Phylogeny of the Cercopithecus lhoesti Group Revisited: Combining Multiple Character Sets

Gautier, Jean‐Pierre; Drubbel, Régine Vercauteren; Deleporte, Pierre

doi:10.1007/0-306-48417-x_4

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The karyotype analyses of Dutrillaux, Muleris & Couturier (1988) yielded a pattern consistent with a northern migratory track ( C. preussi + C. lhoesti ) (Fig. 2C), whereas the vocalization analyses of Gautier and colleagues (Gautier, 1988; Gautier, Drubbel & Deleporte, 2002) yielded a pattern consistent with a southern migratory track ( C. solatus + C. lhoesti ) (Fig. 2D).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Forest monkeys and Pleistocene refugia: a phylogeographic window onto the disjunct distribution of theChlorocebus lhoestispecies group

Tosi¹

2008

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reconstruction of evolutionary relationships among a group of closely-related taxa provides a valuable window onto their biogeographic history. This is the first such molecular phylogenetic study to survey all three taxa of the Chlorocebus lhoesti species group, a group of Old World monkeys that includes C. lhoesti, Chlorocebus preussi, and Chlorocebus solatus. Representatives of each species were surveyed for two Y-chromosomal genes, TSPY (~2240 bp) and SRY (~780 bp), and one X-chromosomal intergenic region (~9300 bp) homologous to a portion of human Xq13.3. Maximum likelihood topologies inferred from these sequences confirm that the lhoesti group is monophyletic within the tribe Cercopithecini, as suggested by earlier karyotype studies. Within this group, C. lhoesti (Albertine region) and C. preussi (Cameroon, Nigeria, Bioko) cluster to the exclusion of C. solatus (Gabon). This phylogeographic pattern, evaluated in the context of Pleistocene glacial cycles and lhoesti group ecology, suggests: (1) the common ancestor of the group probably arose in west central Africa, (2) dispersal to the Albertine region is likely to have occurred during a glacial maximum, rather than an interglacial pluvial, and (3) this dispersal probably occurred via a path north of the Congo Basin. Divergence date calculations suggest C. solatus separated from the ancestral stock at~2.1 Ma, whereas C. preussi and C. lhoesti bifurcated later, at~0.5 Ma. Taken together, these evolutionary analyses draw attention to one period in the Pleistocene (~0.5 MYA) when a dispersal corridor suitable to montane taxa is likely to have connected the highlands of east central and west central Africa.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Forest monkeys and Pleistocene refugia: a phylogeographic window onto the disjunct distribution of theChlorocebus lhoestispecies group

Tosi¹

2008

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We believe that it should be revisited from a different perspective. Instead of using call data to reconstruct phylogenies (e. g. Gautier 1988;Gautier et al 2002), well-resolved phylogenies might be used to reconstruct the evolutionary history of repertoires and individual calls. The model proposed here builds on the hypothesis that species' vocal repertoires are inherited from ancestral species, and that interspecific differences in repertoires reflect changes that occurred after speciation.…”

Section: Formal Monkey Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal monkey linguistics

Schlenker¹,

Chemla

Schel

et al. 2016

Theoretical Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that rich data gathered in experimental primatology in the last 40 years can benefit from analytical methods used in contemporary linguistics. Focusing on the syntactic and especially semantic side, we suggest that these (iii) how are the meanings of individual calls combined? (iv) how do calls or call sequences compete with each other when several are appropriate in a given situation? (v) how did the form and meaning of calls evolve? We address these questions in five case studies pertaining to cercopithecines (Putty-nosed monkeys, Blue monkeys, and Campbell's monkeys), colobinae (Guereza monkeys and King Colobus monkeys), and New World monkeys (Titi monkeys). The morphology mostly involves simple calls, but in at least one case (Campbell's -oo) we find a root-suffix structure, possibly with a compositional semantics. The syntax is in all clear cases simple and finite-state. With respect to meaning, nearly all cases of call concatenation can be analyzed as conjunction. But a key question concerns the division of labor between semantics, pragmatics and the environmental context ('world' knowledge and context change). An apparent case of dialectal variation in the semantics (Campbell's krak) can arguably be analyzed away if one posits sufficiently powerful mechanisms of competition among calls, akin to scalar implicatures. An apparent case of non-compositionality (Putty-nosed pyow-hack sequences) can be analyzed away if one further posits a pragmatic principle of 'urgency', whereby threat-related calls must come early in sequences (another potential case of non-compositionality -Colobus snort-roar sequences -might justify assigning non-compositional meanings to complex calls, but results are tentative). Finally, rich Titi sequences in which two calls are re-arranged in complex ways so as to reflect information about both predator identity and location are argued not to involve a complex syntax/semantics interface, but rather a finegrained interaction between simple call meanings and the environmental context. With respect to call evolution, we suggest that the remarkable preservation of call form and function over millions of years should make it possible to lay the groundwork for an evolutionary monkey linguistics, which we illustrate with cercopithecine booms, and with a comparative analysis of Blue monkey and Putty-nosed monkey repertoires. Throughout, we aim to compare possible theories rather than to fully adjudicate between them, and our claims are correspondingly modest. But we hope that our methods could lay the groundwork for a formal monkey linguistics combining data from primatology with formal techniques from linguistics (from which it does not follow that the calls under study share non-trivial properties, let alone an evolutionary history, with human language).

show abstract

“…The analysis by Tosi et al (2005) is not only one of the most recent studies of guenon evolutionary relationships, but also is very comprehensive, sampling nearly all living guenon species. It is used here not as an 'absolute truth' but as the best proxy available to date, and one that for the most part mirrors previous phylogenetic analyses of the clade using chromosomal, morphological, behavioural, and acoustic data (Gautier, Vercauteren Drubbel & Deleporte, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons

Cardini

Elton

2008

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

176

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Form and genes often tell different stories about the evolution of animals, with molecular data generally considered to be more objective than morphological data. However, form provides the basis for the description of organisms, and the study of fossils crucially depends on morphology. Complex organisms tend to evolve as 'mosaics', in which parts may be modified at varying rates and in response to different selective pressures. Thus, individual anatomical regions may contain different phylogenetic signals. In the present study, we used computerized methods to 'dissect' the skulls of a primate clade, the guenons, into functional and developmental modules (FDM). The potential of different modules as proxies for phylogenetic divergence in modern lineages was investigated. We found that the chondrocranium was the only FDM in which shape consistently had a strong and significant phylogenetic signal. This region might be less susceptible to epigenetic factors and thus more informative about phylogeny. The examination of the topology of trees from the chondrocranium suggested that the main differences evolved at the time of the radiation of terrestrial and arboreal guenons. However, phylogenetic reconstructions were found to be strongly affected by sampling error, with more localized anatomical regions (i.e. smaller/less complex FDMs) generally producing less reproducible tree topologies. This finding, if confirmed in other groups, implies that the utility of specific FDMs for phylogenetic inference could, in many cases, be hampered by the low reproducibility of results. The study also suggested that uncertainties due to sampling error may be larger than those from character sampling. This might have implications for phylogenetic analyses, which typically provide estimates of support of tree nodes based on characters but do not generally take into account the effect of sampling error on the tree topology. Nonetheless, studies of the potential of different FDMs as proxies for phylogenetic divergence in modern lineages, such as the present study, provide a framework that may help in modelling the morphological evolution of present and fossil species. (C) 2008 The Linnean Society of London

show abstract

Phylogeny of the Cercopithecus lhoesti Group Revisited: Combining Multiple Character Sets

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Forest monkeys and Pleistocene refugia: a phylogeographic window onto the disjunct distribution of theChlorocebus lhoestispecies group

Forest monkeys and Pleistocene refugia: a phylogeographic window onto the disjunct distribution of theChlorocebus lhoestispecies group

Formal monkey linguistics

Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About