Upload
dangngoc
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /ympev
From Amazonia to the Atlantic forest: Molecular phylogeny ofPhyzelaphryninae frogs reveals unexpected diversity and a strikingbiogeographic pattern emphasizing conservation challenges
Antoine Fouquet a,b,⇑, Daniel Loebmann c, Santiago Castroviejo-Fisher d, José M. Padial d,Victor G.D. Orrico e, Mariana L. Lyra e, Igor Joventino Roberto f, Philippe J.R. Kok g,h,Célio F.B. Haddad e, Miguel T. Rodrigues b
a CNRS-Guyane – USR 3456, Immeuble Le Relais – 2, Avenue Gustave Charlery, 97300 Cayenne, French Guianab Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Biociências, Caixa Postal 11.461, CEP 05508-090 São Paulo, SP, Brazilc Laboratório de Vertebrados Terrestres, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Av. Itália Km 8, Carreiros, CEP 96.203-900 Rio Grande, RS, Brazild Department of Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, United Statese Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Av. 24-A, 1515, Bela Vista, Caixa Postal 199,CEP 13506-900 Rio Claro, SP, Brazilf Departamento de Ciências Físicas e Biológicas, Laboratório de Zoologia, Universidade Regional do Cariri (URCA), Rua Cel. Antônio Luiz Pimenta, 1161,CEP 63105-000 Crato, Ceará, Brazilg Department of Vertebrates, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Rue Vautier 29, B-1000 Brussels, Belgiumh Biology Department, Unit of Ecology and Systematics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 12 May 2012Revised 13 July 2012Accepted 14 July 2012Available online 26 July 2012
Keywords:AdelophryneAmazoniaAtlantic forestCryptic speciesNeotropical diversityPhyzelaphryne
1055-7903/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.07.012
⇑ Corresponding author at: CNRS-Guyane – USR 34Avenue Gustave Charlery, 97300 Cayenne, French Gu
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Fo
a b s t r a c t
Documenting the Neotropical amphibian diversity has become a major challenge facing the threat of glo-bal climate change and the pace of environmental alteration. Recent molecular phylogenetic studies haverevealed that the actual number of species in South American tropical forests is largely underestimated,but also that many lineages are millions of years old. The genera Phyzelaphryne (1 sp.) and Adelophryne (6spp.), which compose the subfamily Phyzelaphryninae, include poorly documented, secretive, and min-ute frogs with an unusual distribution pattern that encompasses the biotic disjunction between Amazo-nia and the Atlantic forest. We generated >5.8 kb sequence data from six markers for all seven nominalspecies of the subfamily as well as for newly discovered populations in order to (1) test the monophyly ofPhyzelaphryninae, Adelophryne and Phyzelaphryne, (2) estimate species diversity within the subfamily,and (3) investigate their historical biogeography and diversification. Phylogenetic reconstructionconfirmed the monophyly of each group and revealed deep subdivisions within Adelophryne and Phyzel-aphryne, with three major clades in Adelophryne located in northern Amazonia, northern Atlantic forestand southern Atlantic forest. Our results suggest that the actual number of species in Phyzelaphryninaeis, at least, twice the currently recognized species diversity, with almost every geographically isolatedpopulation representing an anciently divergent candidate species. Such results highlight the challengesfor conservation, especially in the northern Atlantic forest where it is still degraded at a fast pace. Molec-ular dating revealed that Phyzelaphryninae originated in Amazonia and dispersed during early Mioceneto the Atlantic forest. The two Atlantic forest clades of Adelophryne started to diversify some 7 Maminimum, while the northern Amazonian Adelophryne diversified much earlier, some 13 Ma minimum.This striking biogeographic pattern coincides with major events that have shaped the face of the SouthAmerican continent, as we know it today.
� 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Life is facing its 6th mass extinction (Barnosky et al., 2011), andthe description of the world’s biodiversity is a race against the
ll rights reserved.
56, Immeuble Le Relais – 2,iana.uquet).
clock for many biologists before this invaluable heritage vanishes.This is particularly critical in the tropics, which host the bulk of thediversity on Earth (Gaston and Williams, 1996) but still remainlargely under-documented regarding the actual magnitude of theirbiological diversity and the mechanisms responsible for its origin(Balakrishnan, 2005). Tropical forests of South America are crucialbecause they are believed to host more species than anywhere elsein the world (Gaston and Williams, 1996; Myers et al., 2000;
548 A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561
Primack and Corlett, 2005; Wilson, 1992). Despite being flaggedamong the famous ‘‘biodiversity hotspots’’ as a priority area forconservation some 15 years ago (Mittermeier et al., 1998), theAtlantic forest of Brazil is still being degraded at a fast/steady pace,particularly in its northern part (Ribeiro et al., 2009). Even theimmense Amazonia, with a large part of its surface remaining rel-atively intact, deeply suffers from human activities and is reducedin size at an extremely fast pace (Malhi et al., 2008).
The biodiversity hosted by both areas is still so poorly docu-mented that we do not know what is lost with each exploited hect-are of forest (Tuomisto et al., 1995; da Silva et al., 2005; Carnavalet al., 2009). Moreover, in the last decades many studies have re-vealed a large underestimation of species number actually occur-ring in these regions (Giam et al., 2012). This has beenparticularly striking for amphibians, with many species now recog-nized as localized endemics or even isolated micro-endemics occur-ring in small patches of these forests (e.g. Fouquet et al., 2012a, b;Funk et al., 2012). Given that more than one third of the amphibianspecies are currently threatened by extinction – thus more than inany other vertebrate group (Stuart et al., 2004, 2008) – assessing theactual biodiversity represented by South American amphibians isbecoming a major challenge (Wake and Vredenburg, 2008).
Estimating the South American biodiversity is not only a matterof counting species, but also of accounting for the depth of the rela-tionships among species, the so-called ‘‘phylogenetic diversity’’(Faith, 1992; Crozier, 1997; Purvis and Hector, 2000). Recent stud-ies have revealed that many South American lineages are in factmillions of years old. Even among closely related South Americanamphibian species (e.g. Grant et al., 2006; Heinicke et al., 2007;Fouquet et al., 2012a) or within species (e.g. Fouquet et al., 2007,2012b; Funk et al., 2012) the prevalence of deep divergence re-vealed by molecular phylogenetics and phylogeography has beenastonishing. The extent of unrecognized species that are geograph-ically restricted and could represent millions of years of indepen-dent evolution, and whether these undetected species arethreatened in the Atlantic forest and Amazonia are questions thatstill cannot be answered.
A large proportion of South American frogs are terraranans, i.e.the New World direct-developing frogs, with more than 900 spe-cies (Heinicke et al., 2007, 2009; Hedges et al., 2008). For example,the genus Pristimantis holds �400 nominal species and representsthe most species-rich genus among terrestrial vertebrates (Hei-nicke et al., 2007; Hedges et al., 2008), whereas other genera ofTerrarana have very few and are restricted to very small areasdespite being of similar age (Gonzalez-Voyer et al., 2011). WithinTerrarana, Eleutherodactylidae provides another striking exampleof such unbalance. This family holds more than 200 species, thegenus Eleutherodactylus (including subgenera Syrrophus, Euhyas,Peloruis, Schwartzius) holding more than 190 species and theremaining 16 species belonging to three other much smaller gen-era: Diasporus (n = 9), Adelophryne (n = 6) and Phyzelaphryne (n = 1).
The geographical distribution of these four genera provides astriking pattern given that they are all allopatric from southernUSA to the Atlantic forest in Brazil. Eleutherodactylus has diversifiedin the Caribbean and the southern part of North America, while itssister group, Diasporus, occurs in Central America and Chocó(Colombia). The two other genera are also found allopatricallyand display an intriguing distribution. Phyzelaphryne is a mono-typic genus previously known from only a few localities south ofthe Amazon River (Heyer, 1977; Heyer and Gascon, 1995; De laRiva et al., 2000), and Adelophryne contains six nominal speciesscattered in the northern periphery of Amazonia and in isolatedpatches of the remnants of the northern part of the Atlantic forestof Brazil. Most Adelophryne and Phyzelaphryne species are knownonly from their type locality and very few additional scatteredpopulations (Loebmann et al., 2011; Ortega-Andrade, 2009;
Almeida et al., 2011). Such puzzling distribution led Hoogmoedand Lescure (1984) to question the homogeneity of Phyzelaphryni-nae, which has been later hypothesized to consist of remnants of aonce more diverse and broadly distributed clade (Gonzalez-Voyeret al., 2011). These frogs have been poorly represented in recent ef-forts to document phylogenetic relationships among Terrarana,and anurans in general (Hedges et al., 2008; Heinicke et al.,2009); only one Adelophryne and one Phyzelaphryne samples havebeen so far included (Hedges et al., 2008; Heinicke et al., 2009).The obvious reason for this is that it is challenging to gather ameaningful sampling because these frogs are very small(SVL = 11 mm in A. pachydactyla to a maximum of 23 mm in A. pat-amona), secretive (some species are locally very common, like A.gutturosa, but hard to find because of their microhabitat [Kokand Kalamandeen, 2008]) and with very restricted distributions(i.e. a few localized patches over an entire continent). These di-rect-developing frogs (Cassiano-Lima et al., 2011; MacCullochet al., 2008) are found exclusively in or under the forest litter (A.maranguapensis breeds in bromeliads [Cassiano-Lima et al.,2011]) from lowlands to mountain forests up to 1400 m a.s.l. Theirnatural history is extremely poorly documented. Cassiano-Limaet al. (2011) recently provided some information on the reproduc-tion and development of A. maranguapensis, and MacCulloch et al.(2008) as well as Kok and Kalamandeen (2008) reported the obser-vation of A. gutturosa laying a single very large egg.
Adelophryne and Phyzelaphryne (Phyzelaphryninae) can be dis-tinguished from other Terrarana by the shape of terminal digits.However, the morphological distinction between these two generais somewhat ambiguous (Hoogmoed and Lescure, 1984) and themonophyly of Adelophryne has never been formally tested. Molec-ular analyses included only one Adelophryne and one Phyzelaph-ryne, and these samples formed unambiguously a natural group –i.e. Phyzelaphryninae (Hedges et al., 2008). However, consideringthe reduced number of terminals included and the frequent mor-phological conservatism or parallel evolution in general morphol-ogy observed in other groups of Terrarana distributed in similarenvironments (e.g. Psychrophrynella, Phrynopus) (Hedges et al.,2008; Gonzalez-Voyer et al., 2011), it would not be surprising tofind within Phyzelaphryninae relationships that contradict the cur-rent taxonomy.
For example, some specimens from Colombia were allocated tothe genus Phyzelaphryne in their original description (Heyer, 1977),and the advertisement call was described based on the Colombianmaterial, but Hoogmoed and Lescure (1984) demonstrated that thecall of P. miriamae described by Heyer (1977) in fact pertains toAdelophryne adiastola. Conversely, Lynch (2005) identified as A. adi-astola specimens from Leticia that might actually belong to thegenus Phyzelaphryne (see below). Moreover, the biogeographic pat-tern observed within Adelophryne – i.e. occurring in northernAmazonia and the Atlantic forest, is mystifying given that theAtlantic forest is separated from Amazonia by a northeast–south-west belt of open or dry formations (Prado and Gibbs, 1993; da Sil-va et al., 2004), which currently acts, and has acted in the past, as abarrier to biotic exchanges between these two forest blocks (Costa,2003; Mori et al., 1981). Many ancient clades are endemic to one orthe other of these regions, having very few species in common(Duellman, 1999). The patterns provided by new insights in theunderstanding of evolutionary relationships in many groups likeDendrophryniscus/Amazophrynella (Fouquet et al., 2012b), Allobates(Santos et al., 2009), Leposoma (Pellegrino et al., 2011), and Vitreor-ana (Guayasamin et al., 2008, 2009) suggest that small vertebratesdistributed in Amazonia and the Atlantic forest, i.e. having frag-mented range restricted to forest habitat, could display tens of mil-lions of years of divergence. Moreover, highly conservative orparallel morphological evolution in small, dull-colored, terrestrial,leaf litter-associated amphibian species has been repeatedly
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 549
highlighted as a source of cryptic diversity (Fouquet et al., 2007;Vieites et al., 2009).
Therefore, given the conservation importance of amphibians inthe region, and the numerous gaps in our understanding of thediversity and the origin of Phyzelaphryninae, we propose to (1) testthe monophyly of Phyzelaphryninae within Terrarana and themonophyly of Adelophryne and Phyzelaphryne, (2) estimate speciesdiversity within these genera and (3) investigate their biogeogra-phy and evolutionary history.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling
Tissue samples of all nominal species within Phyzelaphryninaewere taken from thigh muscle or liver (in one case from eggs) andpreserved in 95% ethanol (Table 1). Specimens were collected fromtheir type locality or from the closest localities possible, and aredeposited in different collections (Table 1). We also collected tissuesamples from specimens of newly discovered populations thatwere tentatively identified as belonging to one of the nominalspecies within Phyzelaphryninae. Sequences of some specimensof Phyzelaphryne miriamae and Adelophryne gutturosa were re-trieved from GenBank. Genomic DNA was extracted using PromegaDNA extraction kit. A total of 31 Adelophryne and 14 Phyzelaphryneindividuals were included. We follow the classification of Pyronand Wiens (2011) for Terrarana.
We targeted three mitochondrial (Cytb; COI; 12S–16S) andthree nuclear loci (RAG1; POMC; TYR) that were already partlyavailable for main Terrarana (n = 14), Hyloidea lineages (n = 14)and five outgroups (Table 1), which were collated together withPhyzelaphryninae for a total of 80 terminals. Data not presentedhere for A. baturitensis from Serra de Baturité (type locality) andSerra de Maranguape show that these populations are very similarto the ones included herein from Serra da Ibiapaba.
In order to reduce missing data for the other Terrarana and otherHyloidea terminals, we concatenated sequences from different spe-cies or even genera (Pelodryadinae, Centrolenidae, Sooglossus/Nasikabatrachus) when monophyly of the group involved wasunambiguous. The only early-diverging lineage within Terraranathat was not represented is Ceuthomantidae because we consid-ered the available data too limited for nuclear DNA (missing POMC,TYR and most RAG-1) to be included in our analyses; the position ofCeuthomantidae is also well supported (Heinicke et al., 2009). Wealso completed the matrix directly from biological material (Table1) and therefore produced sequence data for two loci or more formost Terrarana terminals (Holoaden, Brachycephalus, Oreobates,Haddadus, Barycholos and Eleutherodactylus) up to all the loci forEuparkerella, for which no sequences were previously available.
Fragments were amplified by standard PCR techniques; detailedinformation about the primers is available in Table 2. Sequencingwas performed using ABI Big Dye V3.1 (ABI, Foster City, USA) andresolved on an automated sequencer at IQUSP and GenomicEngenharia corp. (São Paulo, Brazil) and Macrogen Inc. (Korea). Se-quences were edited and aligned with CodonCode Aligner v.3.5.2.Novel sequences were deposited in GenBank (Table 1).
We generated 278 new sequences of terraranans (Table 1).Within Phyzelaphryninae some terminals harbor substantial miss-ing data. Nevertheless, preliminary analyses suggested that thesewere not impeding resolution given that these missing data wereevenly distributed among main lineages (Lemmon et al., 2009;Wiens and Morrill, 2011; Wiens, 1998, 2003; Simmons, 2012).For other terminals, missing data were limited to a maximum oftwo complete loci for Bryophryne (Cytb; RAG-1) and one completelocus for three terminals (Hypodactylus and Phrynopus for COI;
Nasikabatrachus/Sooglossus for POMC). A 345 bp portion of the Cytbfragment remained missing for six Terrarana terminals and Gas-trotheca; and a portion of RAG-1 for seven Terrarana lineages.
2.2. Data analyses
2.2.1. AlignmentMost data consisted of coding regions, and alignment was
unambiguous. We observed the insertion/deletion of one codonin RAG-1 fragment for Hyloidea/outgroup and several codon inser-tion/deletions in POMC, but none of them led to ambiguous align-ment after checking the reading frame. For the 12S–16S fragmentwe performed alignment with MAFFT v6 (Katoh et al., 2002) underdefault parameters except for the use of the L-INS-i strategy, whichis adapted to sequences with one conserved domain and long gaps.We obtained a final 5841 bp alignment. We used Bayesian analysisand Maximum Parsimony to investigate phylogenetic relationshipsamong terminals.
2.2.2. Bayesian analysisWe divided the dataset into seven partitions: one for each co-
don position of the mtDNA (1388/3 bp) and the nuDNA codinggenes (2515 bp/3) and one for the 12S/16S fragment (1938 bp).The choice of this partitioning was driven by the coding natureof mtDNA (Cytb, COI) and nuDNA (RAG1, POMC, TYR) loci and com-parable rates of evolution (Mueller, 2006; Hoegg et al., 2004; Fou-quet et al., 2012a; see results). Many studies, indeed, reported thatpartitioning by both gene and codon position gave the best fit tothe data (Caterino et al., 2001; Brandley et al., 2005). A more inclu-sive partitioning would have joined very different patterns ofmolecular evolution, and greater partitioning would likely causeoverparameterization (Marshall, 2010; Sullivan and Joyce, 2005).
We used the software jModeltest version 0.1.1 (Posada, 2008;Guindon and Gascuel, 2003) to select the substitution model thatbest fits each of these partitions under Akaike’s Information Crite-rion (Akaike, 1974). The seven resulting models (Suppl. Mat.) wereemployed in a Bayesian analysis with MrBayes 3.2 (Huelsenbeckand Ronquist, 2001; Ronquist and Huelsenbeck, 2003). The Bayes-ian analysis consisted of two independent runs of 2.0 � 107 gener-ations, starting with random trees and 10 Markov chains (onecold), sampled every 1000 generations. We also performed sepa-rate runs for mtDNA and nuDNA using the same partitions andmodels and 2.0 � 107 generations for each run (Suppl. Mat.). Ade-quate burn-in was determined by examining likelihood scores ofthe heated chains for convergence on stationarity, as well as theeffective sample size of values in Tracer 1.5 (Rambaut and Drum-mond, 2007). We discarded 10% of the generations/trees. We con-sidered relationships strongly supported when posteriorprobabilities were equal to or higher than 0.95.
2.2.3. Maximum parsimonyOf the 5841 total characters of the matrix, 2285 are constant,
538 variable characters are parsimony-uninformative and 3018are parsimony-informative using gaps as a fifth character state.The mtDNA partition totaled 3326 characters (1060 are constant,1974 parsimony informative) and the nuDNA partition totaled2515 characters (1225 are constant, 1044 parsimony informative).
We employed PAUP 4.0b10 (Swofford, 2002) to search for theshortest tree with the heuristic search option, tree bisection–reconnection (TBR) for branch swapping on 100 random-additionsequence replicates. We subsequently computed 500 nonparamet-ric bootstrap pseudoreplicates (Efron, 1979; Felsenstein, 1985). Wealso performed separate runs for mtDNA and nuDNA using thesame scheme (Suppl. Mat.). We considered relationships stronglysupported when MP bootstrap percentages equaled or exceeded70% (Hillis and Bull, 1993). We also ran a similar analysis treating
Table 1Sequence details including vouchers and accession numbers used for the Bayesian analysis.
Genus Species Cytb COI 12S 16S RAG1a RAG1b POMC TYR Locality Stat Lat. Long.
Adelophryne baturitensis CFBHT11100/JX298317
CFBHT11100/JX298245
CFBHT11100/JX298277
CFBHT11100/JX298145
CFBHT11100/JX298096 CFBHT11100/JX298197 Tiangua CE �3.709925 �40.934057
Adelophryne baturitensis CFBHT11101/JX298318
CFBHT11101/JX298246
CFBHT11101/JX298278
CFBHT11101/JX298146
CFBHT11101/JX298097 CFBHT11101/JX298198 Tiangua CE �3.709925 �40.934057
Adelophryne baturitensis CFBHT11110/JX298319
CFBHT11110/JX298247
CFBHT11110/JX298279
CFBHT11110/JX298147
CFBHT11110/JX298098 CFBHT11110/JX298199 Ibiapina CE �3.909126 �40.866494
Adelophryne baturitensis CFBHT11339/JX298377 CFBHT11339/JX298322
CFBHT11339/JX298250
CFBHT11339/JX298282
CFBHT11339/JX298150
CFBHT11339/JX298150
CFBHT11339/JX298101 CFBHT11339/JX298202 Ubajara CE �3.842332 �40.89323
Adelophryne baturitensis MTR14012/JX298375 MTR14012/JX298320
MTR14012/JX298248 MTR14012/JX298280 MTR14012/JX298148
MTR14012/JX298148 MTR14012/JX298099 MTR14012/JX298200 Ibiapaba CE �5.078753 �40.933371
Adelophryne baturitensis MTR14013/JX298376 MTR14013/JX298321
MTR14013/JX298249 MTR14013/JX298281 MTR14013/JX298149
MTR14013/JX298100 MTR14013/JX298201 Ibiapaba CE �5.078753 �40.933371
Adelophryne sp. 2 PEU80/JX298379 PEU80/JX298323 PEU80/JX298283 PEU80/JX298151 PEU80/JX298103 PEU80/JX298204 WenceslauGuimares
BA �13.68852 �39.483175
Adelophryne sp. 3 MTR20222/JX298378 MTR20222/JX298102 MTR20222/JX298203 Rio Patipe, APAGuaibim
BA �13.32164 �39.016328
Adelophryne sp. 1 CFBHT11716/JX298380 CFBHT11716/JX298324
CFBHT11716/JX298251
CFBHT11716/JX298284
CFBHT11716/JX298104 CFBHT11716/JX298205 Caruaru PE �8.25498 �35.904408
Adelophryne maranguapensis CFBHT14103/JX298325
CFBHT14103/JX298252
CFBHT14103/JX298285
CFBHT14103/JX298152
CFBHT14103/JX298105 CFBHT14103/JX298206 Maranguape CE �3.89029 �38.712502
Adelophryne maranguapensis CFBHT14119/JX298381 CFBHT14119/JX298326
CFBHT14119/JX298253
CFBHT14119/JX298286
CFBHT14119/JX298153
CFBHT14119/JX298153
CFBHT14119/JX298106 CFBHT14119/JX298207 Maranguape CE �3.89029 �38.712502
Adelophryne sp. 5 CFBHE234/JX298383 CFBHE234/JX298328
CFBHE234/JX298254 CFBHE234/JX298288 CFBHE234/JX298155
CFBHE234/JX298155 CFBHE234/JX298108 CFBHE234/JX298209 Mariana MG �20.3663 �43.444848
Adelophryne sp. 5 CFBHE235/JX298329
CFBHE235/JX298255 CFBHE235/JX298289 CFBHE235/JX298109 CFBHE235/JX298210 Mariana MG �20.3663 �43.444848
Adelophryne sp. 5 MTR17521/JX298382 MTR17521/JX298327
MTR17521/JX298287 MTR17521/JX298154
MTR17521/JX298107 MTR17521/JX298208 PE Rio Doce,Marliéria
MG �19.70991 �42.729192
Adelophryne sp. 5 MTR21918/JX298330
MTR21918/JX298156
MTR21918/JX298110 MTR21918/JX298211 Serra do Cipo MG �19.54879 �43.550606
Adelophryne sp. 4 MTR13570/JX298384 MTR13570/JX298331
MTR13570/JX298256 MTR13570/JX298290 MTR13570/JX298157
MTR13570/JX298111 MTR13570/JX298212 Faz. NovaAlegria,Trancoso
BA �16.531111 �39.118056
Adelophryne sp. 6 MTR15919/JX298385 MTR15919/JX298332
MTR15919/JX298291 MTR15919/JX298158
MTR15919/JX298158 MTR15919/JX298112 MTR15919/JX298213 Serra Bonita,Camacan
BA �15.3901 �39.5630
Adelophryne sp. 6 CFBH23672/JX298386 CFBH23672/JX298333
CFBH23672/JX298257
CFBH23672/JX298292
CFBH23672/JX298159
CFBH23672/JX298159
CFBH23672/JX298113 CFBH23672/JX298214 Una BA �15.2716 �39.069843
Adelophryne pachydactyla MTR16244/JX298388 MTR16244/JX298335
MTR16244/JX298259 MTR16244/JX298294 MTR16244/JX298161
MTR16244/JX298161 MTR16244/JX298115 MTR16244/JX298216 Serra dasLontras,Arataca
BA �15.1833 �39.3452
Adelophryne pachydactyla MTR5988/JX298387 MRT5988/JX298334
MTR5988/JX298258 MRT5988/JX298293 MRT5988/JX298160
MRT5988/JX298160 MRT5988/JX298114 MRT5988/JX298215 Serra doTeimoso,Jussari
BA �15.210915 �39.480972
Adelophryne sp. 7 MTR13808/JX298389 MTR13808/JX298336
MTR13808/JX298295 MTR13808/JX298162
MTR13808/JX298162 MTR13808/JX298116 MTR13808/JX298217 Serra do Navio AP 0.912857 �52.007933
Adelophryne patamona PK1875/JX298164 PK1875/JX298118 PK1875/JX298219 MountMaringma
Gu 5.219169 �60.575209
Adelophryne patamona PK1969/JX298390 PK1969/JX298337 PK1969/JX298260 PK1969/JX298296 PK1969/JX298163 PK1969/JX298163 PK1969/JX298117 PK1969/JX298218 MountMaringma
Gu 5.219169 �60.575209
Adelophryne patamona(Paratype)
ROM43035/JX298339
ROM43035/JX298262
ROM43035/JX298298
ROM43035/JX298166
ROM43035/JX298120 MountWokomung
Gu 5.089576 �59.827538
Adelophryne patamona(Holotype)
ROM43034/JX298338
ROM43034/JX298261
ROM43034/JX298297
ROM43034/JX298165
ROM43034/JX298119 ROM43034/JX298220 MountWokomung
Gu 5.089576 �59.827538
Adelophryne patamona ROM39578/GQ345201 ROM39578/EU186679
ROM39578/EU186679
ROM39578/GQ345296
ROM39578/GQ345262 ROM39578/EU186772 MountAyanganna
Gu 5.395223 �59.962406
Adelophryne adiastola AJC2463JX298391 AJC2463/JX298340
AJC2463/JX298263 AJC2463/JX298299 AJC2463/JX298167
AJC2463/JX298167 AJC2463/JX298121 AJC2463/JX298221 Com. PuertoVaupes
Col. 1.198056 �70.281389
Adelophryne gutturosa PK1168/JX298393 PK1168/JX298342 PK1168/JX298266 PK1168/JX298302 PK1168/JX298169 PK1168/JX298123 PK1168/JX298223 Muri Muricreek,KaieteurNP
Gu 5.27729 �59.432316
Adelophryne gutturosa PK2231/JX298392 PK2231/JX298341 PK2231/JX298264 PK2231/JX298300 PK2231/JX298168 PK2231/JX298122 PK2231/JX298222 La Escalera,Bolivar state
Ven 6.014069 �61.449308
Adelophryne gutturosa PK1362/JX298170 PK1362/JX298124 PK1362/JX298224 Elinkwa creek,KaieteurNP
Gu 5.27729 �59.432316
Adelophryne gutturosa ROM44051/JX298265
ROM44051/JX298301
Meamu River Gu 6.232029 �60.619926
Phyzelaphryne miriamae SMS629/JX298394 SMS629/JX298343 SMS629/JX298267 SMS629/JX298303 SMS629/JX298171 SMS629/JX298125 SMS629/JX298225 Com. SãoSebastião dosBargas
AM �3.78943 �59.034048
Phyzelaphryne miriamae MTR19141/JX298397 MTR19141/JX298347
MTR19141/JX298307 MTR19141/JX298175
MTR19141/JX298175 MTR19141/JX298129 MTR19141/JX298229 Moio Bamba,Margem DPurus
AM �4.720095 �62.133036
Phyzelaphryne miriamae MTR19437/JX298396 MTR19437/JX298346
MTR19437/JX298306 MTR19437/JX298174
MTR19437/JX298174 MTR19437/JX298128 MTR19437/JX298228 Moio Bamba,Margem D
AM �4.720095 �62.133036
550A
.Fouquetet
al./Molecular
Phylogeneticsand
Evolution65
(2012)547–
561
Puru
sPh
yzel
aphr
yne
mir
iam
aeM
TR12
700/
JX29
8395
MTR
1270
0/JX
2983
44M
TR12
700/
JX29
8268
MTR
1270
0/JX
2983
04M
TR12
700/
JX29
8172
MTR
1270
0/JX
2981
72M
TR12
700/
JX29
8126
MTR
1270
0/JX
2982
26Ig
arap
éA
çu,
Rio
Aba
caxi
sA
M�
4.34
4167
�58
.635
Phyz
elap
hryn
em
iria
mae
MTR
1278
9/JX
2983
45M
TR12
789/
JX29
8305
MTR
1278
9/JX
2981
73M
TR12
789/
JX29
8173
MTR
1278
9/JX
2981
27M
TR12
789/
JX29
8227
São
Seba
stiã
o,R
ioA
baca
xis
AM
�4.
3088
9�
58.6
3639
Phyz
elap
hryn
em
iria
mae
LSU
MZ1
6935
/EU
1866
89LS
UM
Z169
35/
EU18
6689
LSU
MZ1
6935
/EU
1867
7440
kmS
Man
aus
AM
�3.
6194
4�
60.4
4633
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1a
MTR
1920
6/JX
2983
99M
TR19
206/
JX29
8349
MTR
1920
6/JX
2982
70M
TR19
206/
JX29
8309
MTR
1920
6/JX
2981
77M
TR19
206/
JX29
8177
MTR
1920
6/JX
2981
31M
TR19
206/
JX29
8231
Terr
aV
erm
elh
a,M
arg.
EPu
rus
AM
�4.
7021
48�
62.3
0907
4
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1a
FS05
4/JX
2983
98FS
054/
JX29
8348
FS05
4/JX
2982
69FS
054/
JX29
8308
FS05
4/JX
2981
76FS
054/
JX29
8130
FS05
4/JX
2982
30R
DS
doU
acar
i,C
om.A
nax
iqu
i,m
arge
mE
Rio
Juru
á
AM
�5.
7625
70�
67.8
9884
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1b
An
desA
(JM
P228
3)/
JX29
8350
An
desA
(JM
P228
3)/
JX29
8310
An
desA
(JM
P228
3)/
JX29
8132
An
desA
(JM
P228
3)/
JX29
8232
Sen
daZa
fire�
Taka
na
alN
orte
dela
carr
eter
aLe
tici
a
Col
.
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1b
An
desA
832/
JX29
8354
An
desA
832/
JX29
8274
An
desA
832/
JX29
8314
An
desA
832/
JX29
8181
An
desA
832/
JX29
8134
An
desA
832/
JX29
8235
Leti
cia,
Kil
omet
ro13
Col
.�
4.11
1667
�69
.960
833
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1b
An
desA
915/
JX29
8353
An
desA
915/
JX29
8273
An
desA
915/
JX29
8313
An
desA
915/
JX29
8180
An
desA
915/
JX29
8133
An
desA
915/
JX29
8234
Leti
cia,
km9–
10ca
rret
era
Col
.�
4.12
4167
�69
.941
389
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1b
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8400
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8355
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8275
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8315
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8182
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8182
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8135
An
desA
(JM
P205
8)/
JX29
8236
Leti
cia,
Kil
omet
ro13
Col
.�
4.11
1667
�69
.960
833
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1b
An
desA
970/
JX29
8351
An
desA
970/
JX29
8271
An
desA
970/
JX29
8311
An
desA
970/
JX29
8178
Leti
cia,
Var
zea
del
arro
yoH
ual
lar
kaka
jun
toa
Tan
imbo
ca
Col
.�
04.1
1949
�69
.951
04
Phyz
elap
hryn
esp
.1b
An
desA
971/
JX29
8352
An
desA
971/
JX29
8272
An
desA
971/
JX29
8312
An
desA
971/
JX29
8179
An
desA
971/
JX29
8233
Leti
cia,
Var
zea
del
arro
yoH
ual
lar
kaka
jun
toa
Tan
imbo
ca
Col
.�
04.1
1949
�69
.951
04
Eupa
rker
ella
bras
ilien
sis
Eubr
a/JX
2984
02Eu
bra/
JX29
8357
Eubr
a/JX
2982
76Eu
bra/
JX29
8316
Eubr
a/JX
2981
85Eu
bra/
JX29
8185
Eubr
a/JX
2981
37Eu
bra/
JX29
8237
PNFl
ores
tada
Tiju
caR
J
Hol
oade
nbr
adei
/lu
edw
adlt
iA
F160
0/JX
2984
03A
F160
0/JX
2983
58M
ZUSP
1318
72/
EU18
6728
MZU
SP13
1872
/EU
1867
10A
F160
0/JX
2981
86A
F160
0/JX
2981
86A
F160
0/JX
2981
38U
SNM
2079
45/
EU18
6779
Brac
hyce
phal
usep
hipp
ium
/no
dote
rga
CFB
H16
828/
HM
2163
67M
CL9
8/JX
2983
59D
MH
#2/
AY
3260
08D
MH
#2/
AY
3260
08M
CL9
8/JX
2981
87U
SNM
2077
16/
GQ
3452
90U
SNM
2077
16/
GQ
3452
56M
CL9
8/JX
2982
38
Ore
obat
esqu
ixen
sis/
crur
alis
MTR
1938
5/JX
2984
04M
TR19
385/
JX29
8360
KU
2154
62/
EU18
6666
KU
2154
62/
EU18
6666
KU
2181
50/
DQ
6792
73M
TR19
385/
JX29
8188
KU
2181
50/A
Y81
9093
KU
2154
62/E
U18
6764
Had
dadu
sbi
nota
tus
AF1
463/
JX29
8405
AF1
463/
JX29
8361
USN
M30
3077
/EF
4933
61U
SNM
3030
77/
EF49
3361
AF1
463/
JX29
8189
USN
M30
3077
/G
Q34
5293
USN
M30
3077
/G
Q34
5259
CFB
H58
13/D
Q28
2918
Bary
chol
oste
rnet
zi/p
ulch
erM
TR14
750/
JX29
8401
CFB
HT2
3511
/JX
2983
56K
U21
7781
/EU
1867
27C
FBH
T306
/D
Q28
3094
CFB
HT3
227/
JX29
8183
MTR
1475
0/JX
2981
84M
TR14
750/
JX29
8136
CFB
HT3
06/D
Q28
2921
Eleu
ther
odac
tylu
spo
rtor
icen
sis/
auri
cula
tus/
coqu
i/jo
hnst
onei
/coo
ki
MSB
:H
erp:
7753
8/H
M22
9995
CZA
CC
:n
.a./
GQ
3576
59U
SNM
3054
21/
GQ
3451
76U
SNM
3054
21/
GQ
3451
7628
7MC
/JX
2981
9028
7MC
/JX
2981
90U
SNM
3267
84H
Q83
1999
USN
M32
6784
/EF
4934
55
Dia
spor
usdi
aste
ma
MV
Z203
844/
GQ
3452
00U
SNM
5724
56/
FJ76
6810
MV
Z203
844/
EU18
6682
MV
Z203
844/
EU18
6682
MV
Z203
844/
GQ
3452
79M
VZ2
0384
4/G
Q34
5261
MV
Z203
844/
EU18
6773
Stra
bom
anti
sbi
porc
atus
/bu
foni
form
is/
nece
rus
CV
ULA
7073
/GQ
3452
04U
SNM
5724
33/
FJ76
6633
CV
ULA
7073
/EU
1866
91C
VU
LA70
73/
EU18
6691
CV
ULA
7073
/G
Q34
5283
KU
1790
76/
GQ
3452
99C
VU
LA70
73/G
Q34
5265
CV
ULA
7073
/EU
1867
75
Psyc
hrop
hryn
ella
usur
pato
r/ia
tam
asi/
wet
tste
ini
KU
1734
9/G
Q34
5205
567/
JX29
8362
KU
1830
49/E
U18
6696
KU
1830
49/E
U18
6696
KU
1830
49/
GQ
3452
84K
U18
3049
/G
Q34
5300
KU
1830
49/G
Q34
5266
KU
1830
49/E
U18
6776
Crau
gast
orcr
assi
digi
tus/
fitzi
nger
i/po
dici
feru
s
UC
R16
900/
EF62
9465
KR
L074
3/FJ
7666
46D
MH
86-1
12/
AY
3260
01D
MH
86-1
12/
AY
3260
01M
VZ1
2020
/G
Q34
5277
MV
Z120
20G
Q34
5292
MV
Z120
20/G
Q34
5258
MV
ZFC
1346
3/EF
4934
81
Isch
nocn
ema
guen
ther
iaff
./la
ctea
??/G
Q34
5196
CFB
HT1
1170
/JX
2983
64??
/EF4
9353
3??
/EF4
9353
3??
/GQ
3452
76??
/GQ
3452
91??
/GQ
3452
57??
/EF4
9351
0
Pris
tim
anti
ssp
./ga
igea
e/cu
rtip
es/
zeuc
toty
lus
CFB
HT5
732/
JX29
8406
KR
L119
6/FJ
7667
89K
U21
7871
/EF4
9351
3K
U21
7871
/EF4
9351
3K
U21
7869
/D
Q67
9272
KU
2178
69/
DQ
6792
72C
FBH
T573
2/JX
2981
4035
6MC
/JN
6919
11
Hyp
odac
tylu
sbr
unne
usK
U17
8258
/GQ
3452
03K
U17
8258
/EF4
9335
7K
U17
8258
/EF4
9335
7K
U17
8258
/G
Q34
5282
KU
1782
58/
GQ
3452
98K
U17
8258
/GQ
3452
64K
U17
8258
/EF4
9348
4
Phry
nopu
sbr
acki
USN
M28
6919
/G
Q34
5202
USN
M28
6919
/EF
4937
09U
SNM
2869
19/
EF49
3709
USN
M28
6919
/G
Q34
5281
USN
M28
6919
/G
Q34
5297
USN
M28
6919
EF49
3507
Bryo
phry
nesp
./co
phit
esM
NC
N20
992/
JX29
8363
KU
1734
97/E
F493
537
KU
1734
97/E
F493
537
MN
CN
2099
2/JX
2981
39K
U17
3497
/EF4
9350
8
Gas
trot
heca
corn
uta/
cf.
mar
supi
ata
KR
L799
/AY
8438
11K
RL1
163/
FJ76
6705
KR
L799
/AY
8435
91K
RL7
99/A
Y84
3591
AM
NH
1072
51/
DQ
6792
80M
NK
5286
/AY
8443
80A
MN
H10
7251
/D
Q67
9314
KR
L799
/AY
8440
40
Telm
atob
ius
sanb
orni
/ve
rruc
osus
/ve
llard
i/tr
ueba
e
MN
CN
4352
6/G
U06
0614
AM
NH
A16
5110
/D
Q50
2743
WED
5338
1/A
Y32
6018
WED
5338
1/A
Y32
6018
KU
2124
55/
DQ
6792
71A
MN
HA
1651
14/
AY
8445
29K
U21
2455
/AY
8190
97FB
-200
6/D
Q34
7182
Cera
toph
rys
sp./
corn
uta/
AF2
125/
JX29
8407
AF2
125/
JX29
8365
WED
5558
7AY
3260
14W
ED55
587A
Y32
6014
KU
2155
37/
KU
2155
37/
KU
2155
37/A
Y81
9091
VU
B10
06/D
Q34
7168
(con
tinu
edon
next
page
)
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 551
Table 1 (continued)
Genus Species Cytb COI 12S 16S RAG1a RAG1b POMC TYR Locality Stat Lat. Long.
ornata DQ679269 DQ679269Odontophrynus americanus AF665/FJ685666 AF665/JX298366 JF1891/AY843704 JF1891/AY843704 AF665/JX298191 JF1891/AY844480 AF665/JX298141 AF665/JX298239Thoropa miliaris/
taophoraAF1434/FJ685662 CFBH3239/
DQ502874CFBH3239/DQ283331
CFBH3239/DQ283331
AF1434/JX298192 USNM209318/GQ345301
USNM209318/GQ345271
AF1434/JX298241
Rhinella margaritifera/arenarum
ROM40103/JX298409 ROM40103/JX298367
USNM268828/DQ158490
USNM268828/DQ158490
USNM268828/DQ158407
MACN38639/AY844370
KU215143/AY819080 MRT6313/JN692075
Allobates femoralis/granti/trilineatus
AfemSapoiv10a/DQ523152
OMNH36070/DQ502811
LSUMZ17436/EU342537
LSUMZ17436/EU342537
AF519/JX298193 UTAA56478/DQ503385
KU220660/AY819088 OMNH36070/DQ503156
Centrolenidae uranoscopa/colymbiphyllum/eurygnatha/valerioi/bejaranoi
MTR15819/JX298412 KRL0852/FJ766714
CFBH5729/AY843595 CFBH5729/AY843595 MTR15819/JX298194
UCR17418/EU663519 MTR15819/JX298142 MNK5242/AY844029
Paratelmatobius mantiqueira/cardosoi
ITH0938/JX298413 ITH0938/JX298372
CFBH240/EU224408 CFBH240/EU224408 ITH0938/JX298195
ITH0938/JX298195 ITH0938/JX298143 ITH0938/JX298242
Leptodactylus knudseni/pentadactylus/myersi
396MC/JX298414 396MC/JX298373 FC13095/AY326017 FC13095/AY326017 1890T/JX298196 1890T/JX298196 396MC/JX298144 109MC/JX298243
Amazoprynella bokermanni/minutus/sp.
MTR10040/JX298410 MTR10176/JX298368
QCAZ883/DQ158420 QCAZ883/DQ158420 QCAZ883/DQ158346
MJH7095/DQ503337 KU221827/AY819081 3035T/JX298240
Hyla japonica/arenicolor
IABHU6123/AB303949 IABHU6123/AB303949
LSUMZH-230/AY843633
LSUMZH-230/AY843633
??/FJ227068 LSUMZH-230/AY844420
PB42-7/HM152465 LSUMZH-230/AY844078
Phyllomedusa/Agalychnis
oreades/callidryas/tomopterna
CHUNB56875/GQ365966
KRL0917/FJ766570
WED55380/AY326045
WED55380/AY326045
KU221949/EF174319
MJH7076/AY844497 KU221949/AY819153 MJH7076/AY844157
Litoria/Cyclorana aurea/caerulea/meiriana
AM52744/AY843937+manyaDLSN-72386/EF125030
??/AY835904 DMH/AY326038 DMH/AY326038 TWR1007/EF174310
SAMA17215/AY844475
AM52744/GQ366037 AM52744/AY844130
Rana nigromaculata NC_002805 NC_002805 NC_002805 NC_002805 KUHE32995/AB526661
temporaria??/AY323776
KUHE32995/AB526647 FMNH232879/DQ282932
Kaloula pulchra/taprobanica
cplGEN/AY458595 cplGEN/AY458595 cplGEN/AY458595 cplGEN/AY458595 SIH-09/AY323772 SIH-09/AY323772 ZCMV11017/HM998968 AB611924
Microhyla heymonsi/sp. cplGEN/AY458596 cplGEN/AY458596 cplGEN/AY458596 cplGEN/AY458596 MVZ236751/EF396095
MVZ236751/EF396095
MNCN-DNA28462/HM998967
MVZ236751/EF395979
Calyptocephallela geayi JN3/JX298415 JN3/JX298374 AMNHA168414/DQ283439
AMNHA168414/DQ283439
MNCN8002/AY583337
MNCN8002/AY583337
??/AY819090 JN3/JX298244
Nasikabatrachus/Sooglossus
thomasseti/sahyadrensis/sechellensis
?/AY341742 ??/GU136124 UMMZ(#15)/DQ28344
RAN25162/DQ283452
MNHN2003.3412/DQ872921
MNHN2003.3412/DQ872921
UMMZ(#15)/DQ283028
Acronyms for newly added material: CFBHT = Celio F. B. Haddad Tissue collection; MTR, PEU, AF, FS, MCL, ITH = Miguel Trefaut Rodrigues field number; PK = Philippe Kok field numbers; SMS = Sergio Marques de Souza fieldnumbers; ROM = Royal Ontario Museum; AJC = Andrew J. Crawford field numbers; T = François Catzeflis field numbers; JN = José J. Nuñes field numbers; LSUMZ = Lousiana State University Museum of Zoology; MNCN = MuseoNacional de Ciencias Naturales; AndesA = Universidad de los Andes; MC = Christian Marty field numbers; JMP = Jose M. Padial field numbers.
552A
.Fouquetet
al./Molecular
Phylogeneticsand
Evolution65
(2012)547–
561
Table 2Primer details including primer name, sequences and authors.
Gene Primers Sequences Authors
Cytb CYB-05L GCCAACGGCGCATCCTTCTTCTT Meyer (1993)Cytb LGL765 GAAAAACCAYCGTTGTWATTCAACT Bickham et al. (1995)Cytb CbR2 GTGAAGTTRTCYGGGTCYCC Fouquet et al. (2012)COI dgLCO1490 GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGAYATYGG Meyer (1993)COI dgHCO2198 TAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAARAAYCA Meyer (1993)12S t-Phe-frog ATAGCRCTGAARAYGCTRAGATG Wiens et al. (2005)12S t-Val-frog TGTAAGCGARAGGCTTTKGTTAAGCT Wiens et al. (2005)12S MVZ59 ATAGCACTGAAAAYGCTDAGATG Graybeal (1997)12S tRNAval GGTGTAAGCGAGAGGCTT Goebel et al. (1999)16S 16Sbr-H CCGGTCTGAACTCAGATCACGT Palumbi et al. (1991)16S 16SC-16L GTRGGCCTAAAAGCAGCCAC Darst and Cannatella (2004)RAG1a MartFL1 AGCTGGAGYCARTAYCAYAARATG Hoegg et al. (2004)RAG1a Ad2R ATTGGCTCTCCATGTTTCATAG This paperRAG1a AMPF2 ACNGGNMGICARATCTTYCARCC Hoegg et al. (2004)RAG1a RAG1C GGAGATGTTAGTGAGAARCAYGG Biju and Bossuyt (2003)RAG1a Ad1R CTTCACGCACCAACTTTTCATC This paperRAG1b Amp F1 ACAGGATATGATGARAAGCTTGT Hoegg et al. (2004)RAG1b Mart R6 GTGTAGAGCCARTGRTGYTT Hoegg et al. (2004)POMC POMC1 GAATGTATYAAAGMMTGCAAGATGGWCCT Wiens et al. (2005)POMC POMC2 TAYTGRCCCTTYTTGTGGGCRTT Wiens et al. (2005)TYR TYR1E GAGAAGAAAGAWGCTGGGCTGAG Bossuyt and Milinkovitch (2000)TYR TYR1C GGCAGAGGAWCRTGCCAAGATGT Bossuyt and Milinkovitch (2000)TYR TYR1H ACACTTCTGGGCATCTCTCC Bossuyt and Milinkovitch (2000)
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 553
gaps as missing data to check whether it could have a significantinfluence.
2.2.4. Single nuDNA locus networks and mtDNA genetic distancesIn order to support our proposed species delineation we also
computed a statistical parsimony network for each nuDNA locususing TCS 1.21 (Clement et al., 2000) with a 95% connection limit.The original alignments used previously were reduced to Phyzel-aphryninae and were also trimmed in order to reduce missing data.
Table 3p distances calculated among Phyzelaphryninae species using (a) Cytb; (b) 16S (the 463 b
(a) Cytb
A. baturitensisA. sp. 3 0.222A. sp. 2 0.231 0.202A. sp. 1 0.242 0.236 0.250A. maranguapensis 0.226 0.192 0.196 0.240A. sp. 5 0.273 0.307 0.255 0.305 0.297A. sp. 4 0.295 0.284 0.291 0.289 0.274 0.238A. sp. 6 0.289 0.298 0.289 0.287 0.270 0.250A. pachydactyla 0.273 0.286 0.281 0.296 0.283 0.244A. sp. 7 0.256 0.275 0.272 0.283 0.261 0.263A. patamona 0.278 0.253 0.267 0.269 0.253 0.285A. adiastola 0.276 0.284 0.300 0.276 0.274 0.277A. gutturosa 0.261 0.273 0.276 0.281 0.271 0.245P. miriamae 0.295 0.282 0.307 0.283 0.285 0.308P. sp. 1a 0.304 0.304 0.281 0.324 0.286 0.289
(b) 16S
A. baturitensisA. sp. 2 0.137A. sp. 1 0.118 0.144A. maranguapensis 0.128 0.170 0.138A. sp. 5 0.209 0.236 0.202 0.220A. sp. 4 0.184 0.195 0.180 0.209 0.138A. sp. 6 0.208 0.232 0.187 0.210 0.143 0.117A. pachydactyla 0.206 0.227 0.197 0.203 0.162 0.115A. sp. 7 0.195 0.219 0.192 0.212 0.171 0.132A. patamona 0.173 0.204 0.181 0.195 0.172 0.155A. adiastola 0.200 0.218 0.201 0.240 0.204 0.192A. gutturosa 0.207 0.194 0.184 0.233 0.204 0.172P. miriamae 0.197 0.234 0.210 0.239 0.231 0.205P. sp. 1a 0.213 0.235 0.246 0.262 0.245 0.231
We eventually kept 38 terminals and 889 bp for RAG1, 41terminals and 544 bp for POMC and 39 terminals and 532 bp forTYR. Because some haplotype groups were not connected to eachother within the 95% limit of probability of parsimony, we at-tempted to connect them by increasing the connection thresholdup to a maximum of 30 steps.
Genetic distances (p distance) were also computed for mito-chondrial loci using MEGA 5.1 (Tamura et al., 2011) and are shownin Table 3.
p ending).
0.2660.229 0.2270.260 0.263 0.2700.258 0.277 0.265 0.2260.253 0.264 0.279 0.236 0.2150.267 0.259 0.255 0.233 0.203 0.1840.281 0.265 0.285 0.245 0.281 0.243 0.2580.291 0.303 0.294 0.267 0.259 0.266 0.271 0.204
0.1230.156 0.1610.159 0.158 0.1410.196 0.202 0.182 0.1340.191 0.172 0.183 0.125 0.1170.217 0.204 0.204 0.184 0.199 0.1840.237 0.206 0.231 0.197 0.202 0.211 0.125
554 A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561
2.2.5. Molecular datingTo estimate timing of diversification within Phyzelaphryninae,
we undertook molecular dating with Beast 1.6.2 (Drummond andRambaut, 2007). We used two approaches: (1) concatenateddataset method and (2) multilocus species tree method (�BEAST;Heled and Drummond, 2010), both with a matrix focusing onEleutherodactylidae.
Preliminary analyses revealed close affinity among some termi-nals for which sequence data were incomplete, and were thus dis-carded. In other cases some closely related terminals werecomplementary and were combined to represent only one termi-nal. With this strategy we were able to obtain an almost completematrix representing all the main lineages in Phyzelaphryninaeexcept one from Valença (Bahia, Brazil; MTR20222). This lineagerepresents a candidate species (see results), but we preferred todiscard this terminal because of missing data and because it isnot needed to evaluate the broad temporal aspects of the diversifi-cation of the group. Nevertheless, the overall diversity withinPhyzelaphryninae is well represented.
Both analyses were calibrated on the crown age of Eleuthero-dactylinae (31.3 Ma; 44.7–21.1) estimated by Heinicke et al.(2007, 2009) based on a large sequence dataset and fossil/biogeo-graphic calibrations. This prior was set as a normal distributionwith mean and sd equal to the estimation from Heinicke et al.(2009). Monophyly of Eleutherodacylinae and Phyzelaphryninaewas enforced considering previous results. All partitions wereconsidered underestimated uncorrelated lognormal rates. The treeprior used the Birth and Death Process, with a UPGMA generatedstarting tree and the auto optimize option for operators. Wecomputed 108 generations, sampled every 1000 generations. Theconcatenated analysis used the same partitioning as previously;i.e. seven partitions (coding mtDNA by codons, 12S–16S, codingnuDNA by codons) each under GTR + G with linked tree prior forall trees. The multilocus dataset, however, was based on the fourloci with unlinked tree prior for all trees (mtDNA, RAG1, POMCand TYR) with each nuDNA coding gene sub-partitioned by codonposition. Each partition was considered under GTR + G, estimatedbase frequencies and four gamma categories.
We examined convergence on stationarity using Tracer 1.5(Rambaut and Drummond, 2007). For both analyses effectivesample sizes were >200 for all parameters except where priorand posterior jumped between alternative values. A few relativesubstitution rates were also with low ESS, jumping from high val-ues to zero (probably because no substitutions of these types areobserved) rendering the prior on the rate invalid (Drummondet al., 2002). Therefore, we computed additional 108 generationsrun with the prior distribution of these relative rates changed froma gamma to a uniform distribution bounded between 10�5 and 1.This made ESS > 150 for all parameters except alpha for CP1 and2 for TYR and RAG1 and their respective tree likelihoods for themultilocus analysis. Nevertheless, the time estimates were similaramong runs. The maximum clade credibility trees were computedwith Tree Annotator 1.6.2.
3. Results
3.1. Monophyly of Phyzelaphryninae and genera
Relationships are well resolved within Eleutherodactylidae withonly two poorly sustained nodes as well as among other Terraranawith only three poorly sustained nodes (Fig. 1a). However, deeperrelationships among Hyloidea remain ambiguous. Both methods(BA and MP) reveal very deep divergence among well-definedgroups within Phyzelaphryninae using the three matrix configura-tions (Fig. 1a). This subfamily is itself strongly supported as a clade,
sister group of Eleutherodacylinae. Adelophryne is confirmed asbeing monophyletic and as the sister group of Phyzelaphryne.Moreover, Adelophryne is represented by three deeply divergentand well-sustained clades that are geographically circumscribedto Northern Amazonia Clade (NAMC), Northern Atlantic ForestClade (NAFC; from Ceará to Bahia) and Southern Atlantic forestClade (SAFC; from Bahia to Minas Gerais) (Figs. 1a and 2). Eachof these four major clades harbors deep subdivisions.
Terrarana is well supported as monophyletic in all methods.Relationships among main Terrarana clades are mostly similar toHedges et al. (2008) and slightly different from Pyron and Wiens(2011). Relationships among Brachycephalidae, Eleutherodactyli-dae and Craugastoridae remain poorly resolved using the totaldataset. However, within Craugastoridae the interrelationshipsamong subfamilies are relatively different from those shown inPyron and Wiens (2011) with (1) Craugastorinae strongly sus-tained as the sister group to the other Craugastoridae, (2) Hypo-dactylus forming a strongly sustained clade with Pristimantinaeand Strabomantinae, (3) this last clade being the sister group ofHoloadeninae with Euparkerella as the sister group of Holoadenand (4) Strabomantinae weakly sustained as nested withinPristimantinae.
3.2. Species diversity/candidate species
By combining evidence from tentative identification of thespecimens, references, phylogenetic position, time of divergenceand geographical locations, we identify ‘‘cryptic species’’ and flagthese lineages as candidate species. We use the term ‘‘cryptic’’ ina relaxed definition given that we did not examine thoroughlythe morphological differences that may exist between the segre-gated entities; that is why we use the term candidate species. Nev-ertheless, we argue that these differences are very subtle, which isemphasized by the misidentifications already documented (Heyer,1977; Hoogmoed and Lescure, 1984; Hoogmoed et al., 1994; Lynch,2005), and that the term ‘‘cryptic’’ can be used in a previousdefinition: ‘‘two or more distinct species previously classified asa single one due to overall morphological similarity that preventsimmediate obvious distinction’’ (Bickford et al., 2007; Pfenningerand Schwenk, 2007). We provide details below and in discussionjustifying our species delineation.
Phyzelaphryne (Southern Amazonian Clade, SAMC) is subdividedin two well-supported clades. One is distributed on the east sidefrom the right margin of Purus River to Abacaxis River (Fig. 2).The other one is situated on the west from the left margin of thePurus River to Leticia at the border between Brazil, Colombia andPeru. This genus is for the first time reported from these two lattercountries. Actually, Lynch (2005) previously found the species inColombia, but erroneously referred it to Adelophryne adiastolainstead of Phyzelaphryne. Levels of divergence between the twoPhyzelaphryne clades and the absence of allelic sharing in the threenuDNA loci (Fig. 3) strongly suggest additional specific subdivi-sions. We tentatively associate the eastern clade to the nominalspecies given that the type locality lies in the Madeira river catch-ment. This clade appears strongly structured across catchments ofthe Madeira, Purus (right margin) and Abacaxis rivers with well-differentiated pairs of lineages.
The western clade associated to a candidate species is evenmore deeply subdivided between the Colombian populations andthe two Brazilian ones (Juruá, Purus left margin) with no allelicsharing in any of the three nuDNA loci (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, con-sidering the absence of other lines of evidence that could corrobo-rate the hypothesis of additional species in this clade, weconservatively assign them to a single species.
The Northern Amazonian Clade (NAMC) is recovered as thesister group of all the Adelophryne representatives of the Atlantic
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. (a) Phylogenetic reconstruction based on Bayesian analysis of concatenated loci. Bootstrap supports from MP analyses are also indicated after posterior probabilities. �
stand for pp values higher than 0.99 and bootstraps % higher than 99. Hyphens (-) indicate nodes not recovered with MP and values in red indicate poorly supported nodes i.e.pp < 0.95 and node not recovered with MP. (b) Topologies obtained from Bayesian analysis and MP for main Phyzelaphryninae lineages.
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 555
forest from Bayesian analysis, but under MP this clade is sustainedas the sister group of the SAFC instead (Fig. 1b and Suppl. Mat.).Surprisingly, the population identified as A. gutturosa from Serrado Navio (Amapá, Brazil) is in fact recovered as the sister groupof all the other species of this clade and thus renders A. gutturosaparaphyletic. We therefore refer the Serra do Navio population toan undescribed species of Adelophryne. Another noteworthy resultis that the previously published sequences of A. gutturosa (Heinickeet al., 2009) obtained from an individual from Mount Ayanganna(Guyana) in fact correspond to A. patamona. DNA sequencesobtained from the holotype (ROM 43034) and the paratypes of A.patamona are included herein (Table 1), allowing us to be certainthat the previous identification was erroneous. Interestingly, theColombian species A. adiastola is recovered nested within thisNAMC as the sister species of A. gutturosa, both forming a cladegrouped with A. patamona.
The Northern Atlantic Forest Clade (NAFC) gathers A. baturiten-sis, A. maranguapensis (two species described from elevationallyisolated moist forests in Ceará state, northeastern Brazil), onepopulation from the state of Pernambuco that has been identifiedas A. baturitensis (Loebmann et al., 2011), and two populations fromBahia state. Relationships among species within that group remainlargely unresolved. The two neighbor populations from Bahia stateare highly divergent and form a strongly supported clade. More-over, they do not share any alleles for the nuDNA loci (Fig. 3).
The southern Atlantic Forest Clade (SAFC) includes the lastnominal species A. pachydactyla and no less than three additionalhighly divergent lineages corresponding to newly discovered pop-ulations, extending the range of the genus ca. 650 km straight line
southwards to the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. Given the incon-sistency in morphological identification, level of divergence,absence of shared nuDNA alleles (Fig. 3) and geographical loca-tions, we call these populations a candidate species. We tentativelyassign the population from Serra das Lontras and Serra do Teimosoto the nominal species (A. pachydactyla) given that their morpho-logical characteristics agree with Hoogmoed et al. (1994), andthe geographical proximity to the type locality.
3.3. Molecular dating
Both ‘‘concatenated’’ and ‘‘multilocus’’ approaches led to similartopologies, notably supporting the NAMC as the sister group ofNAFC + SAFC with high posterior probabilities. Time estimatesare, however, younger from the multilocus analysis than fromthe concatenated one. Phyzelaphryninae crown age is recoveredbetween 40.5 My old (concatenated) and 27.4 My old (multilocus)thus originating during late Eocene/early Oligocene. Major cladesof Adelophryne are recovered to have diverged between 25.8 Ma(concatenated) and 16.5 Ma (multilocus) thus during earlyMiocene. The NAMC diversified earlier than the other major cladesgiven that the four species originated between 20 (concatenated)and 13.4 Ma (multilocus) while NAFC, SAFC and SAMC diversifiedlater between 14.6–12.8 (concatenated) and 7.2–8 Ma(multilocus).
The fact that the concatenated analysis yielded older divergencetimes than did the multilocus analysis is consistent with an expec-tation that the average coalescence time for the various gene lin-eages should exceed somewhat the divergence times of the
Fig. 2. Map of the distribution of sampling localities (circles), and type localities (stars). Additional records from the literature are illustrated in Ecuador, Brasil and Colombiafor A. adiastola (Ortega-Andrade, 2009), Brazil ES for A. cf. pachydactyla (Almeida et al., 2011) and in Bolivia ad Brazil PA for P. miriamae – (from Heyer, 1977; precise localitynot mentioned, De la Riva et al., 2000).
556 A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561
population lineages (Liu et al., 2009). An independent test of ourdivergence-time estimates is to ask whether they predict reason-able rates of evolution for the mitochondrial Cytb gene, whose evo-lutionary rate has been calibrated in many prior studies ofvertebrates. An expected evolutionary of 2.1% sequence divergenceper million years has been obtained by comparing multiple pairs ofsister species whose separation was caused by formation of theIsthmus of Panama (reviewed by Reece et al., 2010). Using the datain Table 3, we compare our estimated divergence times with thoseobtained using the Cytb calibration for the eight interspecificbranching events in Fig. 4 that we estimate to be less than 20 mil-lion years; these are the cases for which substitutional saturationof Cytb should be minimal. For the five nodes within the NAFCand SAFC, divergence times estimated from the Cytb calibrationare very close to our estimates from the concatenated analysis, dif-fering by no more than 8%. For the three nodes within the NAMCand SAMC, divergences estimated by the Cytb calibration are closerto the multilocus estimated dates, being identical in one case, 21%higher in a second case, and 17% lower in the remaining case. Theseresults support the fidelity of our estimated divergence times asbeing consistent with the expected evolutionary rate of Cytb.
4. Discussion
4.1. Cryptic diversity and conservation
With up to eight candidate species detected, our results indicatea >100% increase in the species diversity of the group, which likelystill remains underestimated. This high number of candidate
species is even more surprising considering the few and scatteredlocalities that have so far been sampled; they represent only a tinyportion of the potential distribution of these two genera. This esti-mate matches previous DNA-based attempts to evaluate the actualspecies richness in tropical amphibians (Fouquet et al., 2007;Vieites et al., 2009; Jansen et al., 2011; Funk et al., 2012) and alsomatches sudden increases in species richness of several Terraranagenera (e.g. Brachycephalus Pombal, 2010). Our species delineationis based on the convergence of evidence from identification of thespecimens, references, phylogenetic position, time of divergenceand geographical location. Fine-tuned species delineation wouldgreatly benefit from an ‘‘integrative taxonomy’’ approach (Dayrat,2005; Will et al., 2005; Padial et al., 2010), but this approach liesbeyond the scope of our paper given that thorough examinationof the morphological variation as well as vocalization comparisonswould require material not yet at hand. Nonetheless, in all casesthe levels of divergence and concordance among several unlinkedloci leave little doubt that these populations correspond to previ-ously undetected species.
The divergence time between nominal species (e.g. between A.adiastola and A. gutturosa or between A. maraguapensis and A. batu-ritensis) is similar to or lower than that between our candidate spe-cies (Fig. 4). The case of NAMC is particularly compelling given thatAdelophryne sp. 7 (Serra do Navio, Amapá) is the sister lineage to allthe other species of the clade with a TMRCA estimated between 20(concatenated) and 13.4 Ma (multilocus). Hoogmoed et al. (1994)already noticed that the animals from Serra do Navio that theyassigned to A. gutturosa are slightly different from the type materialfrom Guyana. Within NAFC, relationships among the species re-main unclear, but divergences are similar among them (Fig. 4) with
Fig. 3. Statistical parsimony networks for each nuDNA locus and each major clade. Haplotypes are shown as circles proportional in size to haplotype frequency. Each nominaland candidate species are delimited by a color filled rectangle.
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 557
a minimum estimate around 6.5 Ma (multilocus), which is muchhigher than the divergence generally observed among sister spe-cies of frogs (e.g. Fouquet et al., 2007; Vences et al., 2005; Vieiteset al., 2009).
Moreover, in addition to being highly divergent from both A.maranguapensis and A. baturitensis, the isolated population fromPernambuco is more than 500 km away from any nominal Adeloph-ryne population (Loebmann et al., 2011), and the two populationsfrom Bahia are more than 1000 km away from any samplednominal Adelophryne population of the same clade. Therefore, weargue that all three lineages represent candidate species, hereincalled Adelophryne sp. 1–3. The distinction between Adelophrynesp. 2 and 3 is, however, more arbitrary given that we miss datafor Adelophryne sp. 3, but based on available mt and nuDNA se-quences, divergence is also very deep (20% with Cb) (Fig. 1a; Table4). The populations clustering into the SAFC comprise only one
nominal species: Adelophryne pachydactyla. The latest divergenceis estimated around 10.5 My old (concatenated) and 5.4 My old(multilocus); all the highly divergent lineages are recovered onboth mt and nuDNA, and at least the populations from MinasGerais are morphologically different (Felipe Leite pers. com.).Therefore, the three additional lineages undoubtedly representcandidate species. The 13.2–8 My separating the two Phyzelaph-ryne clades are also compelling evidence for the existence ofdistinct species. Subdivision of the western candidate species ofPhyzelaphryne into several species-level entities is also very likelygiven the estimated 3 My of divergence and the lack of nuDNAallele sharing.
In addition to the newly detected lineages/species, the old diver-gence times between Phyzelaphryne and Adelophryne (40–30 Ma),among the three Adelophryne major clades (25–16 Ma), and amongthe species within the different clades (all >6 Ma) – particularly in
(a)
(c) (d)
(b)
Fig. 4. Bayesian time-calibrated, maximum clade-credibility tree using relaxed clock with (a) concatenated partitioned dataset (b) multilocus species tree (�Beast).Calibration point is indicated with yellow circle. Posterior probabilities are indicated above the nodes, while the median of the posterior distributions of the ages of the nodesare indicated below. Ninety-five percent credibility intervals are indicated with blue bars. (c) Posterior distribution of the mean rate of substitution of each locus from themultilocus species tree analysis. (d) Simplified tree of the topology obtained from each locus from the multilocus species tree analysis.
558 A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561
NAMC – are striking. Such results highlight the inherent difficulty instudying amphibian diversity and evolutionary trends based onmorphology alone, because it can be extremely conserved (Cherryet al., 1977, 1978; Emerson, 1986) and is often homoplastic (Boss-uyt and Milinkovitch, 2000; Parra-Olea and Wake, 2001; Guayas-amin et al., 2008).
Species from the Atlantic forest are also characterized by extre-mely old divergences among populations previously consideredconspecific, and it is likely that more species remain to bediscovered in that biome as well as in Amazonia. Actually, the doc-umented record of A. cf. pachydactyla from Espírito Santo, Brazil byAlmeida et al. (2011), as well as the single population identified asA. adiastola from Ecuador by Ortega-Andrade (2009) deserve spe-cial attention, as they could correspond to additional candidatespecies.
Revealing such remarkable diversity in a clade morphologicallyhighly homogeneous stresses the challenge for conservation thatwe are facing, given that all of these species have highly restricteddistributions, sometimes in isolated highlands like Ceará andPernambuco, and that human impact or climate change is a realthreat for such species/populations (Corlett, 2012). The situationin the northern Atlantic forest being particularly worrying (Ribeiroet al., 2009), the northern fragments deserve prime conservationpriority (Carnaval et al., 2009; Ribeiro et al., 2009).
4.2. Biogeography
The biogeographic pattern in Eleutherodactylidae is particularlystriking with a first split between Eleutherodactylinae, occurring inMiddle America and the Caribbean, and Phyzelaphryninae, found
in Amazonia and Atlantic forest, that dates back to the Eocene,some 46 Ma according to Heinicke et al. (2009), and estimated be-tween 44.2 (concatenated) and 32.8 (multilocus) Ma in this work.This divergence has already been discussed by Heinicke et al.(2007) and was attributed to an ancient overseas dispersal fromSouth America towards Middle America and the proto Caribbean.
Two subsequent events are most noteworthy: the basal split of(1) Phyzelaphryninae and of (2) Adelophryne. (1) The divergencebetween the genera Phyzelaphryne and Adelophryne dates back to40–30 Ma, which corresponds to the Eocene/Oligocene boundaryi.e. one of the major extinction events related to an abrupt coolingof the global climate (Prothero, 1994). Given a likely northernAmazonian origin of Adelophryne (see below) and southern Amazo-nian origin for Phyzelaphryne, this split likely originates from anorth/south fragmentation of the range due to climate change. Thisis a period of southern uplift of the Andes (Hoorn et al., 2010a,b),isolation of Antarctica and the creation of a circumpolar current,dramatic drop of the sea level, and major climatic changes (Or-tiz-Jaureguizar and Cladera, 2006). This period also correspondsto the prevalence of large grazing herbivores and ‘modernization’of other faunal aspects during the mid-Cenozoic, reflecting adapta-tion to major environmental changes, including increased aridityand cooling (Flynn and Wyss, 1998). Late Eocene–early Oligocenealso witnessed the spread of open vegetation at the expense ofthe rainforest that previously dominated the southern South Amer-ican continent (Roig-Juñent et al., 2006; Romero, 1986). Such con-ditions were unlikely favorable to forest-restricted frogs withdirect development in the forest litter and may be responsiblefor the initial disjunction within the group that today occurs onopposite sides of the Amazon River. Interestingly, the origin of
Tabl
e4
Sequ
ence
deta
ilsin
clud
ing
vouc
hers
and
acce
ssio
nnu
mbe
rsus
edfo
rth
em
olec
ular
dati
ng.
Spec
ies
Cb
CO
I12
S16
SR
AG
1aR
AG
1bPO
MC
TYR
A.b
atur
iten
sis
MTR
1401
3/JX
2983
76M
TR14
013/
JX29
8321
MTR
1401
3/JX
2982
49M
TR14
013/
JX29
8281
CFB
HT1
1339
/JX
2981
50C
FBH
T113
39/
JX29
8150
MTR
1401
3/JX
2981
00M
TR14
013/
JX29
8201
A.s
p.2
PEU
80/J
X29
8379
PEU
80/J
X29
8323
PEU
80/J
X29
8283
PEU
80/J
X29
8151
PEU
80/J
X29
8103
PEU
80/J
X29
8204
A.s
p.1
CFB
HT1
1716
/JX
2983
80C
FBH
T117
16/
JX29
8324
CFB
HT1
1716
/JX
2982
51C
FBH
T117
16//
JX29
8284
CFB
HT1
1716
/JX
2981
04C
FBH
T117
16/
JX29
8205
A.m
aran
guap
ensi
sC
FBH
T141
19/
JX29
8381
CFB
HT1
4119
/JX
2983
26C
FBH
T141
19/J
X29
8253
CFB
HT1
4119
//JX
2982
86C
FBH
T141
19/
JX29
8153
CFB
HT1
4119
/JX
2981
53C
FBH
T141
19/
JX29
8106
CFB
HT1
4119
/JX
2982
07A
.sp.
5C
FBH
E234
/JX
2983
83M
R17
521/
JX29
8327
CFB
HE2
34/J
X29
8254
CFB
HE2
34/J
X29
8288
CFB
HE2
34/J
X29
8155
CFB
HE2
34/J
X29
8155
CFB
HE2
34/J
X29
8108
CFB
HE2
34/J
X29
8209
A.s
p.4
MTR
1357
0/JX
2983
84M
TR13
570/
JX29
8331
MTR
1357
0/JX
2982
56M
TR13
570/
JX29
8290
MTR
1357
0/JX
2981
57M
TR13
570/
JX29
8111
MTR
1357
0/JX
2982
12A
.sp.
6M
R15
919/
JX29
8385
MR
1591
9/JX
2983
32C
FBH
2367
2/JX
2982
57M
R15
919/
JX29
8291
MR
1591
9/JX
2981
58M
R15
919/
JX29
8158
MR
1591
9/JX
2981
12M
R15
919/
JX29
8213
A.p
achy
dact
yla
MTR
1624
4/JX
2983
88M
TR16
244/
JX29
8335
MTR
1624
4/JX
2982
59M
TR16
244/
JX29
8294
MTR
1624
4/JX
2981
61M
TR16
244/
JX29
8161
MTR
1624
4/JX
2981
15M
TR16
244/
JX29
8216
A.s
p.7
MTR
1380
8/JX
2983
89M
TR13
808/
JX29
8336
MTR
1380
8/JX
2982
95M
TR13
808/
JX29
8162
MTR
1380
8/JX
2981
62M
TR13
808/
JX29
8116
MTR
1380
8/JX
2982
17A
.pat
amon
aPK
1969
/JX
2983
90PK
1969
/JX
2983
37R
OM
3957
8/EU
1866
79R
OM
3957
8/EU
1866
79PK
1969
/JX
2981
63PK
1969
/JX
2981
63PK
1969
/JX
2981
17PK
1969
/JX
2982
18A
.adi
asto
laA
JC24
63/J
X29
8391
AJC
2463
/JX
2983
40A
JC24
63/J
X29
8263
AJC
2463
/JX
2982
99A
JC24
63/J
X29
8167
AJC
2463
/JX
2981
67A
JC24
63/J
X29
8121
AJC
2463
/JX
2982
21A
.gut
turo
saPK
2231
/JX
2983
92PK
2231
/JX
2983
41PK
2231
/JX
2982
64PK
2231
/JX
2983
00PK
2231
//JX
2981
68PK
2231
/JX
2981
22PK
2231
/JX
2982
22P.
mir
iam
aeM
TR19
437/
JX29
8396
MTR
1943
7/JX
2983
46EU
1866
89/
LSU
MZ1
6935
EU18
6689
/LS
UM
Z169
35M
TR19
437/
JX29
8174
MTR
1943
7/JX
2981
74M
TR19
437/
JX29
8128
MTR
1943
7/JX
2982
28
P.sp
.1a
MTR
1920
6/JX
2983
99M
TR19
206/
JX29
8349
MTR
1920
6/JX
2982
70M
TR19
206/
JX29
8309
MTR
1920
6/JX
2981
77M
TR19
206/
JX29
8177
MTR
1920
6/JX
2981
31M
TR19
206/
JX29
8231
P.sp
.1b
JMP2
058/
JX29
8400
JMP2
058/
JX29
8355
JMP2
058/
JX29
8275
JMP2
058/
JX29
8315
JMP2
058/
JX29
8182
JMP2
058/
JX29
8182
JMP2
058/
JX29
8135
JMP2
058/
JX29
8236
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 559
the bufonid ‘‘range expansion phenotype’’, as coined by Van Bocxl-aer et al. (2010), corresponds to this period of habitat modification.Moreover, the late Eocene–early Oligocene period matches diver-gence times in the higher taxon Terrarana major clades that are al-most exclusively associated with forest habitat (Heinicke et al.,2009), with some of these clades being endemic to either theAtlantic forest or Amazonia.
(2) Despite somewhat conflicting signal among loci (Figs. 1a;4d), both concatenated and multilocus approaches favored unam-biguously NAMC as the sister group of the other Adelophryne. Suchpattern shown by the Atlantic forest Adelophryne – being actuallynested within otherwise Amazonian Phyzelaphryninae i.e. thatPhyzelaphryne descends from an Amazonian lineage and is the sis-ter taxon to Adelophryne occurring both in Amazonia and in theAtlantic forest – is a pattern never recovered previously. Given thatEleutherodactylinae likely originated by dispersal from northwest-ern South America (Heinicke et al., 2007) and that the Atlantic for-est Adelophryne are nested within Phyzelaphryninae, it seemslikely that Adelophryne originally was situated in northern Amazo-nia and subsequently dispersed to the Atlantic forest some 23–16 Ma. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that such short internodesat the base of Adelophryne allied with the conflicting results foundby MP, call for a deeper investigation based on a larger number ofunlinked nuclear loci and other sources of evidence. Nonetheless,the split between the NAMC and the Atlantic forest Adelophrynematches a period when the Purus Arch connected the GuianaShield and the Brazilian Shield (Hoorn et al., 2010b). Later (midMiocene), the Pebas system and the flowing paleo Amazon riverhave most likely prevented any possible route to the southeastfor such small-bodied terrestrial and direct-developing frogs.Moreover, the 20–15 My window corresponds to a period of highertemperature (Zachos et al., 2001). Such conditions may have al-lowed Adelophryne to disperse rapidly given the short internodebetween two Atlantic forest clades today in contact on each bankof the Rio de Contas (Bahia). Nonetheless, it is striking that Adel-ophryne could have dispersed over great distances between theGuiana Shield and southern Atlantic forest in such a short timeframe (<2 My).
Similarly, the north vs. south Atlantic forest pattern observedwithin Adelophryne is concordant with several studies of vicariantforms whose limits are more or less coincident with the Rio Docevalley (northern Espírito Santo state; Carnaval et al., 2009; Costa,2003; Pellegrino et al., 2005; Pinto-da-Rocha et al., 2005; da Silvaet al., 2004). Several plant taxa are restricted to either one of theseareas, producing a strong floristic differentiation between thenorthern and southern Atlantic forests (Oliveira-Filho and Fontes,2000). This pattern strikingly matches what is observed in othertaxa like Dendrophryniscus (Fouquet et al., 2012b) and Leposoma(Pellegrino et al., 2011). In these examples, divergence times alsoindicate that areas of environmental stability lasted for 20 My inthe Guiana Shield and in several parts of the Atlantic forest fromMiocene to Quaternary, a much longer time period than that mod-eled by Carnaval and Moritz (2008).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the many people and institutions that madethis study possible and Allan Larson (MPE AE) as well as the twoanonymous reviewers for their sound comments on the manu-script. Thanks to Renato Recoder, Marco A. Sena, Mauro TeixeiraJr., José Cassimiro da Silva, Agustin Camacho, Dante Pavan, GabrielSkuk, Vanessa Verdade, Roberta Damasceno, Renata Amaro, SergioMarques de Souza, Francisco dal Vechio, José Mario Guellere, TamiMott, Pedro M. S. Nunes, H. Bonfim, Sonia Machado, Felipe Leiteand Luciana Fusinatto for help in the field and/or for collectedinvaluable material. We also thank Erney Plessman de Camargo,
560 A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561
José Maria da Silva, and Admilson Torres for their invaluable helpduring fieldwork in Amapá. We are also grateful to Manuel An-tunes Jr., Sabrina Baroni and Maira Concistré (Instituto de Biociên-cias da Universidade de São Paulo) who assisted with lab work.Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICM-Bio), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico and Tec-nológico (CNPq DL. Doctoral fellowship 140226/2006-0) andParque Nacional da Serra do Cipó granted collection permits andassisted in the field. Funding was provided by CNPq, Fundação deAmparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP, 2003/10335-8, 2011/50146-6 and 2010/51071-7; A. Fouquet PD scolarship2007/57067-9, V.D. Orrico PhD scholarship FAPESP 2007/57067-9, M.L. Lyra PD scholarship 2010/50124-0), Fundação Cearense deApoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP) pro-vided I.J. Roberto’s scholarship. The work of S. Castroviejo-Fisherwas financed by a Universidad de los Andes (2009–2010) and aFulbright/Spanish Ministry of Education (2010–2012) post-doc-toral research contracts, and J. M. Padial’s research is funded by aGerstner Post-doctoral Fellowship at the American Museum ofNatural History. PJRK’s fieldwork in Guyana was made possiblethanks to the financial support of the Belgian Directorate-Generalof Development Cooperation with additional support from the KingLéopold III Fund for Nature Exploration and Conservation; speci-mens from Guyana were collected under Permit Numbers030605BR006 and 160107BR068, and exported under Permit Num-bers 191205SP01, 040406SP014, 040706SP0171 and 191207SP018issued by the Guyana Environmental Protection Agency.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.07.012.
References
Akaike, H., 1974. A new look at the statistical-model identification. IEEE Trans.Automat. Contr. 19 (6), 716–723.
Almeida, A.P., Gasparini, J.L., Peloso, P.L.V., 2011. Frogs of the state of Espírito Santo,southeastern Brazil – the need for looking at the ‘coldspots’. Check List 7 (4),542–560.
Balakrishnan, R., 2005. Species concepts, species boundaries and speciesidentification: a view from the tropics. Syst. Biol. 54 (4), 689–693.
Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O., Swartz, B., Quental, T.B.,Marshall, C., McGuire, J.L., Lindsey, E.L., Maguire, K.C., Mersey, B., Ferrer, E.A.,2011. Has the earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471 (7336),51–57.
Bickford, D., Lohman, D.J., Sodhi, N.S., Ng, P.K.L., Meier, R., Winker, K., Ingram, K.K.,Das, I., 2007. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. TrendsEcol. Evol. 22, 148–155.
Bossuyt, F., Milinkovitch, M.C., 2000. Convergent adaptive radiations in Madagascanand Asian ranid frogs reveal covariation between larval and adult traits. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 6585–6590.
Brandley, M.C., Schmitz, A., Reeder, T.W., 2005. Partitioned Bayesian analyses,partition choice, and the phylogenetic relationships of scincid lizards. Syst. Biol.54, 373–390.
Carnaval, A.C., Moritz, C., 2008. Historical climate modeling predicts patterns ofcurrent biodiversity in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. J. Biogeogr. 35, 1187–1201.
Carnaval, A.C., Hickerson, M.J., Haddad, C.F.B., Rodrigues, M.T., Moritz, C., 2009.Stability predicts genetic diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic forest hotspot.Science 323, 785–789.
Cassiano-Lima, D., Borges-Nojosa, D.M., Cascon, P., Cechin, S.Z., 2011. Thereproductive mode of Adelophryne maranguapensis Hoogmoed, Borges &Cascon, 1994, (Anura, Eleutherodactylidae) an endemic and threatenedspecies from Atlantic forest remnants in northern Brazil. North-Western J.Zool. 7 (1), 92–97.
Caterino, M.S., Reed, R.D., Kuo, M.M., Sperling, F.A., 2001. A partitioned likelihoodanalysis of swallowtail butterfly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Syst.Biol. 50, 106–127.
Cherry, L.M., Case, S.M., Wilson, A.C., 1977. Relative rates of morphologicalevolution in primates, carnivores and frogs. Am. Zool. 17, 910.
Cherry, L.M., Case, S.M., Wilson, A.C., 1978. Frog perspective on morphologicaldifference between humans and chimpanzees. Science 200, 209–211.
Clement, M., Posada, D., Crandall, K.A., 2000. TCS: a computer program to estimategene genealogies. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1657–1660.
Corlett, R.T., 2012. Climate change in the tropics: the end of the world as we knowit? Biol. Conserv. 151, 22–25.
Costa, L.P., 2003. The historical bridge between the Amazon and the Atlantic forestof Brazil: a study of molecular phylogeography with small mammals. J.Biogeogr. 30, 71–86.
Crozier, R.H., 1997. Preserving the information content of species: genetic diversity,phylogeny, and conservation worth. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 243–268.
da Silva, J.M.C., Rylands, A.B., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2005. The fate of the Amazonianareas of endemism. Conserv. Biol. 19 (3), 689–694.
daSilva, J.M.C., da Sousa, M.C., de Castelletti, C.H.M., 2004. Areas of endemism forpasserine birds in the Atlantic forest, South America. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13,85–92.
Dayrat, B., 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 85, 407–415.De la Riva, I., Köhler, J., Lötters, S., Reichle, S., 2000. Ten years of research on Bolivian
amphibians: updated checklist, distribution, taxonomic problems, literatureand iconography. Rev. Esp. Herpetol. 14, 19–164.
Drummond, A.J., Rambaut, A., 2007. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis bysampling trees. BMC Evol. Biol. 7, 214.
Drummond, A.J., Nicholls, G.K., Rodrigo, A.G., Solomon, W., 2002. Estimatingmutation parameters, population history and genealogy simultaneously fromtemporally spaced sequence data. Genetics 161, 1307–1320.
Duellman, W.E., 1999. Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians: A Global Perspective.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Efron, B., 1979. The 1977 Rietz lecture. Bootstrap methods: another look at thejackknife. Ann. Stat. 7, 1–26.
Emerson, S.B., 1986. Convergence and morphological constraint in frogs: variationin postcranial morphology. Fieldiana Zool. 43, 1–19.
Faith, D.P., 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv.61 (1), 1–10.
Felsenstein, J., 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies – an approach using thebootstrap. Evolution 39, 783–791.
Flynn, J.J., Wyss, A.R., 1998. Recent advances in South American mammalianpaleontology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 11449–11454.
Fouquet, A., Gilles, A., Vences, M., Marty, C., Blanc, M., Gemmell, N.J., 2007.Underestimation of species richness in neotropical frogs revealed by mtDNAanalyses. PLoS ONE 2 (10), e1109, doi: 1110.1371/journal.pone.0001109.
Fouquet, A., Noonan, B.P., Rodrigues, M.T., Pech, N., Gilles, A., Gemmell, N.J., 2012a.Multiple quaternary refugia in the eastern Guiana Shield revealed bycomparative phylogeography of 12 frog species. Syst. Biol. 61 (3), 461–489.
Fouquet, A., Recoder, R., Teixeira, M., Cassimiro da Silva, J., Amaro, R.C., CamachoGuerrero, A., Damasceno, R., Carnaval, A.C., Moritz, C., Rodrigues, M.T., 2012b.Molecular phylogeny and morphometric analyses reveal deep divergencebetween Amazonia and Atlantic forest species of Dendrophryniscus. Mol.Phylogenet. Evol. 62, 826–838.
Funk, W.C., Caminer, M., Ron, S.R., 2012. High levels of cryptic species diversityuncovered in Amazonian frogs. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 279 (1734), 1806–1814.
Gaston, K.J., Williams, P.H., 1996. Spatial patterns in taxonomic diversity. In: Gaston,K.J. (Ed.), Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference. Blackwell Science,Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, pp. 202–229.
Giam, X., Scheffers, B.R., Sodhi, N.S., Wilcove, D.S., Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., 2012.Reservoirs of richness: least disturbed tropical forests are centres ofundescribed species diversity. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 279, 67–76.
Grant, T., Frost, D.R., Caldwell, J.P., Gagliardo, R., Haddad, C.F.B., Kok, P.J.R., Means,D.B., Noonan, B.P., Schargel, W.E., Wheeler, W.C., 2006. Phylogeneticsystematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Amphibia:Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae). Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 299, 1–262.
Gonzalez-Voyer, A., Padial, J.M., Castroviejo-Fisher, S., de la Riva, I., Vila, C., 2011.Correlates of species richness in the largest neotropical amphibian radiation. J.Evol. Biol. 24 (5), 931–942.
Guayasamin, J.M., Castroviejo-Fisher, S., Ayarzagüena, J., Trueb, L., Vilà, C., 2008.Phylogenetic relationships of glassfrogs (Centrolenidae) based on mitochondrialand nuclear genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48, 574–595.
Guayasamin, J.M., Castroviejo-Fisher, S., Trueb, L., Rada, M., Vilà, C., 2009.Phylogenetic systematics of glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) and theirsister taxon Allophryne ruthveni. Zootaxa 2100, 1–97.
Guindon, S., Gascuel, O., 2003. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimatelarge phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52, 696–704.
Hedges, S.B., Duellman, W.E., Heinicke, M.P., 2008. New World direct-developingfrogs (Anura: Terrarana): molecular phylogeny, classification, biogeography,and conservation. Zootaxa 1737, 1–182.
Heinicke, M.P., Duellman, W.E., Hedges, S.B., 2007. Major Caribbean and CentralAmerican frog faunas originated by ancient oceanic dispersal. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA 104 (24), 10092–10097.
Heinicke, M.P., Duellman, W.E., Trueb, L., Means, D.B., MacCulloch, R.D., Hedges, S.B.,2009. A new frog family (Anura: Terrarana) from South America and anexpanded direct-developing clade revealed by molecular phylogeny. Zootaxa2211, 1–35.
Heled, J., Drummond, A.J., 2010. Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocusdata. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27 (3), 570–580.
Heyer, W.R., 1977. Taxonomic notes on frogs from the Madeira and Purus rivers,Brazil. Pap. Avul. de Zool. 31 (8), 141–162.
Heyer, W.R., Gascon, C., 1995. Collection notes and call characteristics forIschnocnema quixensis and Phyzelaphryne miriamae (Amphibia: Anura:Leptodactylidae). J. Herpetol. 29 (2), 304–307.
Hillis, D.M., Bull, J.J., 1993. An empirical-test of bootstrapping as a method forassessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42, 182–192.
A. Fouquet et al. / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65 (2012) 547–561 561
Huelsenbeck, J.P., Ronquist, F., 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetictrees. Bioinformatics 17, 754–755.
Hoegg, S., Vences, M., Brinkmann, H., Meyer, A., 2004. Phylogeny and comparativesubstitution rates of frogs inferred from sequences of three nuclear genes. Mol.Biol. Evol. 21 (7), 1188–1200.
Hoogmoed, M.S., Lescure, J., 1984. A new genus and two new species of minuteleptodactylid frogs from northern South America, with comments uponPhyzelaphryne (Amphibia: Anura: Leptodactylidae). Zool. Med. Leiden 58 (6),85–115.
Hoogmoed, M.S., Borges, D.M., Cascon, P., 1994. Three new species of the genusAdelophryne (Amphibia: Anura: Leptodactylidae) from northeastern Brazil, withremarks on the other species of the genus. Zool. Med. Leiden 68 (15/25), 271–300.
Hoorn, C., Wesselingh, F.P., terSteege, H., Stadler, T., Sanmartín, I., Sanchez-Meseguer, A., Anderson, C.L., Jaramillo, C.M., Bermudez, C., Figueiredo, J.D.,Riff, F.R., Negri, H., Hooghiemstra, J., Lundberg, T., Sarkinen, A.Mora., Antonelli,A., 2010a. Amazonia through time: Andean uplift, climate change, landscapeevolution and biodiversity. Science 330, 927–931.
Hoorn, C., Wesselingh, F.P., Hovikoski, J., Guerrero, J., 2010b. The development of theAmazonian mega-wetland (Miocene; Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia. In: Hoorn,C., Wesselingh, F.P. (Eds.), Amazonia, Landscape and Species Evolution: A Lookinto the Past. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 162–184.
Jansen, M., Bloch, R., Schulze, A., Pfenninger, M., 2011. Integrative inventory ofBolivia’s lowland amphibians reveals hidden diversity. Zool. Scr. 40 (6), 567–583.
Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K., Miyata, T., 2002. MAFFT: a novel method for rapidmultiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic AcidsRes. 30, 3059–3066.
Kok, P.J.R., Kalamandeen, M., 2008. Introduction to the taxonomy of the amphibiansof Kaieteur National Park, Guyana. Abc Taxa 5, 278.
Lemmon, A.R., Brown, J.M., Stanger-Hall, K., Moriarty-Lemmon, E., 2009. The effectof ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimatesobtained by maximum likelihoodand Bayesian inference. Syst. Biol. 58, 130–145.
Liu, L., Yu, L., Pearl, D.K., Edwards, S.V., 2009. Estimating species phylogenies usingcoalescence times among sequences. Syst. Biol. 58, 468–477.
Loebmann, D., Orrico, V.G.D., Haddad, C.F.B.H., 2011. First record of Adelophrynebaturitensis Hoogmoed, Borges & Cascon, 1994 for the state of Pernambuco,northeastern Brazil (Anura, Eleutherodactylidae, Phyzelaphryninae). Herpetol.Notes 4, 75–77.
Lynch, J.D., 2005. Discovery of the richest frog fauna in the world – an exploration ofthe forests to the north of Leticia. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. 29 (113), 581–588.
Malhi, Y., Roberts, J.T., Betts, R.A., Killeen, T.J., Li, W.H., Nobre, C.A., 2008. Climatechange, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science 319, 169–172.
Marshall, D.C., 2010. Cryptic failure of partitioned Bayesian phylogenetic analyses:lost in the land of long trees. Syst. Biol. 59 (1), 108–117.
MacCulloch, R.D., Lathrop, A., Kok, P.J.R., Minter, L.R., Khan, S.Z., Barrio-Amorós, C.L.,2008. A new species of Adelophryne (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae) from Guyana,with additional description of A. gutturosa. Zootaxa 1884, 36–50.
Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Olivieri, S., 1998.Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches tosetting conservation priorities. Conserv. Biol. 12 (3), 516–520.
Mori, S.A., Boom, B.A., Prance, G.T., 1981. Distribution patterns and conservation ofeastern Brazilian coastal forest tree species. Brittonia 33, 233–245.
Mueller, R.L., 2006. Evolutionary rates, divergence dates, and the performance ofmitochondrial genes in Bayesian phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 55 (2), 289–300.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 (6772), 853–858.
Oliveira-Filho, A.T., Fontes, M.A.L., 2000. Patterns of floristic differentiation amongAtlantic forests in southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate. Biotropica32, 793–810.
Ortega-Andrade, H.M., 2009. Amphibia, Anura, Eleutherodactylidae, Adelophryneadiastola Hoogmoed and Lescure, 1984: first countries records and distributionextension from Ecuador and Brazil. Check List 5 (1), 139–143.
Ortiz-Jaureguizar, E., Cladera, G.A., 2006. Paleoenvironmental evolution of southernSouth America during the Cenozoic. J. Arid Environ. 66, 498–532.
Padial, J.M., Miralles, A., de la Riva, I., Vences, M., 2010. The integrative future oftaxonomy. Front. Zool. 7, 16.
Parra-Olea, G., Wake, D.B., 2001. Extreme morphological and ecological homoplasyin tropical salamanders. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 7888–7891.
Pellegrino, K.C.M., Rodrigues, M.T., Waite, A.N., Morando, M., Yonenaga-Yassuda, Y.,Sites Jr., J.W., 2005. Phylogeography and species limits in the Gymnodactylusdarwinii complex (Gekkonidae, Squamata): genetic structure coincides withriver systems in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 85, 13–26.
Pellegrino, K.C.M., Rodrigues, M.T., James Harris, D., Yonenaga-Yassuda, Y., Sites,J.W., 2011. Molecular phylogeny, biogeography and insights into the origin ofparthenogenesis in the Neotropical genus Leposoma (Squamata:Gymnophthalmidae): ancient links between the Atlantic forest and Amazonia.Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 61 (2), 446–459.
Pfenninger, M., Schwenk, K., 2007. Cryptic animal species are homogeneouslydistributed among taxa and biogeographical regions. BMC Evol. Biol. 7.
Pinto-da-Rocha, R., da Silva, M.B., Bragagnolo, C., 2005. Faunistic similarity andhistoric biogeography of the harvestmen of southern and southeastern Atlanticrain forest of Brazil. J. Arachnol. 33, 290–299.
Pombal, J.R., 2010. A posição taxonômica das ‘‘variedades’’ de Brachycephalusephippium (Spix, 1824) descritas por Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920 (Amphibia, Anura,Brachycephalidae). Bol. Mus. Nac. 526, 1–12.
Posada, D., 2008. JModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25,1253–1256.
Purvis, A., Hector, A., 2000. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405 (6783),212–219.
Prado, D.E., Gibbs, P.E., 1993. Patterns of species distributions in the dry seasonalforests of South America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80, 902–927.
Primack, R., Corlett, R.T., 2005. Tropical Rain Forests: An Ecological andBiogeographical Comparison. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.
Prothero, D.R., 1994. The late eocene–oligocene extinctions. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet.Sci. 22, 145–165.
Pyron, R.A., Wiens, J.J., 2011. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia with over 2,800species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians.Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 61, 543–583.
Rambaut, A., Drummond, A.J., 2007. Tracer. Version 1.5. <http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/tracer/> (accessed 20.12.09).
Reece, J.S., Bowen, B.W., Smith, D.G., Larson, A., 2010. Molecular phylogenetics ofmoray eels (Muraenidae) demonstrates multiple origins of a shell-crushing jaw(Gymnomuraena, Echidna) and multiple colonizations of the Atlantic ocean.Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 57, 829–835.
Ribeiro, M.C., Metzger, J.P., Martensen, A.C., Ponzoni, F.J., Hirota, M.M., 2009. TheBrazilian Atlantic forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forestdistributed? Implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 142 (6), 1141–1153.
Roig-Juñent, S., Domínguez, M.C., Flores, G.E., Mattoni, C., 2006. Biogeographichistory of South American arid lands: a view from its arthropods using TASSanalysis. J. Arid Environ. 66, 404–420.
Romero, E.J., 1986. Paleogene phytogeography and climatology of South-America.Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 73, 449–461.
Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J.P., 2003. MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inferenceunder mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574.
Santos, J.C., Coloma, L.A., Summers, K., Caldwell, J.P., Ree, R., Cannatella, D.C., 2009.Amazonian amphibian diversity is primarily derived from late Miocene Andeanlineages. Plos Biol. 7 (3), 448–461.
Simmons, M.P., 2012. Radical instability and spurious branch support by likelihoodwhen applied to matrices with non-random distributions of missing data. Mol.Phylogenet. Evol. 62, 472–484.
Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L.,Waller, R.W., 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctionsworldwide. Science 306 (5702), 1783–1786.
Stuart, S.N., Hoffmann, M., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Berridge, R.J., Ramani, P., Young,B.E., 2008. Threatened Amphibians of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona,Spain, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Conservation International, Arlington,Virginia.
Sullivan, J., Joyce, P., 2005. Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol.Syst. 36, 445–466.
Swofford, D.L., 2002. PAUP�: Phylogenetic Analysis using Parsimony (�and OtherMethods). Version 4.0b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Tamura, K., Peterson, D., Peterson, N., Stecher, G., Nei, M., Kumar, S., 2011. MEGA5:molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood,evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28,2731–2739.
Tuomisto, H., Ruokolainen, K., Kalliola, R., Linna, A., Danjoy, W., Rodriguez, Z., 1995.Dissecting Amazonian biodiversity. Science 269 (5220), 63–66.
Van Bocxlaer, I., Loader, S.P., Roelants, K., Biju, S.D., Menegon, M., Bossuyt, F., 2010.Gradual adaptation toward a range-expansion phenotype initiated the globalradiation of toads. Science 327, 679–682.
Vences, M., Thomas, M., Bonett, R.M., Vieites, D.R., 2005. Deciphering amphibiandiversity through DNA barcoding: chances and challenges. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.Lond. B 360, 1859–1868.
Vieites, D.R., Wollenberg, K.C., Andreone, F., Kohler, J., Glaw, F., Vences, M., 2009.Vast underestimation of Madagascar’s biodiversity evidenced by an integrativeamphibian inventory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (20), 8267–8272.
Wake, D.B., Vredenburg, V.T., 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth massextinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105,11466–11473.
Wiens, J.J., 1998. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decreasephylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47, 625–640.
Wiens, J.J., 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst.Biol. 52, 528–538.
Wiens, J.J., Fetzner, J.W., Parkinson, C.L., Reeder, T.W., 2005. Hylid frog phylogenyand sampling strategies for speciose clades. Syst. Biol. 54 (5), 778–807.
Wiens, J.J., Morrill, M.C., 2011. Missing data in phylogenetic analysis: reconcilingresults from simulations and empirical data. Syst. Biol. 60, 719–731.
Will, K.P., Mishler, B.D., Wheeler, Q.D., 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and theneed for integrative taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 54, 844–851.
Wilson, E.O., 1992. The Diversity of Life. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., Billups, K., 2001. Trends, rhythms, andaberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693.