What IsPeromyscus? Evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences suggests the need for a new classification

Abstract

The evolutionary relationships between ,, ,, ,, and are poorly understood. In order to further explore the evolutionary boundaries of and compare potential taxonomic solutions for this diverse group and its relatives, we conducted phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequence data from alcohol dehydrogenase (1-I2), beta fibrinogen (-I7), interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (3), and cytochrome- (). Phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear genes produced similar topologies although levels of nodal support varied. The best-supported topology was obtained by combining nuclear and mitochondrial sequences. No monophyletic clade was supported. Instead, support was found for a clade containing, ,, ,, and suggesting paraphyly of and confirming previous observations. Our analyses indicated an early divergence of from (approximately 8 million years ago), whereas most other peromyscine taxa emerged within the last 6 million years. To recover a monophyletic taxonomy from and affiliated lineages, we detail 3 taxonomic options in which, ,, , and are retained as genera, subsumed as subgenera, or subsumed as species groups within . Each option presents distinct taxonomic challenges, and the appropriate taxonomy must reflect the substantial levels of morphological divergence that characterize this group while maintaining the monophyletic relationships obtained from genetic data.

Phylosymbiosis: Relationships and Functional Effects of Microbial Communities across Host Evolutionary History

“…The cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene was used to construct the phylogeny for each host clade, which compared well to established phylogenetic or phylogenomic trees for all species included in the study ( Nasonia [27]; Drosophila [28]; hominids [29]; mosquitoes [26]). Peromyscus was further resolved with an additional marker (arginine vasopressin receptor 1A [AVPR1A]) to reflect the latest phylogenetic estimates [37,38]. …”

“…Divergence times between P . polionotus and donor species were determined from previously published phylogenies [37,38]. Points represent mean values ± standard error for each group ( n = 5–6 recipients per group).…”

“…We compared food intake using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test across recipient groups. We also conducted correlations of dry matter digestibility and estimated divergence times based off of previously published phylogenies [37,38]. We performed correlations using both untransformed divergence times and log-transformed divergence times.…”

The ultimate and proximate mechanisms driving the evolution of long tails in forest deer mice

“…; Platt et al. ). Other close relatives of P. maniculatus are also relatively short‐tailed, with the exception of another climbing specialist, the cactus mouse P. eremicus .…”

“…S3) is consistent with a prairie ancestor to the P. maniculatus group. Second, three studies identified P. melanotis, found primarily in grassy plains and characterized by a very short tail (Álvarez-Castañeda 2005), as the outgroup to the P. maniculatus species group (Bradley et al 2007;Gering et al 2009;Platt et al 2015). Other close relatives of P. maniculatus are also relatively shorttailed, with the exception of another climbing specialist, the cactus mouse P. eremicus.…”