FIGURE 2 in Anole classification: A response to Poe
| Main Authors: | Nicholson, K.E., Crother, B.I., Guyer, C., Savage, J.M. |
|---|---|
| Format: | info Image Journal |
| Terbitan: |
, 2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://zenodo.org/record/5116594 |
Daftar Isi:
- FIGURE 2. Comparison between Poe (2004) and Nicholson et al. (2012) for consistency in recognizing monophyletic groups of members for genera proposed by Nicholson et al. (2012). Figure from Poe (2004) used with permission. Shaded boxes show the genera proposed by Nicholson et al. (2012), and—unless indicated (arrows point to problematic taxa)—group membership is identical between the two studies. To conserve space, the Norops portion of Poe's (2004) tree is not shown, but showed clear monophyly for the group, with no associated problematic taxa. "A" (occultus) nested with other taxa in our (2012) genus Deiroptyx in our molecular tree, but diverged at its base in our combined tree. "B" (lucius) nested with our (2012) genus "Anolis" in our combined tree, but was nested with our genus "Xiphosurus" in our (2012) molecular tree. "C" (argenteolus) nested with other Anolis taxa in our combined tree, but nested within Xiphosurus in our molecular tree. "D" (darlingtoni) nested with our (2012) genus Deiroptyx in our molecular tree, but lay at the base of combined tree—we elected to place it within our genus Deiroptyx in our classification. "E" (christophei) nested with other taxa in our (2012) genus Xiphosurus, but we tentatively placed it within our (2012) genus "Chamaelinorops" due to several compelling morphological features (see Nicholson et al. 2012, systematics section, for further explanation). "F" (spectrum) nested within our (2012) genus "Chamaelinorops" in our combined tree, but we lacked molecular data for this taxon. Given that all other alutaceus group species nested together, with high support, in molecular analyses, we placed this taxon within our (2012) genus Anolis. "G" (cyanopleurus) nested with our (2012) genus "Anolis" in all analyses. Note placement of these taxa in Figures 1, 3, 4 and 5. Notice that, in each case, each genus is monophyletic at a high level of confidence, with the sole exception of the few problematic taxa.
- Published as part of Nicholson, K.E., Crother, B.I., Guyer, C. & Savage, J.M., 2014, Anole classification: A response to Poe, pp. 109-120 in Zootaxa 3814 (1) on page 113, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3814.1.6, http://zenodo.org/record/4919197