Darrel R. Frost

Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to Hylinae: Phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision

Abstract Hylidae is a large family of American, Australopapuan, and temperate Eurasian treefrogs of approximately 870 known species, divided among four subfamilies. Although some groups of Hylidae have been addressed phylogenetically, a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis has never been presented. The first goal of this paper is to review the current state of hylid systematics. We focus on the very large subfamily Hylinae (590 species), evaluate the monophyly of named taxa, and examine the evidential basis of the existing taxonomy. The second objective is to perform a phylogenetic analysis using mostly DNA sequence data in order to (1) test the monophyly of the Hylidae; (2) determine its constituent taxa, with special attention to the genera and species groups which form the subfamily Hylinae, and c) propose a new, monophyletic taxonomy consistent with the hypothesized relationships. We present a phylogenetic analysis of hylid frogs based on 276 terminals, including 228 hylids and 48 outgroup taxa. Included are exemplars of all but 1 of the 41 genera of Hylidae (of all four nominal subfamilies) and 39 of the 41 currently recognized species groups of the species-rich genus Hyla. The included taxa allowed us to test the monophyly of 24 of the 35 nonmonotypic genera and 25 species groups of Hyla. The phylogenetic analysis includes approximately 5100 base pairs from four mitochondrial (12S, tRNA valine, 16S, and cytochrome b) and five nuclear genes (rhodopsin, tyrosinase, RAG-1, seventh in absentia, and 28S), and a small data set from foot musculature. Concurring with previous studies, the present analysis indicates that Hemiphractinae are not related to the other three hylid subfamilies. It is therefore removed from the family and tentatively considered a subfamily of the paraphyletic Leptodactylidae. Hylidae is now restricted to Hylinae, Pelodryadinae, and Phyllomedusinae. Our results support a sister-group relationship between Pelodryadinae and Phyllomedusinae, which together form the sister taxon of Hylinae. Agalychnis, Phyllomedusa, Litoria, Hyla, Osteocephalus, Phrynohyas, Ptychohyla, Scinax, Smilisca, and Trachycephalus are not monophyletic. Within Hyla, the H. albomarginata, H. albopunctata, H. arborea, H. boans, H. cinerea, H. eximia, H. geographica, H. granosa, H. microcephala, H. miotympanum, H. tuberculosa, and H. versicolor groups are also demonstrably nonmonophyletic. Hylinae is composed of four major clades. The first of these includes the Andean stream-breeding Hyla, Aplastodiscus, all Gladiator Frogs, and a Tepuian clade. The second clade is composed of the 30-chromosome Hyla, Lysapsus, Pseudis, Scarthyla, Scinax (including the H. uruguaya group), Sphaenorhynchus, and Xenohyla. The third major clade is composed of Nyctimantis, Phrynohyas, Phyllodytes, and all South American/ West Indian casque-headed frogs: Aparasphenodon, Argenteohyla, Corythomantis, Osteocephalus, Osteopilus, Tepuihyla, and Trachycephalus. The fourth major clade is composed of most of the Middle American/Holarctic species groups of Hyla and the genera Acris, Anotheca, Duellmanohyla, Plectrohyla, Pseudacris, Ptychohyla, Pternohyla, Smilisca, and Triprion. A new monophyletic taxonomy mirroring these results is presented where Hylinae is divided into four tribes. Of the species currently in “Hyla”, 297 of the 353 species are placed in 15 genera; of these, 4 are currently recognized, 4 are resurrected names, and 7 are new. Hyla is restricted to H. femoralis and the H. arborea, H. cinerea, H. eximia, and H. versicolor groups, whose contents are redefined. Phrynohyas is placed in the synonymy of Trachycephalus, and Pternohyla is placed in the synonymy of Smilisca. The genus Dendropsophus is resurrected to include all former species of Hyla known or suspected to have 30 chromosomes. Exerodonta is resurrected to include the former Hyla sumichrasti group and some members of the former H. miotympanum group. Hyloscirtus is resurrected for the former Hyla armata, H. bogotensis, and H. larinopygion groups. Hypsiboas is resurrected to include several species groups—many of them redefined here—of Gladiator Frogs. The former Hyla albofrenata and H. albosignata complexes of the H. albomarginata group are included in Aplastodiscus. New generic names are erected for (1) Agalychnis calcarifer and A. craspedopus; (2) Osteocephalus langsdorffii; the (3) Hyla aromatica, (4) H. bromeliacia, (5) H. godmani, (6) H. mixomaculata, (7) H. taeniopus, (8) and H. tuberculosa groups; (9) the clade composed of the H. pictipes and H. pseudopuma groups; and (10) a clade composed of the H. circumdata, H. claresignata, H. martinsi, and H. pseudopseudis groups.

PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS OF DART-POISON FROGS AND THEIR RELATIVES (AMPHIBIA: ATHESPHATANURA: DENDROBATIDAE)

Abstract The known diversity of dart-poison frog species has grown from 70 in the 1960s to 247 at present, with no sign that the discovery of new species will wane in the foreseeable future. Although this growth in knowledge of the diversity of this group has been accompanied by detailed investigations of many aspects of the biology of dendrobatids, their phylogenetic relationships remain poorly understood. This study was designed to test hypotheses of dendrobatid diversification by combining new and prior genotypic and phenotypic evidence in a total evidence analysis. DNA sequences were sampled for five mitochondrial and six nuclear loci (approximately 6,100 base pairs [bp]; x¯ = 3,740 bp per terminal; total dataset composed of approximately 1.55 million bp), and 174 phenotypic characters were scored from adult and larval morphology, alkaloid profiles, and behavior. These data were combined with relevant published DNA sequences. Ingroup sampling targeted several previously unsampled species, including Aromobates nocturnus, which was hypothesized previously to be the sister of all other dendrobatids. Undescribed and problematic species were sampled from multiple localities when possible. The final dataset consisted of 414 terminals: 367 ingroup terminals of 156 species and 47 outgroup terminals of 46 species. Direct optimization parsimony analysis of the equally weighted evidence resulted in 25,872 optimal trees. Forty nodes collapse in the strict consensus, with all conflict restricted to conspecific terminals. Dendrobatids were recovered as monophyletic, and their sister group consisted of Crossodactylus, Hylodes, and Megaelosia, recognized herein as Hylodidae. Among outgroup taxa, Centrolenidae was found to be the sister group of all athesphatanurans except Hylidae, Leptodactyidae was polyphyletic, Thoropa was nested within Cycloramphidae, and Ceratophryinae was paraphyletic with respect to Telmatobiinae. Among dendrobatids, the monophyly and content of Mannophryne and Phyllobates were corroborated. Aromobates nocturnus and Colostethus saltuensis were found to be nested within Nephelobates, and Minyobates was paraphyletic and nested within Dendrobates. Colostethus was shown to be rampantly nonmonophyletic, with most species falling into two unrelated cis- and trans-Andean clades. A morphologically and behaviorally diverse clade of median lingual process-possessing species was discovered. In light of these findings and the growth in knowledge of the diversity of this large clade over the past 40 years, we propose a new, monophyletic taxonomy for dendrobatids, recognizing the inclusive clade as a superfamily (Dendrobatoidea) composed of two families (one of which is new), six subfamilies (three new), and 16 genera (four new). Although poisonous frogs did not form a monophyletic group, the three poisonous lineages are all confined to the revised family Dendrobatidae, in keeping with the traditional application of this name. We also propose changes to achieve a monophyletic higher-level taxonomy for the athesphatanuran outgroup taxa. Analysis of character evolution revealed multiple origins of phytotelm-breeding, parental provisioning of nutritive oocytes for larval consumption (larval oophagy), and endotrophy. Available evidence indicates that transport of tadpoles on the dorsum of parent nurse frogs—a dendrobatid synapomorphy—is carried out primitively by male nurse frogs, with three independent origins of female transport and five independent origins of biparental transport. Reproductive amplexus is optimally explained as having been lost in the most recent common ancestor of Dendrobatoidea, with cephalic amplexus arising independently three times.

Total evidence, sequence alignment, evolution of polychrotid lizards, and a reclassification of the Iguania (Squamata, Iguania).

Abstract Using the techniques of direct optimization and sensitivity analysis, the phylogenetics of polychrotid lizards were examined on the basis of both molecular and morphological data (ca. 1040 bp of 12S rDNA, valine tDNA, and 16S rDNA, and 82 characters of morphology). A sensitivity analysis of sequence alignment and morphological change cost functions demonstrated that equal weighting provided the most parsimonious solution for all data. The Polychrotidae is found not to be monophyletic, containing instead the Corytophanidae as the sister taxon of Anolis plus Polychrus Based on these and other results over the last 12 years, the taxonomy of the Iguania is reformulated, with the Iguania composed of two subsidiary taxa, Acrodonta and Pleurodonta, the Acrodonta containing the likely paraphyletic and basally unresolved “Agamidae” as well as the Chamaeleonidae, and the Pleurodonta containing the Corytophanidae, Crotaphytidae, Hoplocercidae, Iguanidae, Leiocephalidae (newly elevated from its former status as a subfamily of the Tropiduridae), Leiosauridae (new taxon including Anisolepis, Aperopristis, Diplolaemus, Enyalius, Leiosaurus, Pristidactylus and Urostrophus), Liolaemidae (newly elevated from its former status as a subfamily of the Tropiduridae), Opluridae, Phrynosomatidae, Polychrotidae (restricted to Anolis and Polychrus), and Tropiduridae (excluding the former subfamilies Leiocephalinae and Liolaeminae).

Molecular systematics of terraranas (Anura: Brachycephaloidea) with an assessment of the effects of alignment and optimality criteria

Brachycephaloidea is a monophyletic group of frogs with more than 1000 species distributed throughout the New World tropics, subtropics, and Andean regions. Recently, the group has been the target of multiple molecular phylogenetic analyses, resulting in extensive changes in its taxonomy. Here, we test previous hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships for the group by combining available molecular evidence (sequences of 22 genes representing 431 ingroup and 25 outgroup terminals) and performing a tree-alignment analysis under the parsimony optimality criterion using the program POY. To elucidate the effects of alignment and optimality criterion on phylogenetic inferences, we also used the program MAFFT to obtain a similarity-alignment for analysis under both parsimony and maximum likelihood using the programs TNT and GARLI, respectively. Although all three analytical approaches agreed on numerous points, there was also extensive disagreement. Tree-alignment under parsimony supported the monophyly of the ingroup and the sister group relationship of the monophyletic marsupial frogs (Hemiphractidae), while maximum likelihood and parsimony analyses of the MAFFT similarity-alignment did not. All three methods differed with respect to the position of Ceuthomantis smaragdinus (Ceuthomantidae), with tree-alignment using parsimony recovering this species as the sister of Pristimantis + Yunganastes. All analyses rejected the monophyly of Strabomantidae and Strabomantinae as originally defined, and the tree-alignment analysis under parsimony further rejected the recently redefined Craugastoridae and Pristimantinae. Despite the greater emphasis in the systematics literature placed on the choice of optimality criterion for evaluating trees than on the choice of method for aligning DNA sequences, we found that the topological differences attributable to the alignment method were as great as those caused by the optimality criterion. Further, the optimal tree-alignment indicates that insertions and deletions occurred in twice as many aligned positions as implied by the optimal similarity-alignment, confirming previous findings that sequence turnover through insertion and deletion events plays a greater role in molecular evolution than indicated by similarity-alignments. Our results also provide a clear empirical demonstration of the different effects of wildcard taxa produced by missing data in parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses. Specifically, maximum likelihood analyses consistently (81% bootstrap frequency) provided spurious resolution despite a lack of evidence, whereas parsimony correctly depicted the ambiguity due to missing data by collapsing unsupported nodes. We provide a new taxonomy for the group that retains previously recognized Linnaean taxa except for Ceuthomantidae, Strabomantidae, and Strabomantinae. A phenotypically diagnosable superfamily is recognized formally as Brachycephaloidea, with the informal, unranked name terrarana retained as the standard common name for these frogs. We recognize three families within Brachycephaloidea that are currently diagnosable solely on molecular grounds (Brachycephalidae, Craugastoridae, and Eleutherodactylidae), as well as five subfamilies (Craugastorinae, Eleutherodactylinae, Holoadeninae, Phyzelaphryninae, and Pristimantinae) corresponding in large part to previous families and subfamilies. Our analyses upheld the monophyly of all tested genera, but we found numerous subgeneric taxa to be non-monophyletic and modified the taxonomy accordingly.

A Molecular Perspective on the Phylogeny of the Girdled Lizards (Cordylidae, Squamata)

Abstract Mitochondrial DNA sequences were obtained for 16 species representing all nominal genera of Cordylidae (Platysaurus, Chamaesaura, Cordylus, and Pseudocordylus). Gerrhosauridae and Teiidae were used as first and second outgroups. Results indicate that the oviparous Platysaurus is the sister taxon of the remaining cordylids (all of which are ovoviviparous). Within the ovoviviparous group Cordylus is paraphyletic with respect to Chamaesaura and Pseudocordylus. No evidence of Pseudocordylus monophyly was discovered. The three species of Chamaesaura and the seven species of Pseudocordylus are transferred to Cordylus to render a monophyletic taxonomy.

The impact of anchored phylogenomics and taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference in narrow-mouthed frogs (Anura, Microhylidae)

Despite considerable progress in unravelling the phylogenetic relationships of microhylid frogs, relationships among subfamilies remain largely unstable and many genera are not demonstrably monophyletic. Here, we used five alternative combinations of DNA sequence data (ranging from seven loci for 48 taxa to up to 73 loci for as many as 142 taxa) generated using the anchored phylogenomics sequencing method (66 loci, derived from conserved genome regions, for 48 taxa) and Sanger sequencing (seven loci for up to 142 taxa) to tackle this problem. We assess the effects of character sampling, taxon sampling, analytical methods and assumptions in phylogenetic inference of microhylid frogs. The phylogeny of microhylids shows high susceptibility to different analytical methods and datasets used for the analyses. Clades inferred from maximum‐likelihood are generally more stable across datasets than those inferred from parsimony. Parsimony trees inferred within a tree‐alignment framework are generally better resolved and better supported than those inferred within a similarity‐alignment framework, even under the same cost matrix (equally weighted) and same treatment of gaps (as a fifth nucleotide state). We discuss potential causes for these differences in resolution and clade stability among discovery operations. We also highlight the problem that commonly used algorithms for model‐based analyses do not explicitly model insertion and deletion events (i.e. gaps are treated as missing data). Our results corroborate the monophyly of Microhylidae and most currently recognized subfamilies but fail to provide support for relationships among subfamilies. Several taxonomic updates are provided, including naming of two new subfamilies, both monotypic.

Is The Amphibian Tree of Life really fatally flawed

Wiens (2007 , Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55–56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1–370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is “a disaster” and recommending that readers “simply ignore this study”. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as “fatal flaws”: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG‐1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony “assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates”; and (4) the results were at times “clearly erroneous”, as evidenced by the inferred non‐monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non‐monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG‐1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23–90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed “strong support” for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non‐monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719–748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG‐1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579–596) also found them to be non‐monophyletic. Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not with the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non‐monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non‐monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within “Eleutherodactylus”, and Lineatriton within “Pseudoeurycea”), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non‐monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny.

Molecular systematics of teioid lizards (Teioidea/Gymnophthalmoidea: Squamata) based on the analysis of 48 loci under tree-alignment and similarity-alignment

We infer phylogenetic relationships within Teioidea, a superfamily of Nearctic and Neotropical lizards, using nucleotide sequences. Phylogenetic analyses relied on parsimony under tree‐alignment and similarity‐alignment, with length variation (i.e. gaps) treated as evidence and as absence of evidence, and maximum‐likelihood under similarity‐alignment with gaps as absence of evidence. All analyses produced almost completely resolved trees despite 86% of missing data. Tree‐alignment produced the shortest trees, the strict consensus of which is more similar to the maximum‐likelihood tree than to any of the other parsimony trees, in terms of both number of clades shared, parsimony cost and likelihood scores. Comparisons of tree costs suggest that the pattern of indels inferred by similarity‐alignment drove parsimony analyses on similarity‐aligned sequences away from more optimal solutions. All analyses agree in a majority of clades, although they differ from each other in unique ways, suggesting that neither the criterion of optimality, alignment nor treatment of indels alone can explain all differences. Parsimony rejects the monophyly of Gymnophthalmidae due to the position of Alopoglossinae relative to Teiidae, whereas support of Gymnophthalmidae by maximum‐likelihood was low. We address various nomenclatural issues, including Gymnophthalmidae Fitzinger, 1826 being an older name than Teiidae Gray, 1827. We recognize three families in the arrangement Alopoglossidae + (Teiidae + Gymnophthalmidae). Within Gymnophthalmidae we recognize Cercosaurinae, Gymnophthalminae, Rhachisaurinae and Riolaminae in the relationship Cercosaurinae + (Rhachisaurinae + (Riolaminae + Gymnophthalminae)). Cercosaurinae is composed of three tribes—Bachiini, Cercosaurini and Ecpleopodini—and Gymnophthalminae is composed of three—Gymnophthalmini, Heterodactylini and Iphisini. Within Teiidae we retain the currently recognized three subfamilies in the arrangement: Callopistinae + (Tupinambinae + Teiinae). We also propose several genus‐level changes to restore the monophyly of taxa.

Further Notes on the Nomenclature of Middle American Toads (Bufonidae)

C OPE (1875 ‘‘1876’’:98) erected the genus Cranopsis, by monotypy, for the single Central American species Cranopsis fastidiosus Cope, 1875 ‘‘1876’’. In the same paper (p. 98) he erected the genus Ollotis, by monotypy, for the species Ollotis coerulescens Cope, 1875 ‘‘1876’’ (a subjective synonym of Cranopsis fastidiosus according to Savage (1972:25). Cope (1889:20) recognized that Cranopsis Cope, 1875 ‘‘1876’’ is a junior homonym of Cranopsis Adams, 1860 (Mollusca) and Cranopsis Dall, 1871 (Brachiopoda), and provided the new name Cranophryne. Frost et al. (2006a:364) considered a taxon of Middle American toads to be a genus, for which they, in error, used the name Cranopsis. Subsequently, Frost et al. (2006b:558) noted that Cranopsis was unavailable and applied the generic name Ollotis, for this taxon. Unfortunately, Frost et al. (2006a, 2006b) neglected an available name for this taxon, Incilius Cope, 1863. Incilius had been coined for a collection of American toads (Rana lentiginosa Shaw [5Anaxyrus terrestris], Bufo cognatus Say, 1823 [5Anaxyrus cognatus], Bufo woodhousii [5Anaxyrus woodhousii], Bufo americanus Le Conte, 1831 [5Anaxyrus americanus], Bufo nebulifer Girard, 1854 [5currently Ollotis nebulifer], Bufo veraguensis Schmidt, 1857 [5Rhinella veraguensis], Bufo coniferus Cope, 1862 [5currently Ollotis coniferus], Chilophryne dialopha Cope, 1862 [5Anaxyrus quercicus], and ‘‘probably’’ Bufo biporcatus Gravenhorst, 1829 [5Ingerophrynus biporcatus]), and no type species was designated in that original publication. Frost et al. (2006a:222) designated Bufo cognatus Say, 1823, as the type species of Incilius Cope, 1863, in order to place it as a junior synonym of Anayxurus Tschudi, 1838 (a genus of North American toads). However, Frost et al. (2006a, 2006b) missed that Kellogg (1932:29) had already designated the type species of Incilius as Bufo coniferus Cope, 1862. This act rendered Incilius Cope, 1863, a subjective senior synonym of Ollotis Cope, 1875 ‘‘1876’’. For this reason all species now included in Ollotis should be transferred to Incilius for reason of the priority. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ollotis Cope, 1875 is the Oldest Name for the Genus Currently Referred to as Cranopsis Cope, 1875 (Anura: Hyloides: Bufonidae)

Frost et al. (2006) recently published an extensive systematic revision of all amphibians, resulting in many name changes and taxonomic realignments. Unfortunately, one nomenclatural oversight has already been noted. Cranopsis Cope, 1875 (Bufonidae; type species Cranopsis fastidiosus Cope, 1875) is a primary homonym of Cranopsis Adams, 1860, a mollusk, and Cranopsis Dall, 1871 (a brachiopod). Cope (1889:260) recognized this himself and provided Cranophryne as a replacement name for his Cranopsis. However, Ollotis Cope, 1875 (type species: Ollotis coerulescens Cope, 1875 [5 Cranopsis fastidiosus Cope, 1875]) is also at play, and this is the oldest available name for the genus referred to by Frost et al. (2006) as Cranopsis. The gender of Ollotis is feminine.