Abstract

Phyllostomidae is a large (> 140 species), diverse clade of Neotropical bats. Different species in this family feed on blood, insects, vertebrates, nectar, pollen, and fruits. We investigated phylogenetic relationships among all genera of phyllostomid bats and tested monophyly of several genera (e.g., Micronycteris, Mimon, Artibeus, Vampyressa) using 150 morphological, karyological, and molecular characters. Results of parsimony analyses of these combined data indicate that all traditionally recognized phyllostomid subfamilies are monophyletic and that most taxa that share feeding specializations form clades. These results largely agree with studies that have used a taxonomic congruence approach to evaluate karyological, immunological, and limited sets of morphological characters, although our finding that Phyllostominae is monophyletic is novel. Our results indicate that several genera (Micronycteris, Artibeus, and Vampyressa) are not monophyletic. We propose a new classification for Phyllostomidae that better reflects hypothesized evolutionary relationships. Important features of this new classification include: (1) formal recognition of two clades that group nectarivorous and frugivorous subfamilies, respectively, (2) redefinition of Glossophaginae and recognition of two tribal-level taxa within that subfamily, (3) recognition of several tribal-level taxa in Phyllostominae, (4) formal recognition of two clades that have been colloquially referred to as “short-faced” and “long-faced” stenodermatines, (5) elevation of the subgenera of Micronycteris to generic rank, (6) recognition of Mesophylla as a junior synonym of Ectophylla, (7) recognition of Enchisthenes as a distinct genus, and (8) retention of Dermanura and Koopmania as subgenera of Artibeus. Although Vampyressa is not monophyletic in our tree, we recommend no nomenclatural change because we did not include all Vampyressa species in our study.Comparisons of character and taxonomic congruence approaches indicate that character congruence provides improved resolution of relationships among phyllostomids. Many data sets are informative only at limited hierarchical levels or in certain portions of the phyllostomid tree. Although both chromosomal and immunological data provide additional support for several clades that we identified, these data sets are incongruent with many aspects of our phylogenetic results. These conflicts may be due to methodological constraints associated with the use of karyological and immunological data (e.g., problems with assessing homologies and distinguishing primitive from derived traits). Among other observations, we find that Macrotus waterhousii, which has been thought to have the primitive karyotype for the family, nests well within the phyllostomine clade. This suggests that results of previous analyses of chromosomal data may need to be reevaluated.Mapping characters and behaviors on our phylogenetic tree provides a context for evaluating hypotheses of evolution in Phyllostomidae. Although previous studies of uterine evolution in phyllostomids and other mammals have generally supported the unidirectional progressive fusion hypothesis, our results indicate that intermediate stages of external uterine fusion are often derived relative to the fully simplex condition, and that reversals also occur with respect to internal uterine fusion. Uterine fusion therefore appears to be neither completely unidirectional nor progressive in Phyllostomidae.Evolution of the vibrissae and noseleaf is similarly complex and homoplasy is common in these structures; however, many transformations in these systems diagnose clades of phyllostomids. Within Phyllostomidae, there is considerable derived reduction in numbers of vibrissae present in various vibrissal clusters. The phyllostomid noseleaf seems to have become a much more elaborate and complex structure over evolutionary time. Primitively within the family, the spear was short, the internarial region was

Highlights

  • Of the 17 families of extant microchiropteran bats, Phyllostomidae is the largest family endemic to the New World, with 49 genera and more than 140 species (Koopman, 1993, Simmons, 1998)

  • During this period of change, mormoopids were recognized as a distinct family (Gerber, 1968; Gerber and Leone, 1971; Smith, 1972), desmodontines were recognized as phyllostomids (Machado-Allison, 1967; Forman et al, 1968; Gerber, 1968; Gerber and Leone, 1971), Brachyphylla was removed from Stenodermatinae and allied with nectar-feeders (Silva-Taboada and Pine, 1969; Baker and Lopez, 1970; Baker and Bass, 1979; Baker et al, 1981a), Sturnira was placed within Stenodermatinae (Baker, 1967; Gerber, 1968; Gerber and Leone, 1971), and a new subfamily, Lonchophyllinae, was recognized (Griffiths, 1982)

  • Lim (1993) stated that this condition appears in Phyllops, but our observations suggest that the ‘‘moderate’’ condition, which would be an autapomorphy of Phyllops and uninformative in a phylogenetic analysis, more closely resembles the conditions seen in Ardops, Ariteus, and Stenoderma

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Of the 17 families of extant microchiropteran bats, Phyllostomidae is the largest family endemic to the New World, with 49 genera and more than 140 species (Koopman, 1993, Simmons, 1998). Feeding habits are unusually diverse in this family; dietary specializations include sanguivory (blood-feeding), insectivory, carnivory, omnivory, nectarivory, palynivory (pollen-feeding), and frugivory. Interest in the evolutionary origins of these feeding habits has motivated numerous studies of phyllostomid relationships. Data sets that have been applied to this problem include allozymes, chromosomal morphology, host-parasite associations, immunological distances, morphology, rDNA restriction sites, and mitochondrial DNA sequences (see table 1). Analyses of these data sets have produced a large number of competing hypotheses of phyllostomid relationships. Few attempts have been made to investigate congruence and explore conflicts among data sets; there are many disagreements concerning phyllostomid relationships at all taxonomic levels

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.