Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Aug 2002

Phylogenetic Relationships of the Large-Bodied Members of the African Lizard Genus Pachydactylus (Reptilia: Gekkonidae)

and
Page Range: 586 – 596
DOI: 10.1643/0045-8511(2002)002[0586:PROTLB]2.0.CO;2
Save
Download PDF

Abstract

Evolutionary relationships among large-bodied species in the gekkonid genus Pachydactylus were investigated using mtDNA sequences from the cytochrome b and 16S ribosomal RNA genes. We combined these data in parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses to address several systematic issues regarding the eight large-bodied taxa, including their phylogenetic position in Pachydactylus as a whole. The large-bodied Pachydactylus do not form a monophyletic group; rather, large size appears to be plesiomorphic. Neither do the large-bodied species exhibiting regional integumentary loss constitute a natural group, as this unusual predator escape mechanism appears in two disparate clades. Both the namaquensis and bibronii groups are monophyletic, the latter being strongly supported. Pachydactylus tuberculosus and Pachydactylus tetensis are consistently basal across analyses, although their phylogenetic position relative to the sister taxon Rhoptropus is uncertain. Equally weighted parsimony recovered a weakly supported Pachydactylus sensu lato (i.e., Pachydactylus + tuberculosus and tetensis), whereas weighted parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses depict tetensis and tuberculosus as taxa sister to Pachydactylus + Rhoptropus. Concordance across all analytical methods lends validity to the synonyms Homodactylus Gray and Elasmodactylus Boulenger, which could be resurrected without compromising the monophyly of the remaining Pachydactylus.

Copyright: The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
 Fig. 1. 
 Fig. 1. 

Scatter plots depicting the relationship between number of substitutions (y axes) versus genetic distances (x axes) across codon positions for cytb. Filled circles represent pairwise comparisons within Pachydactylus; open squares represent Pachydactylus × Rhoptropus and Pachydactylus × Tarentola comparisons


 Fig. 2. 
 Fig. 2. 

Majority rule consensus of five shortest trees for equal weighting parsimony analysis (tree length = 1925, CI = 0.377, RI = 0.375). Bootstrap values > 50% are shown above branches. Large-bodied species are designated by bold font, and fragile skinned species are marked with an asterisk


 Fig. 3. 
 Fig. 3. 

Majority rule consensus trees for weighted parsimony analyses. Consensus of six shortest trees from tv weighted 2× ts analysis (tree length = 2702, CI = 0.366, RI = 0.403). (B) Consensus of four shortest trees from six parameter parsimony analysis (tree length = 2757, CI = 0.359, RI = 0.403). Bootstrap values > 50% are shown above branches. Large-bodied species are designated by bold font, and fragile-skinned species are marked with an asterisk


 Fig. 4. 
 Fig. 4. 

ML tree. Bootstrap values > 50% are shown above branches. Large-bodied species are designated by bold font, and fragile-skinned species are marked with an asterisk


Received: 12 Apr 2001
Accepted: 24 Jan 2002
  • Download PDF