Phylogenetic relationships of glassfrogs (Centrolenidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes

Guayasamín, Juan M.; Castroviejo‐Fisher, Santiago; Ayarzagüena, José; Trueb, Linda; Vilà, Carles

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2008.04.012

Cited by 85 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our emphasis on diagnosability, and on the stability of the phylogeny on which classificatory decisions are based, follows initial suggestions by Guayasamin et al (2009). The ranks of well-known taxa will be retained whenever possible.…”

Section: Taxon Naming Criteria (Tnc) For Taxonomic Revisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Confusion due to taxonomic instability thus can become a serious problem consuming public and private resources. Amphibian classification serves as a perfect model to illustrate how a veritable tsunami of classification changes has been gaining force over the past ten years (Hillis and Wilcox 2005;Faivovich et al 2005;Grant et al 2006;Frost et al 2006;Glaw & Vences 2006;Hedges et al 2008;Heinicke et al 2009;Guayasamin et al 2009;Dubois & Raffaëlli 2009Wilkinson et al 2011;. In reptiles the changes have been less drastic, but in the course of smaller revisions a large number of novel genus-and family-level classifications have been proposed (e.g., Arnold et al 2007, Vidal et al 2007Stanley et al 2011;Hedges & Conn 2012;Nicholson et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

Vences¹,

Guayasamín²,

Miralles³

et al. 2013

Zootaxa

Self Cite

155

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Linnaean classification system provides the universal reference system for communicating about the diversity of life and its hierarchic history. Several limitations that challenge the stability of this system have been identified and, as a result, alternative systems have been proposed since its early inception. The revolution caused by molecular phylogenetics has, more than ever, exemplified that Linnaean classification schemes are subject to a degree of instability that may hamper their significance and communication power. Our analysis of recent changes in the classification of several groups of organisms, with a focus on amphibians and reptiles, reveals two main sources of instability: (i) revisionary, objective (empirical) changes based on the discovery of unambiguous instances of non-monophyly and on progress in the Globe's species inventory, and (ii) subjective changes based on author preferences or on a poor analysis of the advantages and limitations of new classification schemes. To avoid subjective taxonomic instability, we review and elaborate proposals for the assignment of Linnaean rank to clades, and thereby for the naming of these clades as Linnaean taxa (Taxon Naming Criteria: TNCs). These are drafted from the perspective of practicing taxonomists and can help choosing among alternative monophyly-based classifications under a premise of economy of change. We provide a rationale for each TNC along with real and theoretical examples to illustrate their practical advantages and disadvantages. We conclude that not all TNCs lead to equally informative and stable taxonomies. Therefore, we order the various TNCs by the generality of their implications and provide a workflow scheme to guide the procedure of taxonomic decisions concerning the creation or modification of supraspecific classifications. The following criteria are considered primary when naming taxa: (i) Monophyly of the taxon in an inferred species tree; (ii) Clade Stability, i.e., the monophyly of a clade to be named as taxon should be as strongly supported as possible by various methods of tree inference, tests of clade robustness, and different data sets; and (iii) Phenotypic Diagnosability, i.e., ranked supraspecific taxa should be those that are phenotypically most conspicuous although in phenotypically cryptic groups of organisms it can be warranted to name taxa based on molecular differences alone. We consider various other criteria as secondary (i.e., the Time Banding, Biogeography, Adaptive Zone, and Hybrid Viability TNCs) and refute using them as sole arguments for the modification of established classifications or proposal of new ones. Taxonomists are encouraged to be explicit and consistent when applying TNCs for creating or modifying classifications. We emphasize that, except for monophyly, the priority TNCs are not proposed as mandatory requisites of a Linnaean taxon but as yardsticks to allow for an informed choice among various clades in a tree that could alternatively be named as Linnaean taxa. Despite a need for plurality, classifications should avoid deliberately violating any of the three primary TNCs because taxa of unstable monophyly or poor diagnosability reduce the information content and hence the utility of the Linnaean system.

show abstract

Section: Taxon Naming Criteria (Tnc) For Taxonomic Revisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

Vences¹,

Guayasamín²,

Miralles³

et al. 2013

Zootaxa

Self Cite

155

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…sp., as sister to those of A. ruthveni. However, the MP analysis does not support the relationship (Leptodactylidae, (Allophrynidae, Centrolenidae)), which has been suggested in other phylogenetic studies (e.g., Frost et al, 2006;Guayasamin et al, 2008;Heinicke et al, 2009;Pyron and Wiens, 2011) although with low support. We explain this lack of resolution by the fact that our dataset was primarily designed to evaluate whether A. resplendens, n.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Despite its ample distribution, records are rare and sparse. Phylogenetically, the relationship Centrolenidae + Allophryne ruthveni is the most accepted hypothesis, supported by molecular phylogenetics (Austin et al, 2002;Faivovich et al, 2005;Wiens et al, 2005;Frost et al, 2006;Grant et al, 2006;Guayasamin et al, 2008) and morphological studies (Duellman, 2001;Burton, 2004;Wiens et al, 2005; but see Fabrezi, 2006). In this work, we describe the second species in the family Allophrynidae, found in the Amazon rainforest of Loreto, Peru.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Genomic DNA was isolated using a standard phenol-chloroform extraction protocol (Sambrook et al, 1989). The selected markers were amplified and sequenced using the same primers and PCR conditions as in Guayasamin et al (2008) with the addition of primers 16L19 and 16H24 (Heinicke et al, 2007). Sequences from heavy and light strands were compared to generate a consensus sequence for each specimen using Sequencher 4.6 (Gene Codes Corp., 2006).…”

Section: Molecular Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Second Species of the Family Allophrynidae (Amphibia: Anura)

Castroviejo‐Fisher

Pérez-Peña

Padial

et al. 2012

American Museum Novitates

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe Allophryne resplendens, a new species from two localities in the Amazon rainforest of Loreto, Peru, of the family Allophrynidae, which was monotypic until this discovery. The new species can be readily differentiated from Allophryne ruthveni on the basis of dorsal and ventral coloration both in life and in preservative, transverse processes of presacral II oriented anterolaterally (oriented laterally in A. ruthveni), 19 nucleotide autapomorphies for 761 base pairs (bp) of the mitochondrial gene 16S, and 16 for 923 bp of 12S. Maximum parsimony analysis of the mitochondrial gene 12S and a fragment of up to 1060 bp of 16S supports the new species as sister to A. ruthveni.

show abstract

A hundred-year-old mystery—the reproductive mode and larval morphology of the enigmatic frog genus Allophryne (Amphibia; Anura; Allophrynidae)

dos Santos Dias,

Delia,

Taboada

et al. 2024

Sci Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frogs of the Allophrynidae are an enigmatic family from South America. To date, published information is lacking regarding this group’s reproductive biology and larval morphology. Here, we provide the first detailed description of the reproductive mode, developmental mode, and tadpole morphology for Allophryne ruthveni. We developed a captive breeding and rearing protocol for this species and then conducted a series of observations to describe aspects of its reproductive biology. In captivity, this species exhibits aquatic oviposition, where single eggs are laid ungrouped within a simple jelly capsule and are scattered free in the water column before sinking to develop on benthic substrates. We did not observe parental care nor any parental interactions with eggs post-fertilization. Tadpoles are characterized by an oval body, anteroventral oral disc, a labial tooth row formula of 2(2)/3, and a dextral vent tube. The buccopharyngeal cavity is marked by the presence of two pairs of infralabial papilla and four lingual papillae. Cranial morphology is characterized by the presence of the commissura quadratoorbital. This species possesses an additional slip of the m. rectus cervicis and of the m. levator arcuum branchialium III. We discuss our results in comparison with glassfrogs (Centrolenidae).

show abstract

Phylogenetic relationships of glassfrogs (Centrolenidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes

Cited by 85 publications

References 71 publications

To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

To name or not to name: Criteria to promote economy of change in Linnaean classification schemes

A Second Species of the Family Allophrynidae (Amphibia: Anura)

A hundred-year-old mystery—the reproductive mode and larval morphology of the enigmatic frog genus Allophryne (Amphibia; Anura; Allophrynidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About