Register      Login
Australian Journal of Zoology Australian Journal of Zoology Society
Evolutionary, molecular and comparative zoology
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > ZO > ZO07069
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 56(3)

Phylogenetic relationships of the heath dragons (Rankinia adelaidensis and R. parviceps) from the south-western Australian biodiversity hotspot

Jane Melville A D , Luke P. Shoo A B and Paul Doughty C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Sciences, GPO Box 666, Museum Victoria, Melbourne, Vic. 3001, Australia.

B Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.

C Department of Terrestrial Vertebrates, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, WA 6106, Australia.

D Corresponding author. Email: jmelv@museum.vic.gov.au

Australian Journal of Zoology 56(3) 159-171 https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO07069
Submitted: 12 December 2007  Accepted: 15 September 2008   Published: 27 November 2008

Abstract

Although the south-western Australian region is recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, there are still significant gaps in our understanding of the biodiversity of this region. We present a phylogenetic study of the heath dragons (Rankinia adelaidensis and R. parviceps) from this region, incorporating a 1612-bp section of mtDNA and two nuclear introns, Gapdh (~244 bp) and Enol (~330 bp). In addition, we present a generic-level analysis of three gene regions (mtDNA, Gapdh, BDNF), which provides clear evidence that Rankinia adelaidensis and R. parviceps are not closely related to Rankinia diemensis from eastern Australia. Instead, the heath dragons are strongly supported as forming a clade with the genus Ctenophorus. In addition, we find that there are significant levels of haplotype divergence between currently recognised subspecies of the heath dragons (R. a. adelaidensis, R. a. chapmani, R. p. parviceps, R. p. butleri). We suggest that the genetic divergences between subspecies result from geographic isolation in allopatry owing to habitat preferences, followed by drift and/or selection. On the basis of these deep divergences and consistent morphological differences between subspecies, we recommend elevating all taxa to full species, and provide a taxonomic revision of the genera Rankinia and Ctenophorus.


Acknowledgements

We thank B. Maryan, R. Sadlier, M. Hutchinson and G. Shea for advice, R. Rose, V. White and B. Ong for assistance in the molecular laboratory and J. Austin, R. Glor and J. Schulte for useful comments on the manuscript. Funding was provided by the Australian Research Council to JM.


References

Aplin, K. A. , and Smith, L. A. (2001 ). Checklist of the frogs and reptiles of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum 63(Suppl.), 51–74.
Beeston G. R. , Hopkins A. J. M. , and Shepherd D. P. (2002). Land-use and vegetation in Western Australia. Western Australia Department of Agriculture, Perth.

Brown A. P. , Thomson-Dans C. , and Marchant N. (1998). Western Australia’s threatened flora. Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth.

Bush B. , and Maryan B, ,  Browne-Cooper R. , and Robinson D. (2007). ‘Reptiles and Frogs in the Bush: Southwestern Australia.’ (University of Western Australia Press: Perth.)

Cann J. (1998). ‘Australian Freshwater Turtles.’ (Beaumont Publishing: Singapore.)

Coates, D. J. (1992). Genetic consequences of a bottleneck and spatial genetic structure in the triggerplant Stylidium coroniforme. Heredity 69, 512–520.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Cogger H. G. (2000). ‘Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia.’ (New Holland Publishers: Sydney.)

Cooper, M. L. (2000). Random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) populations in Western Australia reveals genetic differentiation related to environmental variables. Molecular Ecology 9, 469–479.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed | Greer A. E. (1989). ‘The Biology and Evolution of Australian Lizards.’ (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Hopper, S. D. , and Gioia, P. (2004). The southwest Australian floristic region: evolution and conservation of a global hot spot of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35, 623–650.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Hopper S. D. , van Leeuwen S. , Brown A. P. , and Patrick S. J. (1990). Western Australia’s endangered flora. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth.

Hugall, A. F. , Foster, R. , Hutchinson, M. , and Lee, M. S. Y. (2008). Phylogeny of Australasian agamid lizards based on nuclear and mitochondrial genes: implications for morphological evolution and biogeography. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 93, 343–358.
Maddison W. P. , and Maddison D. R. (1992). ‘MacClade, Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, Version 3.0.’ (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.)

Main, A. R. (1968). Ecology, systematics and evolution of Australian frogs. Advances in Ecological Research 5, 37–86.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Ronquist F. , Huelsenbeck J. P. , and van der Mark P. (2005). ‘MrBayes version 3.1: Bayesian Analysis of Phylogeny.’ (Florida State University: Florida.)

Schulte, J. A., II , Melville, J. , and Larson, A. (2003). Molecular phylogenetic evidence for ancient divergence of lizard taxa on either side of Wallace’s Line. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 270, 597–603.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Storr G. M. , Smith L. A. , and Johnstone R. E. (1983). ‘Lizards of Western Australia. II. Dragons and Monitors.’ (Western Australian Museum Press: Perth.)

Storr G. M. , Smith L. A. , and Johnstone R. E. (1990). ‘Lizards of Western Australia. III. Geckos and Pygopods.’ (Western Australian Museum Press: Perth.)

Storr G. M. , Smith L. A. , and Johnstone R. E. (1999). ‘Lizards of Western Australia. I. Skinks.’ (Western Australian Museum Press: Perth.)

Swofford D. L. (2002). ‘PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Beta Version 4.0b10a.’ (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.)

Wallace K. J. , Beecham B. C. , and Bone B. (2002). Managing natural biodiversity in the wheatbelt: a framework. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.

Wardell-Johnson, G. , and Roberts, D. (1993). Biogeographic barriers in a subdued landscape: the distribution of the Geocrinia rosea (Anura: Myobatrachidae) complex in south-western Australia. Journal of Biogeography 20, 95–108.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Wilson S. , and Swan G. (2003). ‘A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia.’ (New Holland Press: Sydney.)




Appendix 1. Previously published sequences used in the analyses with Genbank numbers provided

Mitochondrial DNA

Amphibolurus muricatus, AF128468; A. nobbi, AY132999; A. norrisi, AY133001; A. temporalis, AY133002; Chelosania brunnea, AF128465; Ctenophorus caudicinctus, AF375623; C. clayi, AF375620; C. cristatus, AF375622; C. decresii, AF128470; C. fordi AF375626; C. isolepis, AF375629; C. maculatus, AF375628; C. maculosus, AF375621; C. mckenziei, AF375631; C. nuchalis, AF375633; C. pictus, AF375635; C. rufescens, AF375636; C. salinarum, AF375640; C. scutulatus, AF375632; Diporiphora bilineata, AF128473; D. magna, AY133009; Hypsilurus boydii, AY133013; H. spinipes, AY133018; Lophognathus gilberti, AY133019; L. longirostris, AF128462; Moloch horridus, AF128467; Physignathus lesueurii, AF128463; Pogona barbata, AF128474; P. minor, AY133023; P. vitticeps, AY133026; Rankinia adelaidensis chapmani, AF128471; R. diemensis, AF375619; Tympanocryptis centralis, AY133030; T. cephalus, AY133027; T. intima, AY133029; T. tetraporophora, AY133032.

BDNF

Amphibolurus muricatus, DQ340701; A. nobbi, DQ340702; Ctenophorus caudicinctus, DQ340709; C. fordi, DQ340713; C. pictus, DQ340718; Diporiphora bilineata, DQ340722; Hypsilurus boydii, DQ340727; Moloch horridus, DQ340734; Physignathus lesueurii, DQ340737; Pogona barbata, DQ340738; P. vitticeps, DQ340739; Rankinia adelaidensis, DQ340740; R. diemensis, DQ340741.


Appendix 2. Likelihood model parameters for phylogenetic analyses

Intraspecific phylogenetic analyses

Mitochondrial dataset –– TVM + I + Γ: gamma = 0.8977; proportion of invariable sites = 0.2742; substitution rates A ↔ C 1.2543, A ↔ G 8.3641, A ↔ T 0.9438, C ↔ G 0.4356, C ↔ T 8.3641, G ↔ T 1.0000; and nucleotide frequencies A = 0.3839, C = 0.3102, G = 0.0977, T = 0.2082. Gapdh – HKY + Γ: gamma = 0.3891; T-Ratio = 1.7353; nucleotide frequencies A = 0.2536, C = 0.1707, G = 0.2512 and t = 0.3245. Enol – TIM + I: proportion of invariable sites = 0.2881; substitution rates A ↔ C 1.0000, A ↔ G 2.0232, A ↔ T 0.2981, C ↔ G 0.2981, C ↔ T 1.0232, G ↔ T 1.0000; nucleotide frequencies A = 0.2296, C = 0.2174, G = 0.2251, T = 0.3279.

Generic phylogenetic analyses

Mitochondrial dataset – TVM + I + Γ: gamma = 0.9389; proportion of invariable sites = 0.3396; substitution rates A ↔ C 1.1605, A ↔ G 8.9619, A ↔ T 1.4402, C ↔ G 0.2639, C ↔ T 8.9619, G ↔ T 1.0000; nucleotide frequencies A = 0.3634, C = 0.3229, G = 0.0932, T = 0.2205. Gapdh – HKY + Γ: gamma = 0.2699; T-Ratio = 3.0637; nucleotide frequencies A = 0.2528, C = 0.1779, G = 0.2261 and T = 0.3432. BDNF – HKY + I: proportion of invariable sites = 0.8677; T-Ratio = 2.7617; and nucleotide frequencies A = 0.2920, C = 0.2290, G = 0.2783, T = 0.2500.