THE PHYLOGENETIC POSITION OF THE DART-POISON FROGS (DENDROBATIDAE) AMONG ANURANS - AN EXAMINATION OF THE COMPETING HYPOTHESES AND THEIR CHARACTERS

被引:35
作者
FORD, LS
机构
[1] Museum of Natural History and Department of Systematic s and Ecology, Lawrence, KS, 66045-2454, University of Kansas
关键词
AMPHIBIA; ANURA; DENDROBATIDAE; DART-POISON FROGS; SISTER GROUP; SYSTEMATICS; PHYLOGENY;
D O I
10.1080/08927014.1993.9523106
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Dart-poison frogs (family Dendrobatidae) are well known for the bright colors and toxic skin alkaloids of some members. These small inhabitants of tropical forests comprise 157 named species placed in six genera. Despite the growing interest in all aspects of dendrobatid biology, the placement of the family in relation to other anurans remains controversial because of differing views concerning the identity of its sister group. The dendrobatids are hypothesized to be derived from within either the Leptodactylidae or the Ranidae, which are classified in the superfamilies Bufonoidea and Ranoidea, respectively. These extremely divergent hypotheses of relationships were derived traditionally from limited numbers of characters. Examples of a few characters that support the leptodactylid hypothesis include aspects of cranial morphology and procoelous vertebrae, and those that support the ranid hypothesis include round sacral diapophyses and the presence of bursa angularis oris. Interestingly, some characters were used to support both hypotheses, owing to different interpretations of the same characters (e.g., pectoral girdle, thigh musculature). In reviewing the hypotheses and characters, it is evident that many complications concerning the placement of the Dendrobatidae reflect inherent problems with most of the characters, including homoplasy, ambiguous and erroneous reporting of characters, and a priori assumptions concerning character evolution.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 231
页数:13
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]  
Boulenger G.A., Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia S. Ecaudata in the Collection of the British Museum, (1882)
[2]  
Boulenger G.A., Les Batraciens Et Principalement Ceux D'europe, (1910)
[3]  
Cope E.D., Sketch of the primary groups of Batrachia Salientia, Natural History Review (New Series), 5, (1865)
[4]  
Cope E.D., Fourth contribution to the herpetology of tropical America, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 18, pp. 123-132, (1866)
[5]  
Cope E.D., On the structure and distribution of the genera of the arciferous Anura, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (2), 6, pp. 67-112, (1867)
[6]  
Daly J.W., Highet R.J., Myers C.W., Occurrence of skin alkaloids in non-dendrobatid frogs from Brazil (Bufonidae), Australia (Myobatrachidae) and Madagascar (Mantelli-nae), Toxicon, 22, 6, pp. 905-919, (1984)
[7]  
Daly J.W., Myers C.W., Whittaker N., Further classification of skin alkaloids from neotropical poison frogs (Dendrobatidae), with a general survey of toxic/noxious substances in the Amphibia, Toxicon, 25, 10, pp. 1023-1095, (1987)
[8]  
De Villiers C., On the anatomy of the breast-shoulder-apparatus of Xenopus, Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 10, 4, pp. 197-211, (1924)
[9]  
Dubois A., Miscellanea taxinomica batrachologica (I), Alytes, 5, 1-2, pp. 7-95, (1986)
[10]  
Duellman W.E., On the classification of frogs, Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, 42, pp. 1-14, (1975)