4.8 Article

Evolutionary History of the Nesophontidae, the Last Unplaced Recent Mammal Family

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 3095-3103

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msw186

关键词

Ancient DNA; Cenozoic; insectivore; systematics; tropics

资金

  1. Royal Society [UF080320/130573, RG100902]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/D009456/1, NE/J010480/1]
  3. SYNTHESYS2 (SYNthesis of SYStematic resources) [226506-CP-CSA-Infra]
  4. British Ecological Society [771/899]
  5. NERC [NE/D009456/1, NE/J010480/2, NE/J010480/1, NE/J009342/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J010480/2, NE/J009342/1, NE/J010480/1, NE/D009456/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mammalian evolutionary tree has lost several major clades through recent human-caused extinctions. This process of historical biodiversity loss has particularly affected tropical island regions such as the Caribbean, an area of great evolutionary diversification but poor molecular preservation. The most enigmatic of the recently extinct endemic Caribbean mammals are the Nesophontidae, a family of morphologically plesiomorphic lipotyphlan insectivores with no consensus on their evolutionary affinities, and which constitute the only major recent mammal clade to lack any molecular information on their phylogenetic placement. Here, we use a palaeogenomic approach to place Nesophontidae within the phylogeny of recent Lipotyphla. We recovered the near-complete mitochondrial genome and sequences for 17 nuclear genes from a similar to 750-year-old Hispaniolan Nesophontes specimen, and identify a divergence from their closest living relatives, the Solenodontidae, more than 40 million years ago. Nesophontidae is thus an older distinct lineage than many extant mammalian orders, highlighting not only the role of island systems as museums of diversity that preserve ancient lineages, but also the major human-caused loss of evolutionary history.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据