Phylogeny and Biogeography of the Rana pipiens Complex: A Biochemical Evaluation

Hillis, David M.; Frost, John S.; Wright, David A.

doi:10.2307/2413277

Cited by 59 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The gl statistic values are -2.82 for the ITS1 data, -0.65 for the ITS2, -0.79 for the 28s, and -1.39 for the combined data set, showing that the data sets are significantly more structured than random data (P = 0.01) (Hillis and Huelsenbeck, 1992).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Differentiation of Mexican Species of Haematoloechus Looss, 1899 (Digenea: Plagiorchiformes): Molecular and Morphological Evidence

León‐Régàgnon

Brooks²,

León³

1999

The Journal of Parasitology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular evidence is interpreted in the light of morphology to examine the validity of several species of Haematoloechus described as Mexican endemics. Internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2 and 28S ribosomal genes were sequenced for 11 isolates. Phylogenetic analysis of separate partitions and combined databases was conducted. Results were analyzed, in the light of morphological evidence. Haematoloechus macrorchis is proposed as a junior synonym of Haematoloechus longiplexus. Haematoloechus pulcher is a sibling species with Haematoloechus complexus in Lerma wetlands. In Mexico, Haematoloechus medioplexus is distributed along the east coast coinciding with the distribution of Rana berlandieri. The sister species of H. medioplexus is Haematoloechus coloradensis, sharing the distribution of the uterus as a synapomorphic character. Haematoloechus illimis is more closely related to H. medioplexus and H. coloradensis than to H. complexus. It can be distinguished by the distribution of the uterus, lobed ovary, and testes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Differentiation of Mexican Species of Haematoloechus Looss, 1899 (Digenea: Plagiorchiformes): Molecular and Morphological Evidence

León‐Régàgnon

Brooks²,

León³

1999

The Journal of Parasitology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…312) added a fourth species to this group, R. sevosa, which had not been mentioned in Hillis et al (1983). Here also, in the absence of contradictory information, one can suppose that, despite this species addition, the diagnosis of the taxon in Hillis et al (1983) still applies to the taxon recognized in Hillis and Wilcox (2005). Under this interpretation, the nomen Nenirana can be considered nomenclaturally available by virtue of Article 13.1.2 of the Code.…”

Section: Availability Of Nominamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Hillis et al (1983, p. 137), this group was considered to include four named species (Rana chiricahuensis, R. dunni, R. megapoda, R. montezumae). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, p. 312) added three species to this group, R. fisheri, R. lemosespinali and R. subaquavocalis, the last two of which were described after the paper of Hillis et al (1983), and the first one had not been mentioned in this paper. In the absence of contrary indications, it can be supposed that, despite this addition of three species, the diagnosis of the taxon in Hillis et al (1983) still applies to the taxon recognized in Hillis and Wilcox (2005).…”

Section: Availability Of Nominamentioning

confidence: 99%

Naming taxa from cladograms: some confusions, misleading statements, and necessary clarifications

Dubois¹

2007

Cladistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hillis (2006) recently published a rebuttal of my analysis (Dubois, 2006c) of a paper by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) on the taxonomy and nomenclature of American ranid frogs. His paper consists not only in a reply to my paper, as it contains in fact three distinct kinds of statements: (1) an attempt to ''save'' the new generic nomina proposed by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) from being considered nomina nuda under the Code; (2) another plea for the superiority of the Phylocode over the Code, especially as regards the absence of a Rule of Coordination and the substitution of ''phylogenetic definition'' of nomina to the use of onomatophores for the allocation of nomina to taxa; (3) a plea for ''taxonomic stability'' in order not to upset the traditional use of nomina and to please users of electronic data bases. These three points are here commented, as follows: (1) even with the best goodwill, under the rules of the Code it is possible to ''save'' only three or four of the seven new nomina of Hillis and Wilcox (2005), the others being indeed nomina nuda; furthermore, three of these seven nomina are definitively useless and redundant, being junior objective synonyms of other generic nomina; (2) the well-known arguments against the Phylocode do not need to be repeated in detail once again, the most important one being that replacement of a secular nomenclatural system by another one, whose theoretical and practical superiority is highly questionable, would cause considerable chaos and detract taxonomists from their urgent task of accelerating the collection, study and description of the living species of our planet; (3) the claim for taxonomic and nomenclatural stability ignores the importance of the taxonomic impediment and sends a misleading message to the scientific community and to society as a whole: in the present situation of our knowledge, taxonomic stability is ignorance, and the science of taxonomy would have much to lose to adapt its concepts and practices to the needs of databases at the expense of scientific quality. It is once again stressed that, for the quality and accuracy of communication between evolutionary biologists, and above all with other biologists and non-biologists, it is urgent that scientific periodicals impose the use of different systems of notation of nomina following distinct nomenclatural systems, such as the Code and the Phylocode.

show abstract

“…Des travaux partiels, ne prenant en compte que des nombres plus ou moins restreints d'espèces ou de groupes d'espèces, ont été effectués en s'appuyant sur diverses méthodologies : études morpho-anatomiques (DECKERT, 1938 ;THÉLISSON, 1962 ;LIEM, 1970CASE, 1979CLARKE, 1981CLARKE, , 1982CLARKE, , 1983HILLIS, 1985 ;HILLIS & DE SA, 1988 ;CHANNING , 1989 ; BLOMMERS-SCHLÔSSER & BLANC, 1991) ; études caryologiques (KURAMOTO, 197 2 GREEN, 1986a ; BLOMMERS-SCHLÔSSER & BLANC . 1991) ; études immunologiques CASE, 1978 ; POST & UZZELL, 1981 ;UZZELL, 1982 ;KASHIWAGI , 1986) ; études des allozymes (CASE, 1978 ;HILLIS, FROST & WRIGHT, 1983 ;GREEN, 1986b LI, GREEN & SHARBEL, 1989MATSUI & WILKINSON, 1992) ; étude des ARN ribosomau x (HILLIS, 1985 ;HILLIS & DAVIS, 1986) . Ces travaux ont produit des résultats très intéressant s mais partiels, et parfois sujets à caution, pour plusieurs raisons .…”

unclassified

Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens, Anoures)

Dubois¹

1992

linly

253

329

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Une nouvelle classification provisoire de la superfamille des Ranoidea, et plus particulièrement de la famille des Ranidae et du genre Rana, est proposée. Le genre Rana est ici subdivisé, principalement sur la base de critères phénétiques, en trente-trois groupes, auxquels est ici provisoirement attribué le rang de sous-genres. Le but principal de cette classification provisoire, qui doit être comprise comme un outil de travail et non pas comme une proposition définitive, est de servir de guid e pour de futures études sur la phylogénie de cette famille très vaste et à répartition quasi cosmopolite : cette classification aidera à sélectionner des espèces représentatives de chaque groupe phénétique pou r l'étude des états de caractères, et à choisir les hors-groupes appropriés pour l'établissement de la polarité des morphoclines de caractères. Ce n'est que lorsque la phylogénie de la famille dans son ensembl e sera résolue qu'il sera possible d'élaborer une classification plus stable, qui s'avérera peut-être très différente de celle qui est présentée ci-dessous. Notes on the classification of Ranidae (Amphibia, Anura) Summary-A new provisional classification of the superfamily Ranoidea is proposed, with particular emphasis on the family Ranidae and on the genus Rana. The latter is here subdivided, mostly o n the basis of phenetic criteria, into thirty-three groups, which are here tentatively given the rank of subgenera. The major purpose of this tentative classification, which is to be understood as a working tool , not as a final proposai, is to serve as a guide for future studies on the phylogeny of this widely an d almost cosmopolitan family : it will help selecting representative species of each phenetic group for the study of characters' states and choosing appropriate outgroups for the establishment of the polarity o f characters' morphoclines. Only when the phylogeny of the whole family is resolved it will be possibl e to develop a more robust classification, which may prove very different from the one presented below .

show abstract

Phylogeny and Biogeography of the Rana pipiens Complex: A Biochemical Evaluation

Cited by 59 publications

References 0 publications

Differentiation of Mexican Species of Haematoloechus Looss, 1899 (Digenea: Plagiorchiformes): Molecular and Morphological Evidence

Differentiation of Mexican Species of Haematoloechus Looss, 1899 (Digenea: Plagiorchiformes): Molecular and Morphological Evidence

Naming taxa from cladograms: some confusions, misleading statements, and necessary clarifications

Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens, Anoures)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About