One of the major problems encountered when attempting to provide a comprehensive overview of amphibian cytogenetics is the choice of a suitable taxonomy. Substantial changes to the higher taxonomies continue to occur at a relatively rapid rate, although they have varying levels of acceptance. A comparison of Dowling & Duellman?s (1974) radical reappraisal of the Anura, when compared to the currently aecepted version edited by Frost (1985), shows considerable flexibility at the familial and sub-familial levels, and major discrepancies in taxonomic affiliations at all levels. Much of the variation in higher taxonomic nomenclature appears to have been strongly influenced by geographic criteria. For example, Savage (1973) argued that the Australian hylid frogs should be relegated to a separate famin called the Pelodryadidae, on largely geographic grounds. Although this step has not gained universal acceptance, Frost (1985) did give these animals subfamilial status. Similarly, Dowling & Duellman (1974) argued that the primitive North American frog Ascapbus truei should be given familial status and placed it in the monotypic famin Ascaphidae. However, Frost (1985) included Ascapbus with three endemic New Zealand species in the Leiopelmatidae, a decision which in the past has been most difficult to justify on geographic grounds. In other cases, such as the Arthroleptidae and Hemisiidae, specialized groups of animals have been elevated to familial status from subfamilial rank because they form a unique and morphologically distinctive assemblage. Such reclassifications have been made possible by the significant taxonomic input being made in these taxa. That is, the additional species which had been described provided systematists with a broad perspective on the range of variation within a higher taxa, and they can therefore more precisely define its limits. The magnitude of the taxonomic changes can be seen in the following two examples. Dowling & Duellman (1974) when discussing the largely African Hyperoliidae considered the then known group to be comprised of 14 genera with 63 species. Twelve years later Frost (1985) recognized 14 genera and 219 species. Similarly, the South American poison arrow frogs of the Dendrobatidae comprised three genera and 60 species (sensu Dowling & Duellman, 1974), whereas, Frost (1985) considered four genera and 116 species. In both examples, these substantial changes to the number of species are a product of the increased taxonomic effort in regions where such studies have in the past been neglected, namely Africa and South America.
Reihe
Sprache
Verlagsort
Produkt-Hinweis
Fadenheftung
Gewebe-Einband
Illustrationen
10 s/w Tabellen, 45 Schaubilder
45 figs., 10 tab.
Maße
Gewicht
ISBN-13
978-3-443-26013-2 (9783443260132)
Schweitzer Klassifikation
An introduction to amphibian cytogenetics 1
1.1 Amphibian systematics 1
1.2 The chromosomalapproach 2
2 Chromosomes as evolutionary markers 3
2.1 Chromosomal comparisons of higher taxa and the problem of establishing the ancestral karyotype 6
2.2 Group comparisons and phylogenetic inference 7
3 Chromosome morphology and evolutionary relationships in the order Anura 9
3.1 Suborder Archaeobatrachia: the ancient frogs 9
3.1.1 Superfamily Discoglossoidea 9
3.1.1.1 Family Discoglossidae 9
3.1.1.2 Family Leiopelmatidae 12
3.1.2 Superfamily Pelobatoidea 12
3.1.2.1 Family Pelobatidae 13
3.1.2.1.1 Subfamily Megophryinae 13
3.1.2.1.2 Subfamily Pelobatinae 14
3.1.2.2 Family Pelodytidae 14
3.1.3 Superfamily Pipoidea 14
3.1.3.1 Family Pipidae 14
3.1.3.1.1 Subfamily Pipinae 14
3.1.3.1.2 Subfamily Xenopodinae 15
3.1.3.2 Family Rhinophrynidae 16
3.2 Suborder Neobatrachia: the modem frogs 16
3.2.1 Superfamily Bufonoidea 16
3.2.1.1 Family Bufonidae 17
3.2.1.2 Family Brachycephalidae 19
3.2.1.3 Family Centrolenidae 19
3.2.1.4 Family Dendrobatidae 20
3.2.1.5 Family Heleophrynidae 20
3.2.1.6 Family Hylidae 20
3.2.1.6.1 Subfamily Hemiphractinae 20
3.2.1.6.2 Subfamily Hylinae 21
3.2.1.6.3 Subfamily Pelodryadinae 23
3.2.1.6.4 Subfamily Phyllomedusinae 26
3.2.1.7 Family Leptodactylidae. 26
3.2.1.7.1 Subfamily Ceratophryinae 26
3.2.1.7.2 Subfamily Hylodinae 27
3.2.1.7.3 Subfamily Leptodactylinae 27
3.2.1.7.4 Subfamily Telmatobiinae 28
3.2.1.8 Family Myobatrachidae 30
3.2.1.8.1 Subfamily Limnodynastinae 30
3.2.1.8.2 Subfamily Myobatrachinae 32
3.2.1.9 Family Pseudidae 34
3.2.1.10 Family Rhinodermatidae 34
3.2.2 Superfamily Microhyloidea 34
3.2.2.1 Family Microbylidae 34
3.2.2.1.1 Subfamilies Asterophryinae and Genyophryninae 35
3.2.2.1.2 Subfamilies Brevicipitinae, Melanobatrachinae and Phrynomerinae 36
3.2.2.1.3 Subfamily Cophylinae 37
3.2.2.1.4 Subfamily Dyscophinae 37
3.2.2.1.5 Subfamily Microhylinae 38
3.2.3 Superfamily Ranoidea 38
3.2.3.1 Family Arthroleptidae 38
3.2.3.1.1 Subfamily Arthroleptinae 39
3.2.3.1.2 Subfamily Astylosterninae 40
3.2.3.2 Family Hemisidae 40
3.2.3.3 Family Hyperoliidae 41
3.2.3.3.1 Subfamily Hyperoliinae 41
3.2.3.3.2 Subfamily Kassininae 41
3.2.3.3.3 Subfamily Leptopelinae 43
3.2.3.4 Family Ranidae 43
3.2.3.4.1 Subfamily Mantellinae 44
3.2.3.4.2 Subfamily Petropedetinae 44
3.2.3.4.3 Subfamily Raninae 45
3.2.3.5 Family Rhacophoridae 47
3.2.3.5.1 Subfamily Rhacophorinae 47
3.2.3.6 Family Sooglossidae 47
4 Chromosome morphology and evolutionary relationships in the order Apode 48
4.1 The chromosome reduction hypothesis 50
5 Chromosome morphology and evolutionary relationships in the order Caudata 52
5.1 Suborder Ambystomatoidea 52
5.1.1 Family Ambystomatidae 53
5.1.2 Family Dicamptodontidae 54
5.1.3 Family Plethodontidae 55
5.1.3.1 Subfamily Desmognathinae 55
5.1.3.2 Subfamily Plethodontinae 55
5.1.3.2.1 Tribe Bolitoglossini 55
5.1.3.2.2 Tribe Hemidactylini 56
5.1.3.2.3 Tribe Plethodontini 56
5.2 Suborder Cryptobranchoidea 57
5.2.1 Family Cryptobranchidae 57
5.2.2 Family Hynobiidae 57
5.3 Suborder Salamandroidea 57
5.3.1 Family Amphiumidae 58
5.3.2 Family Proteidae 60
5.3.3 Family Salamandridae 60
5.3.3.1 Hybridization studies in Triturus 61
5.4 Suborder Sirenoidea 62
5.4.1 Family Sirenidae 62
6 Chromosome banding and substructure studies patterns of change 63
6.1 C-banding 63
6.2 Fluorescence banding 72
6.3 G- and it-banding 74
6.4 Lampbrush chromosomes 80
7 Molecular evolution of the amphibian genome 84
7.1 The Plethodontidae 86
7.2 The genus Triturus 88
7.3 The genus Rana 91
7.4 The genus Xenopus 92
8 Nucleolus organiser evolution in Amphibians 92
8.1 Structural aspects 92
8.1.1 In-situ hybridisation with 18S + 28S ribosomal probes 92
8.1.2 Silver staining analysis 96
8.1.3 C-banding analysis 98
8.1.4 Fluorescence analysis 100
8.2 Secondary constrictions as an evolutionary marker 101
8.2.1 The genus Litoria 104
8.2.2
