SPASOS 1.1: a program for the inference of ancestral shape ontogenies

Abstract

We recently published a method to infer ancestral landmark-based shape ontogenies that takes into account the possible existence of changes in developmental timing. Here we describe SPASOS, a software to perform that analysis. SPASOS is an opensource Windows program written in C. Input data include landmark coordinates for each specimen -with the corresponding information about developmental timing-and a phylogenetic tree showing the relationships among the species sampled. As output, the program produces image files for an easy visualization of the results and data files useful for post-processing. The program incorporates an interpolating function, based on weighting moving averages, which allows analysis of data with scarce information along the ontogenetic trajectory. An empirical evaluation of this function showed its suitability to fill in incomplete ontogenetic trajectories. Finally, we present the results of a reanalysis in SPASOS of a published dataset, where changes in developmental timing were originally inferred by considering PCA scores as shape variables. Both approaches retrieved the same four largest changes in developmental timing, but differed in the ancestral shapes inferred.

The Taxonomic Status of Physalaemus cuqui Lobo, 1993, with the Description of a New Species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Argentina and Paraguay

“…[In part, misidentification.] Viña-Albornoz et al (2020: 277); Antoniazzi et al (2021: 47); Attademo et al (2021: their Table 1); Catalano et al (2021: 635, their Tables 1 and 2); Curi et al (2021: 2, 3); de Oliveira et al (2021: 16); Demartín et al (2021: their Table 2); Empey et al (2021: 796, their Table 1); Ferraro et al (2021: 396, their Fig. 5, their supplementary data S1–S7); González et al (2021: 4, 15, their Figs.…”

“…1–3, their Table 1); Huttemann and Lavilla (2018: their Table 1); Jetz and Pyron (2018: their supplementary information); Mageski et al (2018: 248); Mulieri et al (2018: 810, 813, 817, their Figs. 22–23); Pesci et al (2018: their Table 1); Baldo et al (2019: 20); Catalano et al (2021: 635); Curi et al (2019: 1–3, 5–6, 8–10, their Figs. 1–6, their Table 1); da Costa et al (2019: 5); da Silva et al (2019: their Appendix 1); Freitas et al (2019: 8); Gandar et al (2019: 6, 9).…”