Heteromyidae)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2003 Evolutionary and biogeographic histories in a North American rodent family (Heteromyidae) Lois Fay Alexander University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Alexander, Lois Fay, "Evolutionary and biogeographic histories in a North American rodent family (Heteromyidae)" (2003). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 2561. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/g45f-ub85 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. EVOLUTIONARY AND BIOGEOGRAPHIC HISTORIES IN A NORTH AMERICAN RODENT FAMILY (HETEROMYIDAE) by Lois Fay Alexander Bachelor of Science Oregon State University, Corvallis 1990 Master of Science Oregon State University, Corvallis 1994 A thesis submitted in partial fialfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Biological Sciences Department of Biological Sciences College of Sciences Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2004 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3143374 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3143374 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dissertation Approval uNiy The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas A p ril 12 ■ 20 04 The Dissertation prepared by Lois Fay Alexander Entitled Evolutionary and Blogeographic Histories in a North American Rodent Family (Heteromyidae)_____________________________________ is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Biological Sciences_____ Examination Committee Chair Dean of the Graduate College -y. Examination Committee Memb Examination Committee Member yCraduate College Faculty Representative 1017-52 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Evolutionary and Biogeographic Histories in a North American Rodent Family (Heteromyidae) by Lois F. Alexander Dr. Brett R. Riddle, Examination Committee Chair Professor of Biological Sciences University of Nevada, Las Vegas The family Heteromyidae includes six genera of rodents traditionally placed in three subfamilies endemic to the Nearctic and northern Neotropical blogeographic regions. Although several of these taxa represent intensively studied members of North and Central American ecosystems (e.g., kangaroo rats, pocket mice), phylogenetic relationships within and among subfamilies, genera, and species-groups are poorly understood. Here, I used maximum likelihood (ML), Bayesian, and maximum parsimony (MP) analyses of sequence data from two mitochondrial DNA genes—COIII (699 bp) and cytochrome b (1140 bp)—to investigate phylogenetic relationships among 55 species-level taxa. I found robust support for monophyly of genera Dipodomys, Microdipodops, Chaetodipus, and Perognathus; sampling of Liomys and Heteromys was inadequate to evaluate their reciprocal status. All analyses converge on a phylogeny that robustly resolves several historically contentious issues, including monophyly of the subfamily Dipodomyinae {Microdipodops + Dipodomys), and a monophyletic Chaetodipus that includes C. formosus, C. baileyi, C. m Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rudinoris and C. hispidus. However, Perognathinae {Perognathus + Chaetodipus) is not supported, with no basal resolution among Perognathus, Chaetodipus, Dipodomyinae, and Heteromyinae. Many intrageneric clades receive strong support and are discussed herein. I used the phylogenetic information to evaluate several hypotheses regarding the evolution of the Heteromyidae. I separately evaluated the evolution of morphological characters (body size, number of hind toes [Dipodomys only], and rump spines [Chaetodipus only]) and macroecological evolution by coding each taxon into classes (body size - very small, small, medium, large, or very large; number of toes - 4 or 5; rump spines - presence or absence) and biome-level categories (grassland steppe, chaparral, subtropical thomscrub, warm desert, or cold desert) and then tracing the history of the morphological characters and ecological transitions during radiation of extant groups using the Fitch optimization in MacClade. Because the mitochondrial DNA genes chosen for these analyses resulted in very limited resolution at the basal nodes of the Heteromyidae tree, recommendations for future directions of study are discussed. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................üi LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................vüi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1 Taxonomic Background .................................................................................................... 1 Landscape Evolution ......................................................................................................... 4 Fossil H istoiy ..................................................................................................................... 7 A Priori Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 8 Morphological and Macroecological Evolution .......................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2 METHODS...................................................................................................13 Phylogenetics of Heteromyidae ......................................................................................13 Morphological and Macroecological Evolution ............................................................15 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS.....................................................................................................17 Phylogenetics of Heteromyidae .....................................................................................17 Dipodomys........................................................................................................................17 Chaetodipus ..................................................................................................................... 23 Perognathus..................................................................................................................... 25 Morphological and Macroecological Evolution ........................................................... 27 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................34 Phylogenetics of Heteromyidae .................................................................................... 34 Dipodomyinae ..................................................................................................................34 Perognathinae ................................................................................................................... 36 Morphological and Macroecological Evolution ........................................................... 37 Dipodomys........................................................................................................................37 Chaetodipus ..................................................................................................................... 40 Perognathus....................................................................................................................