. R. Maddison. 2003. Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analyses. Version 0.996. http://mesquiteproject.org.
77. Mahoney, M. J. 2001. Molecular systematics of Plethodon and Aneides (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Plethodontini): Phylogenetic analyses of an old and rapid radiation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 18:174-188.
78. Matthee, C. A., J. D. Burzlaff, J. F. Taylor, and S. K. Davis. 2001. Mining the mammalian genome for artiodactyl systematics. Syst. Biol. 50:367-390.
79. Meyer, A. 1994. Shortcomings of the cytochrome b gene as a molecular marker. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:278-280.
80. Meylan, P. A. 1987. The phylogenetic relationships of soft-shelled turtles (family Trionychidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 186:1-101.
81. Mindell, D. P., M. D. Sorenson, and D. E. Dimcheff. 1998 An extra nucleotide is not translated in mitochondrial ND3 of some birds and turtles. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:1568-1571.
82. Mindell, D. P., M. D. Sorenson, D. E. Dimcheff, M. Hasegawa, J. C. Ast, and T. Yuri. 1999. Interordinal relationships of birds and other reptiles based on whole mitochondrial genomes. Syst. Biol. 48:138-152.
83. Naylor, G. J. P., and W. M. Brown. 1998. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47:61-76.
84. Nie, L. W., X. X. Shan, M. Wang, C. W. Guo, and X. X. Lu. 2001. The conservative region sequence analyses of four Sox Genes in the Trionyx sinensis. Acta Hydrobiol. Sinica 25:245-250.
85. Nutaphand, W. 1986. "Manlai," the world's biggest softshell turtle. (In Thai.) Thai Zool. Mag. 1:64-70.
86. Palumbi, S. R. 1996. Nucleic acids II: The polymerase chain reaction. Pages 205-247 in Molecular systematics, second edition. (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
87. Plummer, M. V. 2001. Testudines: Trionyx muticus (Smooth softshell turtle). Foraging. Herpetol. Rev. 32:249-250.
88. Pollock, D. D., D. J. Zwickl, J. A. McGuire, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 51:664-671.
89. Posada, D. 2001. Modeltest, version 3.06. Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
90. Pritchard, P. C. H. 2001. Observations on body size, sympatry, and niche divergence in softshell turtles (Trionychidae). Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 4:5-27.
91. Prychitko, T. M., and W. S. Moore. 1997. The utility of DNA sequences of an intron from the beta-fibrinogen gene in phylogenetic analyses of woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 8:193-204.
92. Prychitko, T. M., and W. S. Moore. 2000. Comparative evolution of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene and nuclear beta-fibrinogen intron 7 in woodpeckers. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1101-1111.
93. Prychitko, T. M., and W. S. Moore. 2003. Alignment and phylogenetic analyses of b-fibrinogen intron 7 sequences among avian orders reveal conserved regions within the intron. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:762-771.
94. Romer, A. S. 1968. Osteology of the reptiles. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
95. Saint, K. M., C. C. Austin, S. C. Donnellan, and M. N. Hutchinson. 1998. C-mos, a nuclear marker useful for squamate phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 10:259-263.
96. Sanderson, M. J., and M. J. Donoghue. 1996. The relationship between homoplasy and confidence in a phylogenetic tree. Pages 67-89 in Homoplasy: The recurrence of similarity in evolution (M. J. Sanderson and L. Hufford, eds.). Academic Press, San Diego.
97. Sanderson, M. J., and L. Hufford (eds.). 1996. Homoplasy: The recurrence of similarity in evolution. Academic Press, San Diego.
98. Sanderson, M. J., and H. B. Shaffer. 2002. Troubleshooting molecular phylogenetic analyses. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:49-72.
99. Schulte, J. A. III, J. P. Valladares, and A. Larson. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships within Iguanidae inferred using molecular and morphological data and a phylogenetic taxonomy of iguanian lizards. Herpetologica 59:399-419.
100. Shaffer, H. B., J. M. Clark, and F. Kraus. 1991. When molecules and morphology clash: A phylogenetic analyses of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Syst. Zool. 40:284-303.
101. Shaffer, H. B., P. A. Meylan, and M. L. McKnight. 1997. Tests of turtle phylogeny: Molecular, morphological, and paleontological approaches. Syst. Biol. 46:235-268.
102. Soltis, P. S., D. E. Soltis, V. Savolainen, P. R. Crane, and T. G. Barraclough. 2002. Rate heterogeneity among lineages of tracheophytes: Integration of molecular and fossil data and evidence for molecular living fossils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99:4430-1435.
103. Spinks, P. Q., G. B. Pauly, J. J. Crayon, and H. B. Shaffer. 2003. Survival of the Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) in an Urban California Environment. Biol. Conserv. 113:257-267.
104. Spinks, P. Q., H. B. Shaffer, J. B. Iverson, and W. P. McCord. 2004. Phylogenetic hypothesis for the turtle family Geoemydidae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32:164-182.
105. Springer, M. S., R. W. DeBry, C. Douady, H. M. Amrine, O. Madsen, W. W. de Jong, and M. J. Stanhope. 2001a. Mitochondrial versus nuclear gene sequences in deep-level mammalian phylogeny reconstruction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:132-143.
106. Springer, M. S., E. C. Teeling, O. Madsen, M. J. Stanhope, and W. W. de Jong. 2001b. Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98:6241-6246.
107. Starkey, D. E. 1997. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the new world turtle genera Trachemys and Kinosternon. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
108. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
109. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics, second edition. (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K., Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
110. Thompson, J. D., T. J. Gibson, F. Plewniak, F. Jeanmougin, and D. G. Higgins. 1997. The CLUSTAL-X windows interface: Flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analyses tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:4876-4882.
111. van Dijk, P. P., B. L. Stuart, and A. G. J. Rhodin (eds.). 2000. Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lundberg, Massachusetts.
112. Voelker, G., and S. V. Edwards. 1998. Can weighting improve bushy trees? Models of cytochrome b evolution and the molecular systematics of pipits and wagtails (Aves: Motacillidae). Syst. Biol. 47:589-603.
113. Webb, R. G. 1982. Taxonomic notes concerning the trionychid turtle Lissemys punctata (Lacépède). Amphibia-Reptilia 3:179-184.
114. Webb, R. G. 1995. Redescription and neotype designation of Pelocheiys bibroni from southern New Guinea (Testudines: Trionychidae). Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 1:301-310.
115. Weisrock, D. W., and F. J. Janzen. 2000. Comparative molecular phylogeography of North American softshell turtles (Apalone): Implications for regional and wide-scale historical evolutionary forces. Mol. Phylo. Evol. 14:152-164.
116. White, P. S., and L. D. Densmore, II. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA isolation. Pages 29-58 in Practical approach series: Molecular genetic analysis of populations. (A. R. Hoelzel, ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
117. Wiens, J. J. 1998. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47:625-640.
118. Wiens, J. J. 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 52:528-538.
119. Wiens, J. J., and B. D. Hollingsworth. 2000. War of the Iguanas: Conflicting molecular and morphological phylogenies and long-branch attraction in iguanid lizards. Syst. Biol. 49:143-159.
120. Wiens, J. J., and T. A. Penkrot. 2002. Delimiting species using DNA and morphological variation and discordant species limits in spiny lizards (Sceloporus). Syst. Biol. 51:69-91.
121. Wiens, J. J., and T. W. Reeder. 1995. Combining data sets with different numbers of taxa for phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 44:548-558.
122. 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.
123. Wilgenbusch, J., and K. de Queiroz. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among the phrynosomatid sand lizards inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences generated by heterogeneous evolutionary processes. Syst. Biol. 49:592-612.
124. Yang, Z., and N. Goldman. 1997. Are big trees indeed easy? Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:357.
125. Zardoya, R., and A. Meyer. 1998. Complete mitochondrial genome suggests diapsid affinities of turtles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95:14226-14231.
126. Zwickl, D. J., and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51:588-598.