phylogenetic relationships and classification of didelphid marsupials ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

74 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 322 Fig. 32. The tree resulting from maximum-likelihood analysis of the vWF dataset under its best-fitting model (TVMef + I + C, ln-likelihood 526648.62; table 11). Conventions for indicating nodal support are described in the caption to figure 28. The broken arrow indicates the alternative position of Marmosa rubra supported by Bayesian analysis.
2009 VOSS AND JANSA: DIDELPHID MARSUPIALS 75 TABLE 13 Results of Parsimony Analyses of Six Molecular Datasets and Caluromys with moderate support from MP, but it was placed between Caluromys + Glironia and other didelphids with weak support in ML and Bayesian analyses. Analyses of sequence data from vWF (fig. 32) strongly support the monophyly of all polytypic didelphid genera except Didelphis and Philander. In addition, they strongly support some of the same intergeneric clades common to our other single-gene results, including (Chironectes (Lutreolina (Philander + Didelphis))); a group that includes Thylamys, Gracilinanus, and Cryptonanus; and another that includes Marmosa, Monodelphis, and Tlacuatzin. A novel result—not strongly supported by any other gene and strongly contradicted by our RAG1 results— is a sister-group relationship between Gracilinanus and Thylamys. No other intergeneric clades are consistently strongly supported by parsimony, likelihood, or Bayesian analyses of vWF sequence data; indeed, most are weakly supported by two or more analyses. In summary, most didelphid genera were recovered as monophyletic groups with strong nodal support values from most genes (table 14). Support statistics suggest that the most problematic genera are Didelphis (recovered as monophyletic with strong support only by analyses of DMP1), Philander (inconsistently recovered as monophyletic by analyses of RAG1 and vWF), and Gracilinanus (not recovered as monophyletic BRCA1 vWF IRBP DMP1 RAG1 a Concatenated Ingroup taxa 41 41 43 42 41 43 Outgroup taxa 7 7 7 0 5 7 Aligned sites 2163 963 1158 1176 1860 7320 Variable sites b 753 324 267 444 315 2103 % variable sites b 34.8 33.6 23.1 37.8 16.9 28.7 Informative sites b 443 202 161 246 210 1262 Minimum-length trees 8 60 121 30 717 8 Length of best trees 2297 967 947 735 584 5583 Consistency Index 0.67 0.60 0.64 0.72 0.66 0.65 Retention Index 0.80 0.75 0.77 0.81 0.80 0.78 Resolved nodes (%) 43 (92.5) 40 (87.0) 38 (79.2) 34 (85.0) 15 (34.1) 45 (92.8) a First and second codon positions only. b Among ingroup taxa. c Among ingroup taxa in strict consensus of minimum-length trees. by analyses of DMP1). Although Caluromys was not recovered as monophyletic by analyses of RAG1 sequences, this result is plausibly attributable to the unstable position of the ingroup root. Several patterns of intergeneric relationships were also consistently recovered, usually with strong support. These include the nested clades (Chironectes (Lutreolina (Didelphis + Philander))) and a group comprised of Thylamys, Gracilinanus, and Cryptonanus. In addition, both loci (IRBP, DMP1) from which sequence data were available for Lestodelphys support a sister-group relationship between that genus and Thylamys. Lastly, all of the recovered single-gene trees are consistent with our assumption of didelphid monophyly. With a single exception, no pattern of intergeneric relationships strongly supported by any analysis of these genes was strongly contradicted by another. Examples of relationships strongly supported by some analyses and not strongly contradicted by any other include the sister-group relationship of Marmosops to Thylamys + Gracilinanus + Cryptonanus; the sister-group relationship of Metachirus to the large opossums with 22 chromosomes; a group that includes Marmosa, Monodelphis, and Tlacuatzin; the group Marmosa + Tlacuatzin; the subfamily Didelphinae; and the clade Hyladelphys + Didelphinae. In effect, the only example of
Page 1 and 2:
PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AND CLAS
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS Abstract .................
Page 5 and 6:
ABSTRACT This report summarizes a d
Page 7 and 8:
2009 VOSS AND JANSA: DIDELPHID MARS
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: 2009 VOSS AND JANSA: DIDELPHID MARS
Page 73: 2009 VOSS AND JANSA: DIDELPHID MARS
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177:
show all

phylogenetic relationships and classification of didelphid marsupials ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?