| Literature DB >> 26937245 |
Hazel Byrne1, Anthony B Rylands2, Jeferson C Carneiro3, Jessica W Lynch Alfaro4, Fabricio Bertuol5, Maria N F da Silva6, Mariluce Messias7, Colin P Groves8, Russell A Mittermeier2, Izeni Farias5, Tomas Hrbek5, Horacio Schneider3, Iracilda Sampaio3, Jean P Boubli9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Titi monkeys, Callicebus, comprise the most species-rich primate genus-34 species are currently recognised, five of them described since 2005. The lack of molecular data for titi monkeys has meant that little is known of their phylogenetic relationships and divergence times. To clarify their evolutionary history, we assembled a large molecular dataset by sequencing 20 nuclear and two mitochondrial loci for 15 species, including representatives from all recognised species groups. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred using concatenated maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses, allowing us to evaluate the current taxonomic hypothesis for the genus.Entities:
Keywords: Amazon; Atlantic forest; Callicebinae; Callicebus; Cheracebus; Genus-level taxonomy; Molecular phylogenetics; Platyrrhini; Plecturocebus; Titi monkey
Year: 2016 PMID: 26937245 PMCID: PMC4774130 DOI: 10.1186/s12983-016-0142-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
The taxonomy of the titis
| Hershkovitz [ | Hershkovtiz [ | Kobayashi [ | Van Roosmalen et al. [ | Groves [ | Present study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
| -- |
| -- |
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
| -- |
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- | -- |
|
|
|
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- | -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- | -- | -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
| -- | -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
| -- |
| -- | -- | -- |
|
|
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
|
| -- |
| -- | -- |
| -- |
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 taxa | 25 taxa | 25 taxa | 28 taxa | 28 taxa | 33 taxa |
Taxonomic arrangement for Callicebus taxa as proposed by Hershkovitz [15]; Hershkovitz [5, 12]; Kobayashi [13] and Kobayashi & Langguth [28]; Van Roosmalen et al. [6]; Groves [17]; and the present study. Classification for species not included in this study follows Groves [17], and species described and reinstated after Groves [11, 17, 66, 94–96] with the exception of P. modestus where we follow Kobayashi [13]. Bold indicates species' classification
aSpecies group undetermined
*Species included in this study
Fig. 1Phylogenetic reconstruction showing Callicebus species-group level topology found across all datasets. All nodes were significantly supported in all analyses (BP ≥ 70 % and PP ≥ 0.95). Node numbers correspond to those in Fig. 2, 3 and are listed with support values for all analyses in Additional file 1
Fig. 2Molecular phylogeny showing relationships among Callicebus taxa based on 53 Callicebus and 6 outgroup individuals. Shown are maximum likelihood trees inferred from the combined dataset (left) and the nuclear dataset (right), with branches collapsed to represent clades of interest. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of individuals represented in the collapsed clade. See Additional file 2 and 3 for the expanded ML (RAxML) and Bayesian (MrBayes, BEAST) trees with node support values. Unmarked nodes were significantly supported in all analyses (BP ≥ 70 % and PP ≥ 0.95), while nodes marked with white circles received low support (BP < 70 % and/or PP < 0.95). Red numbers represent nodes of interest listed with support values for all methods of analysis in Additional file 1. Background colours reflect species group; green for the torquatus group, pink for the personatus group, yellow for donacophilus group, blue for the moloch group; and grey indicates the outgroup species
Fig. 3A time-calibrated phylogeny showing estimated divergence ages among Callicebus individuals based on the combined dataset. Unmarked nodes were strongly supported (PP ≥ 0.99), while nodes marked with white circles received low support (PP < 0.95). Node bars indicate the 95 % highest posterior density. Red numbers represent nodes of interest listed with specific support values and estimated divergence times in Additional file 1. For trees with support values and estimated divergence times for all nodes see Additional file 2 (C) and 6, respectively. Nodes numbered 2 and 3 were used for calibration. A time scale in million years and the geological periods are given. Background colours reflect species-group; green for the torquatus group, pink for the personatus group, yellow for donacophilus group, blue for the moloch group; and grey indicates the outgroup species. Illustrations by Stephen D. Nash ©Conservation International
Estimated divergence times inferred from the combined and nuclear datasets for Callicebus species groups
| Clade or Split | Node | Combined dataset | Nuclear dataset | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (Ma) | Lower 95 % HPD | Upper 95 % HPD | Mean age (Ma) | Lower 95 % HPD | Upper 95 % HPD | ||
| Crown Pitheciidae | 1 | 21.47 | 17.82 | 25.78 | 22.89 | 17.82 | 28.92 |
| Pitheciinae vs. Callicebinae | 2 | 18.71 | 15.97 | 22.6 | 19.13 | 15.93 | 23.8 |
|
| 5 | 10.98 | 8.36 | 14.25 | 12.03 | 7.78 | 16.72 |
|
| 6 | 8.34 | 6.18 | 10.86 | 8.94 | 5.52 | 13.07 |
|
| 8 | 4.39 | 2.99 | 6.08 | 5.33 | 2.58 | 8.78 |
Abbreviations: Ma millions of years ago, HPD highest posterior density
Fig. 4Titi monkeys, genus Cheracebus. Illustrations by Stephen D. Nash ©Conservation International
Fig. 5The geographic distribution of Cheracebus (green), Callicebus (pink) and Plecturocebus (orange). The area of sympatry between species of Cheracebus and Plecturocebus is shown in red
Fig. 6Titi monkeys, genus Callicebus. Illustrations by Stephen D. Nash ©Conservation International
Fig. 7Titi monkeys, the donacophilus group of Plecturocebus. Illustrations by Stephen D. Nash ©Conservation International
Fig. 8Titi monkeys, the moloch group of Plecturocebus. Illustrations by Stephen D. Nash ©Conservation International
Comparison of estimated divergence times (combined dataset) with other recent studies
| Clade or Split | Mean age (Ma) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perelman | Springer | Schrago | Kiesling | Present study | |
| Crown Pitheciidae | 24.82 | 23.3 | 21.9 | 25.51 | 21.47 |
| Pitheciinae vs. Callicebinae | 20.24 | 20.7 | 19.6 | 18.08 | 18.71 |
|
| n/a | 7.81 | n/a | n/a | 10.98 |
|
| 9.86 | 7.16 | n/a | 6.65 | 8.34 |
|
| 4.69 | 3.22 | n/a | n/a | 4.39 |
Abbreviations: Ma millions of years ago, n/a not available
Summary of dataset characteristics and sequence variation for Callicebus taxa
| Dataset ID | Dataset description | Length (bp) | Missing data (%) | Constant sites | Variable sites | Parsimony informative sites |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bp | % of total | bp | % of total | bp | % of total | |||||
| Nuclear | 20 nuclear locia | 12,778 | 13.6 | 12,387 | 96.9 | 391 | 3.1 | 293 | 2.3 | 53 samples; 47 sequenced for this study, 6 for Perelman |
| Combined | 22 loci: 20 nucleara, COI and CYTB | 14,578 | 14.6 | 13,735 | 94.2 | 843 | 5.8 | 678 | 4.7 | |
| Mitochondrial | 2 mitochondrial loci: COI and CYTB | 1,800 | 7.1 | 1,312 | 72.9 | 488 | 27.1 | 420 | 23.3 | 53 samples; 49 sequenced for this study, 4 from GenBank |
Abbreviations: COI cytochrome c oxidase I, CYTB cytochrome b
aSee Additional file 9 for a list of nuclear loci
Evolutionary rate calibration constraints (in millions of years)
| Divergence | Offset fossil | Offset | 95 % age fossil | 95 % prior distribution | Standard deviation | Mean | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitheciinae/Callicebinae |
| 15.7 |
| 26 | 0.8 | 1.016 | [ |
|
|
| 12.5 |
| 26 | 0.8 | 1.287 | [ |