Ranoidea (genus)

Ranoidea is a genus of frogs in the subfamily Pelodryadinae. They are found in Australia, New Guinea, and two nearby groups of islands: the Maluku Islands, and the Louisiade Archipelago.[1] The circumscription of this taxon is still controversial.

Ranoidea novaehollandiae is the type species of the genus Cyclorana which—pending further studies—may become recognized again.[2]
This article is about a genus of frogs. For the superfamily of frogs, see Ranoidea.

Ranoidea
Ranoidea aurea, the type species
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Order: Anura
Family: Pelodryadidae
Subfamily: Pelodryadinae
Genus: Ranoidea
Tschudi, 1838
Type species
Ranoidea jacksoniensis
Tschudi, 1838
Synonyms[1]
  • Dryopsophus Fitzinger, 1843
  • Euscelis Fitzinger, 1843
  • Pelodryas Günther, 1859 "1858"
  • Cyclorana Steindachner, 1867
  • Phractops Peters, 1867
  • Chirodryas Keferstein, 1867
  • Mitrolysis Cope, 1889
  • Fanchonia Werner, 1893
  • Brendanura Wells and Wellington, 1985
  • Neophractops Wells and Wellington, 1985
  • Mosleyia Wells and Wellington, 1985

Taxonomy

Species in this genus were until recently placed in the then-paraphyletic genus Litoria; many of them had been placed in even larger Hyla before. However, in 2016 Duellman and colleagues split Litoria into several genera.[1][2] The systematic and taxonomic conclusions based on Duellman et al.[2] should be treated with caution, because 78.9% of individuals (397/503) used in the concatenated analyses had less than half of the gene sequences available for the 19 genes used. Missing data can be problematic in phylogenetic analyses (e.g.[3][4][5][6]) and lead to erroneous conclusions about systematic relationships. Additionally, there is no mention of checking for base-composition bias amongst taxa (non-stationarity), which can also lead to incorrect tree phylogenies (e.g.[7][8]). The species now in Ranoidea were placed in the genus Dryopsophus. However, the oldest available name for these species is Ranoidea.[1] These changes are not yet widely recognized or accepted,[9] and the AmphibiaWeb continues to recognize Litoria in the older, broad sense.[10] The AmphibiaWeb also recognizes Cyclorana,[10] a position that, without additional amendments, renders Ranoidea paraphyletic; it may be treated as a subgenus.[1]

Some controversy also surrounds whether the subfamily Pelodryadinae is part of the family Pelodryadidae, as suggested by Duellman and colleagues[2] and recognized in the Amphibian Species of the World,[1] or part of the family Hylidae, as recognized in the AmphibiaWeb.[10]

Description and ecology

The pupil is horizontally elliptical, and the palpebral membrane is unpigmented. Many species have tadpoles that develop in mountain streams and have enlarged ventral mouths.[2] However, "Cyclorana" are adapted to standing and often temporary bodies of water.[11]

Species

The following species are recognised in the genus Ranoidea:[1]

Although currently listed as incertae sedis, it is expected that "Ranoidea papua" (Van Kampen, 1909) will also be included in the genus once its range has been properly delimited.

References
  1. Frost, Darrel R. (2018). "Ranoidea Tschudi, 1838". Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 18 June 2018.
  2. Duellman, William E.; Marion, Angela B. & Hedges, S. Blair (19 April 2016). "Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae)". Zootaxa. 4104 (1): 1–109. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4104.1.1. PMID 27394762.
  3. Simmons, M.P. 2012. Misleading results of likelihood‐based phylogenetic analyses in the presence of missing data. Cladistics 28(2): 208-222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00375.x)
  4. Dunn, K.A., McEachran, J.D., & Honeycutt, R.L. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of myliobatiform fishes (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes), with comments on the effects of missing data on parsimony and likelihood. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27(2): 259-270. DOI: 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00442-6
  5. Kearney, M. 2002. Fragmentary taxa, missing data, and ambiguity: mistaken assumptions and conclusions. Systematic biology 51(2): 369-381. DOI:10.1080/10635150252899824
  6. Xi, Z., Liu, L., & Davis, C.C. 2016. The impact of missing data on species tree estimation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33(3): 838-860. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msv266
  7. Jermiin, L.S., Ho, S.Y., Ababneh, F., Robinson, J., & Larkum, A.W. 2004. The biasing effect of compositional heterogeneity on phylogenetic estimates may be underestimated. Systematic biology 53(4): 638-643. DOI: 10.1080/10635150490468648
  8. Song, H., Sheffield, N.C., Cameron, S.L., Miller, K.B., & Whiting, M.F. 2010. When phylogenetic assumptions are violated: base compositional heterogeneity and among‐site rate variation in beetle mitochondrial phylogenomics. Systematic Entomology 35:3, 429-448. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2009.00517.x
  9. McDonald, K.R., Rowley, J.J., Richards, S.J., & Frankham, G.J. (2016). A new species of treefrog (Litoria) from Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Zootaxa 4171(1): 153-169. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4171.1.6
  10. "Hylidae". AmphibiaWeb. University of California, Berkeley. 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.
  11. Van Buskirk, J. (2009). "Getting in shape: adaptation and phylogenetic inertia in morphology of Australian anuran larvae". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 22 (6): 1326–1337. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01750.x.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.