PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

P Doughty

Publications and source records attributed to P Doughty.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Molecular phylogeny of the Australian frog genera Crinia, Geocrinia, and allied taxa (Anura: Myobatrachidae).

We present a mitochondrial gene tree for representative species of all the genera in the subfamily Myobatrachinae, with special emphasis on Crinia and Geocrinia. This group has been the subject of a number of long-standing taxonomic and phylogenetic debates. Our phylogeny is based on data from approximately 780 bp of 12S rRNA and 676 bp of ND2, and resolves a number of these problems. We confirm that the morphologically highly derived monotypic genera Metacrinia, Myobatrachus, and Arenophryne are closely related, and that Pseudophryne forms the sister group to these genera. Uperoleia and the recently described genus Spicospina are also part of this clade. Our data show that Assa and Geocrinia are reciprocally monophyletic and together they form a well-supported clade. Geocrinia is monophyletic and the phylogenetic relationships with the genus are fully resolved with two major species groups identified: G. leai, G. victoriana, and G. laevis; and G. rosea, G. alba, and G. vitellina (we were unable to sample G. lutea). We confirm that Taudactylus forms the sister group to the other myobatrachine genera, but our data are equivocal on the phylogenetic position of Paracrinia. The phylogenetic relationships among Crinia species are well resolved with strong support for a number of distinct monophyletic clades, but more data are required to resolve relationships among these major Crinia clades. Crinia tasmaniensis and Bryobatrachus nimbus form the sister clade to the rest of Crinia. Due to the lack of generic level synapomorphies for a Bryobatrachus that includes C. tasmaniensis, we synonymize Bryobatrachus with Crinia. Crinia georgiana does not form a clade distinct from other Crinia species and so our data do not support recognition of the genus Ranidella for other Crinia species. Crinia subinsignifera, C. pseudinsignifera, and C. insignifera are extremely closely related despite differences in male advertisement call. A preliminary investigation of phylogeographic substructure within C. signifera revealed significant divergence between samples from across the range of this species.

Animals↗
PubMed1999

Synchronous polyandry and multiple paternity in the frog Crinia georgiana (Anura: Myobatrachidae).

Multiple paternity has rarely been reported in anuran amphibians, with only three previous documented examples. For the Australian frog Crinia georgiana, we observed synchronous polyandry in an average of 44% of matings observed at four field sites. This suggests matings involving more than one male are common in this species. One to eight males were observed in amplectant groups with second males amplexed ventrally. Genetic analyses, using allozyme electrophoresis, of offspring from two matings indicated that at least two of three possible males fathered offspring. Third males were unlikely to have shared paternity, explained by their inappropriate position during amplexus. Multiple paternity may be more common in frogs than has been reported. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1997

The relationship between evolutionary theory and phylogenetic analysis.

The relationship between phylogenetic reconstruction and evolutionary theory is reassessed. It is argued here that phylogenies, and evolutionary principles, should be analysed initially as independently from each other as possible. Only then can they be used to test one another. If the phylogenies and evolutionary principles are totally consistent with one another, this consilience of independent lines of evidence increases confidence in both. If, however, there is a conflict, then one should assess the relative support for each hypothesis, and tentatively accept the more strongly supported one. We review examples where the phylogenetic hypothesis is preferred over the evolutionary principle, and vice versa, and instances where the conflict cannot be readily resolved. Because the analyses of pattern and process must initially be kept separate, the temporal order in which they are performed is unimportant. Therefore, the widespread methodology of always proceeding from cladogram to evolutionary 'scenario' cannot be justified philosophically. Such an approach means that cladograms cannot be properly tested against evolutionary principles, and that evolutionary 'scenarios' have no independent standing. Instead, we propose the 'consilience' approach where phylogenetic and evolutionary hypotheses are formulated independently from each other and then examined for agreement.

Animals↗