2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.07.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncovering cryptic diversity in Aspidomorphus (Serpentes: Elapidae): Evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear markers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
1
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
20
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One obvious alternative is that these lineages comprise a set of cryptic species. Without question, one of the principal outcomes stemming from the assessment of species boundaries in light of DNA sequence data is the prevalence of morphologically indistinguishable lineages that are allopatric and likely reproductively isolated and thus qualify as cryptic sibling species [51][54]. First, it is our hypothesis that M. torreya lineage does not comprise cryptic species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…One obvious alternative is that these lineages comprise a set of cryptic species. Without question, one of the principal outcomes stemming from the assessment of species boundaries in light of DNA sequence data is the prevalence of morphologically indistinguishable lineages that are allopatric and likely reproductively isolated and thus qualify as cryptic sibling species [51][54]. First, it is our hypothesis that M. torreya lineage does not comprise cryptic species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…2009), an increasing number of previously unrecognised Melanesian species are revealed by molecular assessments of diversity with subsequent morphological analysis (Austin 2000; Heinicke et al. 2010, 2011; Metzger et al. 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The phylogeny of Alfaro et al (2008) was used for homalopsid relationships. Within the Elapidae, the phylogeny of Castoe et al (2007) was used for placement of the Elapinae, phylogenies of Lukoschek and Keogh (2006) and Metzger et al (2010) were used for relationships within the Hydrophiinae, and the morphological study by Kharin and Czeblukov (2006) was used for relationships within the genus Laticauda . Within the family Colubridae, the phylogeny of Pyron et al (2011) was used for colubrine relationships and for placement of Xenochrophis and Dendrelaphis , the phylogeny of Zaher et al (2008) was used for dipsadine and xenodontine relationships, the phylogeny of Alfaro and Arnold (2001) was used for Thamnophiine snake relationships (i.e., Nerodia, Regina , and Storeria ), and the phylogeny of Highton et al (2002) was used to estimate the position of Pseustes .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%