Tepuihyla Ayarzagüena et al., 1993b

Ortiz, Diego A., Hoskin, Conrad J., Werneck, Fernanda P., Réjaud, AleXandre, Manzi, Sophie, Ron, Santiago R. & Fouquet, Antoine, 2023, Historical biogeography highlights the role of Miocene landscape changes on the diversification of a clade of Amazonian tree frogs, Organisms Diversity & Evolution (New York, N. Y.) 23 (2), pp. 395-414 : 405

Tepuihyla Ayarzagüena et al., 1993b

The majority rule consensus delimited four OTUs within Tepuihyla ( Fig. 1a ). Three of them unambiguously correspond to described species with sequences from their type locality or nearby sites, and/or from their known distribution: Tepuihyla exophthalma Smith & Noonan, 2001 ; T. tuberculosa Boulenger, 1882 ; and T. warreni Duellman & Hoogmoed, 1992 . The fourth OTU is formed by sequences from specimens assigned to four recognised species ( T. aecii Ayarzagüena et al., 1993a ; T. edelcae Ayarzagüena et al., 1993a ; T. obscura Kok et al., 2015 ; and T. rodriguezi Rivero, 1968 ). Given these species are phenotypically distinct (see ‘Definition and diagnosis’ section in Kok et al. (2015)), the low divergence among them in 16S led to not detect them as different in the majority rule consensus. Therefore, a terminal of each species was included in the mitogenomic matrix.

Finally, a terminal for T. shushupe Ron et al., 2016 (holotype) was also added to the mitogenomic matrix given it did not have 16S data and thus was not included in the delimitation analyses. Although T. shushupe morphologically resembles its sister species, T. tuberculosa , they differ in molecular data, iris colouration and advertisement call ( Ron et al., 2016). Tepuihyla luteolabris Ayarzagüena et al., 1993a was absent in our mitogenomic phylogeny and no genetic sequences are known for this species to infer its relationships.

Figures

Fig. 1 Panel a, time-calibrated phylogeny of Osteocephalus, Tepuihyla and Dryaderces in Amazonia, resulting from a mitogenomic analysis in BEAST and displaying the mean and 95% CI (blue bars) of divergences. Nodes are numbered in red (age details are in Electronic Supplement 1), and support values are depicted for Bayesian (following node symbol colours) and maximum likelihood analyses (following numbers below the nodes). Topological discrepancies between analyses for four low-supported nodes (21, 25, 34 and 43)