Liolaemus robustus, Laurent, 1992
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz114 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1F206877-956A-AE36-FF2D-0783FBF3FBA5 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Liolaemus robustus |
| status |
|
( L. robustus View in CoL clade ( L. annectens clade ( L. evaristoi ( L. huacahuasicus clade ( L. pleopholis ( L. foxi clade ( L. hajeki + L. reichei clade) + L. andinus clade)))))))))).
This tree recovered two clades not recovered by the TEH: the L. foxi clade, present in the TEH as a subclade of the L. andinus clade, and the L. annectens clade, present as a subclade of the L. huacahuasicus clade in the TEH. Also, all members of the TEH L. multicolor clade were integrated in the L. andinus clade, as was the TEH L. erguetae clade, which was recovered as a subclade including L. halonastes ( Fig. 8 View Figure 8 ). The L. poecilocromus clade was not recovered in the MH, and some of its members ( L. poecilochromus and L. halonastes ) were included in the MH L. andinus clade. The L. ortizi clade was recovered but as a subclade of the L. huacahuasicus clade. The L. chlorostictus , L. dorbignyi , L. robustus and L. reichei clades were recovered in the MH with the same composition as in the TEH. The MH did not recover L. hajeki in the L. jamesi clade, but instead placed it rather distantly as sister to the L. reichei clade. The L. forsteri clade included L. aff. multiformis , which the TEH placed in the L. ortizi clade, but this the relationship found by the MH was congruent with various hypotheses obtained with different K values in the TEH. The MH L. huacahuasicus clade incorporated species of the TEH L. ortizi clade and did not recover the species L. annectens and L. aff. annectens , which formed a separate clade. The MH L. foxi clade was formed by L. foxi , L. fabiani , L. aff. foxi and L. aff. poecilochromus and was placed as sister to the L. hajeki + L. reichei clade. The MH L. reichei clade presented minor differences from the clade recovered by the TEH, because the terminal L. aff. insolitus 1 was here located basally to the two subclades otherwise recovered by the TEH. The MH L. andinus presented various congruent relationships with the TEH, but placed the L. erguetae clade as a subclade within the L. andinus clade.
MOLECULAR HYPOTHESIS
In order to obtain a molecular evidence-only hypothesis, we generated an agreement subtree ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ), which discarded conflictive terminal taxa (without sequence), resulting in a highly unresolved topology that might be attributable to the high percentage of missing data in some terminal taxa. The agreement subtree recovered the L. montanus group as monophyletic, but formed by only nine of the 12 monophyletic groups recovered by the TEH ( Figs 3 View Figure 3 , 9 View Figure 9 ). The overall topology was similar to that recovered by the TEH and MH, but with fewer taxa owing to the absence of species without molecular data.
The L. chlorostictus clade was not recovered as such, because L. orientalis was one of the species excluded from the analysis ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. andinus clade was recovered as a group formed by 15 terminal taxa, five fewer than in the TEH. The differences between the terminals differed slightly from those recovered by the TEH ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. multicolor clade was covered with the same composition and internal relationships as in the TEH ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. poecilochromus clade was recovered with a similar composition to that of the TEH, but not including L. pleopholis , which was excluded from the analysis ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. erguetae clade was recovered with three terminal taxa (out of the six that were included in the TEH). The other three remaining taxa were excluded from the analysis ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
An L. reichei clade with four terminal taxa was recovered. Most of the terminal taxa that formed part of this group in the TEH were excluded from the analysis ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. jamesi clade was recovered with three terminal taxa. Liolaemus pachecoi and L. aff aymararum , which were part of the TEH, were excluded from the analysis ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. dorbignyi clade was recovered with the same relationships as in the TEH. However, only six of the 11 terminals of the TEH were included in the molecular matrix ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
The L. huacahuasicus clade was recovered, but only two terminal taxa were included out of the 14 included in the TEH matrix ( Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.