Molecular phylogenetics, species diversity, and biogeography of the Andean lizards of the genus Proctoporus (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae)

Diversification patterns in the North Andean Block: a perspective from biogeographical hypotheses

“…3; Table 3). This idea supports the south-to-north diversification pattern (Doan, 2003;Goicoechea et al, 2012;Chaves et al, 2011) that fit groups such as Stenocercus Torres-Carvajal, 2007), Pristimantis (Pinto-Sánchez et al, 2012), and Tournefortia (Luebert et al, 2011), as has been seen in Adelomya or Proctoporus (Doan, 2003;Chaves et al, 2011). Diversification at the rhythm of the Andean uplift as it is proposed in the south-to-north speciation hypothesis (Doan, 2003;Goicoechea et al, 2012;Chaves et al, 2011) may explain the fit of the hypothesis with origin: Central Andes and pattern: Highlands to Lowlands.…”

Systematics of Neotropical microteiid lizards (Gymnophthalmidae, Cercosaurinae), with the description of a new genus and species from the Andean montane forests

“…The other four Oreosaurus species that were included in the dataset formed a clade (80, 1, 1). Third, in concordance with Torres-Carvajal et al (2016), but contrary to Goicoechea et al (2012) and Sánchez-Pacheco et.al. (2017b), monophyly of Proctoporus was found to be questionable as the genus was supported only in the MrBayes analysis while it received no support in the ML and BEAST analyses (13, 0.95, 0.51).…”

“…Although more species are being included in the phylogenetic analyses of cercosaurines every year and new phylogenetic hypotheses are being presented, our understanding of the systematics of the subfamily is still far from settled. New genetic data often bring unexpected results that reshuffle the taxonomy of cercosaurines, such as reassignments of species to different genera (Kok 2015; Sánchez-Pacheco et al 2017b), resurrections of generic names that had once been synonymised (Goicoechea et al 2012; Chávez et al 2017), identification of new clades at the genus level (this study; Torres-Carvajal et al 2016), recognition of cryptic species (Goicoechea et al 2013), or detection of paraphyletic species or genera (this study; Goicoechea et al 2012; Torres-Carvajal et al 2016). Therefore, it is critical to build the phylogenetic trees on extensive taxon sampling, as otherwise many of the above listed issues may go unnoticed.…”

“…Moreover, basically every new phylogenetic study published to date brought evidence for cryptic species being present (Goicoechea et al 2012; Torres-Carvajal et al 2015, 2016; Sánchez-Pacheco et al 2017b). The amount of overall cryptic diversity within all cercosaurines is not straightforward to gauge because most previous phylogenies had a narrow focus on particular genera (Doan et al 2005; Goicoechea et al 2012; Torres-Carvajal and Mafla-Endara 2013; Aguirre-Peñafiel et al 2014) or regions (Kok et al 2012), or had species represented by a single sample (Pellegrino et al 2001b; Kok 2015). The most comprehensive phylogenetic reconstructions of higher clades were published recently by Torres-Carvajal et al (2015, 2016), Goicoechea et al (2016), and Sánchez-Pacheco et al (2017b).…”

Phylogeny of Neotropical Cercosaura (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) lizards

“…was restricted to the former genera PrionodactylusPellegrino et al, 2001), our study is the first to include Cercosaura manicata, Pholidobolus dicrus and P. vertebralis in aGoicoechea et al, 2012; Torres-Carvajal and Mafla-Endara, 268 2013), and some taxa traditionally ranked as genera have not been 269 sampled yet (i.e., Anadia, Echinosaura, Teuchocercus). This reveals270 that our knowledge of the phylogenetic relationships among taxa 271 within the clade Cercosaurini is still incomplete, and future phylo-272 genetic analyses are likely to lead to further taxonomic changes.…”