NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

The place for new fieldguides and discussions on books on field herpetology, description and discussion on new (sub)species, etc.

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Jeroen Speybroeck » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:02 pm

Just to be clear: I knew all these things. I just am (still...) amazed by some of it. Hell, I even discussed it with Werner (RIP...). So, I think we all get by no how Dinarolacerta may be obsolete ;)

Karim, see Mario's citation for the nuance you (and others) have omitted:
the support for the paraphyly of Algyroides is not sufficient given the present data

But I mainly wanted to add that the snake paper is 'only' mtDNA, so Gabri, we might be overinterpreting things here. See also polyphyly of Eirenis, Elaphe, Hierophis, ...

Now who can enlighten us about the value of the used markers (and other aspects of the methodology) of the 2013 paper, concerning interpretation of genus/species-level relationships?

P.S.: Am I the only one who's never thought Platysaurus to look like Lacertidae?
Jeroen Speybroeck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am
Hometown: Merelbeke
country: Belgium

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Karim Chouchane » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:15 am

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Karim, see Mario's citation for the nuance you (and others) have omitted


On the contrary, I wanted to emphasis the lack of significance obtained on these genes. We need to seek for more suitable markers to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the Lacertinae.

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Now who can enlighten us about the value of the used markers (and other aspects of the methodology) of the 2013 paper, concerning interpretation of genus/species-level relationships?

If you are referring to Podnar et al. they used 16s and cytochrome b, and they seem to obtain a convincing analysis, which indicates that at some point someone will name a new Dalmatolacerta.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martina_Podnar/publication/259553920_Non-concordant_phylogeographical_patterns_of_three_widely_codistributed_endemic_Western_Balkans_lacertid_lizards_%28Reptilia_Lacertidae%29_shaped_by_specific_habitat_requirements_and_different_responses_to_Pleistocene_climatic_oscillations/links/5486a32a0cf289302e2c0fb7.pdf
Karim Chouchane
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:04 am
Hometown: Grenoble
country: France

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Jeroen Speybroeck » Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:35 am

Karim Chouchanosky wrote:
Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Now who can enlighten us about the value of the used markers (and other aspects of the methodology) of the 2013 paper, concerning interpretation of genus/species-level relationships?

If you are referring to Podnar et al.

No, Pyron et al. I can read ;)
Jeroen Speybroeck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am
Hometown: Merelbeke
country: Belgium

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Gabriel Martínez » Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:32 pm

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:But I mainly wanted to add that the snake paper is 'only' mtDNA, so Gabri, we might be overinterpreting things here. See also polyphyly of Eirenis, Elaphe, Hierophis, ...


Yes! it was just a reflexion. Anyway this threat has gone focused in species level, whereas my main target was the scientifical support of Suborders and big groups in Squamata :oops:

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:P.S.: Am I the only one who's never thought Platysaurus to look like Lacertidae?


If you look it with detail, they are like "very thin Cordylius" and these do not look like true lizards, of course. But in a first look, differences in colours of nice males and dark females, fast moves, fingers, legs, head... when I saw them moving I promise that they look like Algyroides marchi, Iberolacerta cyreni or something like that. Maybe you can think that they can be related to agamids. But with skinks!? Rare! (anyway that behaviour is not only of Lacertidae or Agamidae, it´s also typical in diurnal geckos such as Quedenfeltia moerens/Gekkota and some Varanus species/Anguimorpha so it seems more related to adaptation to big rocks habitat than to your origins)
User avatar
Gabriel Martínez
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:24 pm
Hometown: Madrid
country: Spain

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Peter Oefinger » Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:38 pm

Karim Chouchanosky wrote:If you are referring to Podnar et al. they used 16s and cytochrome b, and they seem to obtain a convincing analysis, which indicates that at some point someone will name a new Dalmatolacerta.

It's interesting, as the geographic Clusters of P. melisellensis and Dalmatolacerta somehow correspond - These remote Islands are worth a visit, although the Island Dalmatolacertas obviously look the same than on mainland. ;-)

Gabriel Martínez wrote:Amazing Ptalysaurus, I have also photos of a male, but I prefered to use the female to avoid the envy of Peter

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:P.S.: Am I the only one who's never thought Platysaurus to look like Lacertidae?

Yes, these pictures hurt, and yes, for me Platysaurus doesn't look like a Lacertid at all (otherwise, all lizards look like lacertids...)
Peter Oefinger
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:28 am
Hometown: Duesseldorf
country: Germany

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Mario Schweiger » Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:12 am

Peter Oefinger wrote:It's interesting, as the geographic Clusters of P. melisellensis and Dalmatolacerta somehow correspond - These remote Islands are worth a visit, although the Island Dalmatolacertas obviously look the same than on mainland. ;-)


That's what Werner said to me: yes, different haplotypes - but no morphological differences, no different (sub)species :lol:
Mario (Admin)

Please visit also my personal Herp-site vipersgarden.at
User avatar
Mario Schweiger
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 7:57 pm
Location: Obertrum, Salzburg, Austria
Hometown: Obertrum
country: Austria

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:13 pm

The fact is that e.g. trout and tuna are closer cousins to humans than they are to e.g. sharks.
So, if trout and tuna are “the true fish”, then we humans are (genetically - or "cladistically")
“fishier” than sharks... although we don't look like "fish" at all, and sharks do - very much so.

We humans are also closer cousins to lungfish and coelacanths than they are to trout and tuna,
not to mention their even more remote relatives like sharks... Well, lungfish and coelacanths
are certainly recognized by everyone as "fish", so, who's "fishier", or "more human", in this story?

The closest (surviving) relatives of birds are crocodiles (!), ever since the dinosaurs went extinct
and left the Archosauria with just these two survivors...

But nobody seems to be troubled with “surprises” like that. So, what's the big fuss?
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:46 pm

Gabriel Martínez wrote: I attach some comparative pictures to show how strange is the evolutive convergence!

Pardon my "nitpicking", but shouldn't it be DIVERGENCE instead of convergence? What I mean,
"evolutionary convergence" usually refers to genetically distant taxa acquiring phenotypic
similarities (like eg. whales and fish) - for good and understandable reasons, of course - but
what you show us in these pictures is just the opposite of that - genetically close taxa
(whether "surprisingly" or not) showing big phenotypic differences...
What's the scientific term for that, if it exists at all?
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:59 pm

Mario Schweiger wrote:
Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:As an example, I have still no clue if the fact that they put Dinarolacerta inside Algyroides makes sense.

not really new ;)
This has been proposed by Werner MAYER many yeas ago. Unfortunately he doesn't reach the age to publish it :shock:
But there are some lines about in a paper by Werner (author or co-author), which I can't find at the moment

...here it is: PODNAR, M., B. BRUVO MADARIC & W.MAYER (2013)

But Mario, in this paper the algies were hardly mentioned at all, let alone discussed. Not a single line,
just an entry in Fig. 2. As they say, Algyroides nigropunctatus was selected just as an "outgroup" closely
related to Dinarolacerta - only to "direct" the tree, that's all.
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: NEW SQUAMATA CLASSIFICATION

Postby Mario Schweiger » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:41 pm

Bero,

check PDF-1700
Pavlicev, M. & W. Mayer (2009): Fast radiation of the subfamily Lacertinae (Reptilia: Lacertidae): History or methodical artefact? - Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 52: 727 - 734.
Abstract: Lacertinae is one of the three lacertid lizard subfamilies with a geographical distribution confined to the Palaearctic. Several past attempts to reconstruct its phylogeny resulted in unresolved bush-like topologies. We address the question of whether the lack of resolution is due to insufficient data or whether this lack reflects a rapid succession of speciation events. We analyzed four partial and one complete gene sequences from mitochondrial and nuclear genomes, totalling roughly 3600 bp. We included 29 species representing all 19 genera suggested in recent revision of Lacertinae [Arnold, E.N., Arribas, O., Carranza, S., 2007. Systematics of the palaearctic and oriental lizard tribe Lacertini (Squamata: Lacertidae: Lacertinae), with descriptions of eight new genera. Zootaxa 1430, 1–86]. The resulting phylogeny, first, corroborates monophyly at the genus level for the suggested genera, as well as the finding that Atlantolacerta andreanskyi, until recently part of Lacertinae, belongs to the subfamily Eremiadinae. Second, we find that increasing the sequence length and combining multiple nuclear and mitochondrial sequences did not resolve the polytomy, suggesting that the inferred topology indicates a multiple cladogenesis within a short geological period, rather than a methodical artefact. Divergence time estimates, based on previous estimates of several node ages, range from 13.9 to 14.9 million years for the radiation event, however with very broad confidence interval. To associate the radiation with a narrower geological time we consider palaeogeographic and palaeoclimatic data, assuming that the Lacertinae probably evolved in Central Europe and WAsia after the collision of Africa and Eurasia. We suggest that this radiation may date to the late Langhian (ca. 14–13.5 million years) when geological events caused abrupt changes in regional water–land distribution and climate, offering a window of distinct conditions.
Mario (Admin)

Please visit also my personal Herp-site vipersgarden.at
User avatar
Mario Schweiger
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 7:57 pm
Location: Obertrum, Salzburg, Austria
Hometown: Obertrum
country: Austria

PreviousNext

Return to Reading Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests