Cytologia 48: 177-183, 1983

Karyotypes and Evolutionary Relationships of Trionychoid

John W. Bickham, James J. Bull, and John M. Legler

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA: Population and Developmental Biology Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, Sussex, BNL 9QG, England; Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, USA.

Received March 2, 1981

The families Carettochelyidae (pitted-shelled ) and (soft -shelled turtles) are considered closely related (Baur 1891, Romer 1966, Zug 1966, Gaffney 1975, Mlynarski 1976, Pritchard 1979), but there is little agreement con cerning their relationships to other turtles. Webb (1962) concluded that the families Trionychidae, Carettochelyidae, , and are related. Gaffney (1975) used similarities in skeletal morphology as the basis for grouping the families Trionychidae, Carettochelyidae, Dermatemydidae, and in the superfamily Trionychoidea. Serological tests (Frair 1964) indicated that is highly divergent from the other cryptodires studied (Carettochelys not included). Cross reactivities between T. ferox and a chelydrid, a kinosternid, an emydid, a testudinid, a cheloniid, a dermochelyid, and a pelomedusid were all about equally low. It has been shown that turtles are conservative in their rate of karyotypic evolution and that variation is found mostly at the subfamily or family level (Bickham and Baker 1979, Bickham 1981). Therefore, karyotypic similarity among higher taxa of turtles may be reflective of evolutionary relationships. We herein report a study of the karyotypes of Carettochelys insculpta and three species of Trionyx and assess the degree of similarity between the karyotypes of Trionyx and Chelonia mydas (as an example of a non-trionychoid turtle) using banded chromosome morphology.

Materials and methods

Standard karyotypes (nondifferentially stained) were prepared from leukocyte cultures (Bull and Legler 1980) while banded karyotypes were prepared from cultured fibroblasts (Bickham and Baker 1976, Sites et al. 1979b). G-bands were produced by treating air dried slides in a trypsin solution prior to staining in Giemsa (Seabright 1971). C-bands were obtained using air dried slides treated in 0.2M HCl (20min), 5% barium hydroxide (20-60min), 1 X SSC (overnight) and stained in Giemsa (Sumner 1972).

Results

Chromosomes are arranged in descending order of size in Figs. 1 and 2. The 178 John W. Bickham, James J. Bull, and John M. Legler Cytologia 48

first row of each karyotype is composed of macrochromosomes and the second and third rows are microchromosomes. The distinction between these two groups is arbitrary in taxa whose chromosomes gradually grade in size from large to small. We consider macrochromosomes to be of sufficiently large size that centromere position can be consistently determined even in spreads of mediocre quality. A description of the karyotype of each species is given below.

Fig. 1. Standard karyotypes of trionychoid turtles. A , Carettochelys insculpta (2n=68; subadult),

B, Trionyx spiniferus (2n=66; •Š) .

Carettochelyidae-Carettochelys insculpta, 2n=68, Fig. 1a. The standard karyotype of a single sub-adult specimen consisted of 8 pairs of biarmed macro chromosomes and 26 pairs of microchromosomes . The two largest pairs are me tacentric, the third and fourth pairs are submetacentric , and pairs 5-8 are metacen tric. There is a distinct size gap between pairs 6 and 7 and a slight diff erence between the smallest macrochromosome (pair 8) and the largest microchrom osome (first pair in second row). 1983 Karyotypes and Evolutionary Relationships of Trionychoid Turtles 179

Trionychidae-Trionyx spiniferus, 2n=66, Figs. 1b and 2. G-bands and standard karyotypes from 3 females were examined. The karyotype of this species has 8 pairs of macrochromosomes and 25 pairs of microchromosomes. The first two pairs of macrochromosomes are metacentric, the third is submetacentric, pairs 4 and 5 are acrocentric, pair 6 is subtelocentric, and pairs 7-8 are metacentric. There is a distinct size gap between pairs 6 and 7, but the largest microchromosome (first pair in row 2) is nearly as large as the smallest macrochromosome.

Fig. 2. G-band comparison of the macrochromosomes of Chelonia mydas and Trionyx spiniferus. The macrochromosomes of C. mydas are arranged into group A (metacentric or submetacentric) and group B (telocentric or subtelocentric) (Bickham et al. 1980). In all pairs the chromosomes of C. mydas are placed on the right and the presumed homologous chromosome of T. spiniferus, if identifiable, is placed to the left.

Fig. 3. G-band karyotype of Trionyx ferox (2n=66; •‰).

Fig. 2 is a banding comparison of the macrochromosomes of Chelonia mydas () and T. spiniferus. The first two pairs in group A appear unaltered between the two species as do the last two of group B. The third pair in group A is acrocentric in T. spiniferus and metacentric in C. mydas indicating a pericentric inversion. The last four chromosomes of group A and the second of group B in 180 John W. Bickham, James J. Bull, and John M. Legler Cytologia 48

C. mydas are not identifiable in T. spiniferus. The first pair in group B is submeta centric in T. spiniferus and subtelocentric in C. mydas indicating a pericentric inver sion. The third pair in group B differs by the presence of a heterochromatic short arm in C. mydas that is absent in T. spiniferus. Trionyx ferox, 2n=66, Fig. 3. Standard karyotype and G-bands were studied from a single male. No differences were detected between the karyotype of this individual and that of the three Trionyx spiniferus. Trionyx sinensis, 2n=66. Standard karyotypes and C-band preparations were obtained for one specimen (subadult) and a standard karyotype from a second specimen (male). No differences were detected between the karyotype of this species and those of T. spiniferus and T. ferox. C-bands are restricted to the centromeric regions as is characteristic of many turtles (Bickham and Baker 1976, Bull and Legler 1980).

Discussion

Chromosomal evolution is highly conservative in cryptodiran turtles, most species within a family or subfamily possess identical karyotypes (Bickham and Baker 1976, 1979, Stock 1972). Extensive homology of chromosomal banding patterns has been demonstrated even between such divergent groups as and Cheloniidae (Bickham et al. 1980). The karyotypes of Carettochelys and Trionyx are similar in possessing a higher diploid number than other cryptodiran species (Table 1). Thus, a high degree of homology between Carettochelys and

Table 1. Reported diploid numbers of trionychoid turtles. A question mark after the diploid number indicates a possibly inaccurate report

Trionyx is inferred from the general similarity of the nondifferentially stained karyo types of the two species. Karyotypes of Carettochelys and Trionyx differ from those of other cryptodires. The macrochromosomes of Chelonia mydas (Bickham et al. 1980) are compared to their presumed homologues in Trionyx spiniferus (Fig. 2). All but 4 of the 12 pairs 1983 Karyotypes and Evolutionary Relationships of Trionychoid Turtles 181

of macrochromosomes have been rearranged since the divergence of Chelonia and Trionyx from a common ancestor. This contrasts markedly with the high degree of homology found among all other families of crytodires for which banding data are available (Bickham 1981, Bickham and Baker 1976, 1979, Bickham et al. 1980, Haiduk and Bickham 1982, Sites et al. 1979a, b). It cannot be proven which taxon (Chelonia or Trionyx) has remained primitive and which has become derived, or whether they both diverged from an ancestor with some intermediate karyotype. However, this may be resolved when the primitive karyotype of the is known. Bull and Legler (1980) hypothesized the primitive diploid number for the Pleurodira to be 2n=50-54 because of the similarity of standard karyotypes in many cryptodires and pleurodires that have diploid numbers in this range. This would suggest that the karyotype of Chelonia could be ancestral to that of the trionychoids. Table 1 lists reported diploid numbers for trionychid and carettochelyid turtles. Approximately one-third of the recoginzed trionychid species have been karyotyped, including members of both subfamilies (Lissemyinae and ). The reported diploid numbers other than 2n=66 are questionable because in all cases more recent studies using modern cytological techniques have failed to substantiate them. The 2n=52-54 report for Trionyx leithii (Singh et al. 1970) was actually the karyotype of an emydid turtle (Singh 1972) so no karyotypic data are available for this species. From the above, we infer that the primitive karyotype of triony chids was 2n=66 and that the common ancestor of trionychids and carettochelyids had a diploid number close to this. Thus, two points are evident: 1) standard karyotypes of Carettochelys and Trionyx are similar, and 2) the karyotypes of these two genera are considerably different from the karyotypes of all other cryptodiran turtles. If the high diploid number of trionychoids is derived, then it is likely that Carettochelys is closely related to the Trionychidae. It is improbable that these similarities would be independently derived, considering that karyotypic differences are otherwise slight among cry ptodires. Should the trionychoid karyotype be ancestral and the karyotypes of other cryptodires derived, there would be less cause for considering Trionyx and Carettochelys to be close relatives. There would then be a basis for suggesting that non-trionychids are more closely related to each other than to either trionychoids or carettochelyids. Thus, in one context, trionychids and Carettochelys are regarded as deriviatives of a recent common ancestor; in the other context, the non-trionychoids are regarded as derivatives of a recent common ancestor, but without reference to the trionychid-Carettochelys relationship. Regardless of which view is adopted, karyological evidence suggests that trionychoid turtles are not closely related to other cryptodires. The data are consistent with the interpretation that the families Trionychidae and Carettochelyidae are closely related as has been suggested based on morphologi cal similarities. We consider the superfamily Trionychoidea to be comprised only of the families Trionychidae and Carettochelyidae. We further suggest the mor phological characters used to ally the families Dermatemydidae, Kinosternidae, and Chelydridae with trionychoids (Webb 1962, Zug 1969, Gaffney 1975) may be 182 John W. Bickham, James J. Bull, and John M. Legler Cytologia 48

plesiomorphic or convergent and not reflective of close taxonomic affinity. There is no evidence of sex chromosomes in our sample of Trionyx and Caretto

chelys. Oguma (1963) reported female heterogamety in the microchromosomes of

Trionyx sinensis (2n=66•‰•‰, 2n=65•Š•Š) but this is not supported by our finding

2n=66 in female T. spiniferus. However, it has been shown that Trionyx does not

exhibit temperature dependent sex determination as do emydids, kinosternids, and

chelydrids (Bull and Vogt 1979, Bull 1980). Sex may be genetically determined

(temperature independent) in Trionyx but this has not been accompanied by sex chromosome differentiation or the extent of differentiation is sufficiently small to

have escaped detection in our samples.

Specimens examined. Carettochelys insculpta: 1 subadult AM R 95259,

Collector M. Lawson, Daly River, N. T., Australia (specimen processed in 1973

while alive in Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney; specimen is described and illustrated in

Cogger 1970). Trionyx spiniferus, 3•Š•Š, Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection

(TCWC) 55108-Texas, Van Zandt Co., 10km E Grand Saline; TCWC 55018-Texas, Brazos Co., Bryan; uncatalogued specimen-Texas, Val Verde Co., Amistad Re

servoir. Trionyx ferox: 1•‰, TCWC 55008-Florida, Alachua Co., Gainesville.

Trionyx sinensis: 1 subadult, TCWC 56934-no data; l•‰, TCWC 57696-no data.

Abstract

Standard karyotypes of carettochelyid and trionychid turtles are similar. The pitted-shelled turtle, Carettochelys insculpta (2n=68), and three species of soft -shelled turtles, Trionyx spiniferus, T. ferox and T. sinensis (2n=66) were examined. Chromosomal banding patterns are the same among the species of Trionyx studied, but substantially different from non-trionychoid turtles. Karyotypic similarity supports previous morphological studies that indicate the families Carettochelyidae and Trionychidae are closely related or that both families are distantly related to other turtles.

Acknowledgements M. W. Haiduk, J. W. Sites, Jr., and D. S. Rogers provided laboratory assistance. We thank H. Cogger and R. Strahan (Sydney, Australia) for permission to analyze the specimen of Carettochelys insculpta and J. B. Iverson for donating the specimen of T. ferox. J. L. Carr and R. G. Webb reviewed earlier drafts of the manuscript. Supported in part by NSF grants DEB 77-13467 (Bickham) and GB 37856 (Bull), and the University of Utah Biomedical Science Support Grant Committee (Legler).

Literature cited

Atkin, N. B., Mattinson, G., Becak, W. and Ohno , S. 1965. The comparative DNA content of 19 species of placental mammals, , and birds . Chromosoma 17: 1-10. Baur, G. 1891. On the relations of Carettochelys Ramsey . Am. Nat. 25: 631-639. Bickham, J. W. 1981. 200 million year old chromosomes: deceleration of the rate of karyotypic evolution in turtles. Science 212: 1291-1293 . - and Baker, R. J. 1976. Chromosome homology and evolution of emydid turtles . Chromo- 1983 Karyotypes and Evolutionary Relationships of Trionychoid Turtles 183

soma 54: 201-219.- and- 1979. Canalization model of chromosomal evolution, p. 70-84, In J. H. Schwartz and H. B. Rollins, Eds., Models and Methodologies in Evolutionary Theory. Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 13. -, Bjorndal, K. A., Haiduk, M. W. and Rainey, W . E. 1980. The karyotype and chromosomal banding patterns of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Copeia 1980: 540-543. Bull, J. J. 1980. Sex determination in reptiles. Quart. Rev. Biol. 55: 3-21. - and Legler, J. M. 1980. Karyotypes of side-necked turtles (Testudines: Pleurodira). Can. J. Zool. 58: 828-841.- and Vogt, R. C. 1979. Temperature-dependent sex determination in turtles. Science 206: 1186-1188. Cogger, H. G. 1970. First record of the pitted-shelled turtle, Carettochelys insculpta, from Aus tralia. Search 1: 41. Forbes, W. C. 1966. A cytological study of the Chelonia. Ph. D. thesis, Univ. Connecticut, Storrs. 285 p. Frair, W. 1964. Turtle family relationships as determined by serological tests. p. 535-544, In C. A. Leane, Ed., Taxonomic Biochemistry and Serology. Ronald Press Co., New York. Gaffney, E. S. 1975. A phylogeny and classification of the higher categories of turtles. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 155: 391-436. Gorman, G. C. 1973. The chromosomes of the reptilia, a cytotaxonomic interpretation. p. 347 424, In A. B. Chiarelli and E. Capanna, Eds., Cytotaxonomy and Vertebrate Evolution. Academic Press, New York. Haiduk, M. W. and Bickham, J. W. 1982. Chromosomal homologies and evolution of testudinoid turtles with emphasis on the systematic placement of Platysternon. Copeia 1982: 60-66. Mlynarski, M. 1976. Testudines. p. 1-130 In O. Kuhn, Ed., Handbuch der Paleoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, New York. Oguma, K. 1936. Sexual difference of chromosomes in the soft-shelled turtle. Jap. J. Genet. 12: 59-61.- 1937. Studies on sauropsid chromosomes. III. The chromosomes of the soft-shelled turtle, japonica (Temminck and Schleg.), as additional proof of female heterogamety in the reptilia. J. Genet. 34: 247-264. Ohno, S. 1967. Sex chromosomes and sex-linked genes. In Monographs on Endrocrinology, Vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, New York. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1979. , evolution, and zoogeography. p. 1-42, In M. Harless and M. Morlock, Eds., Turtles: Perspectives and Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Seabright, M. 1971. A rapid banding technique for human chromosomes. Lancet 1971-II: 971-972. Singh, L., Sharma, T. and Ray-Chadhuri, S. P. 1970. Chromosome numbers and sex chromo somes in a few Indian species of Amphibia and Reptiles. Mammal. Chrom. Newsl. 11: 91-94. - 1972. Karyological studies of three species of turtles from India. Indian Biologist 4: 64-69. Sites, J. W., Jr., Bickham, J. W. and Haiduk, M. W. 1979a. Derived X chromosome in the turtle . Science 206: 1410-1412. -, - ,- and Iverson, J. B. 1979b. Banded karyotypes of six taxa of kinosternid turtles. Copeia, 1979: 692-698. Stock, A. D. 1972. Karyological relationships in turtles (Reptilia: Chelonia). Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 14: 859-868. Sumner, A. T. 1972. A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp. Cell Res. 75: 304-306. Susuki, K. 1950. Studies on the chromosomes of the Korean soft-shelled turtle (Amyda maackii Brandt) with special reference to the sex chromosomes. Jap. J. Genet. 25: 222. Webb, R. G. 1962. North American recent soft-shelled turtles (Family Trionychidae). Univ. Kansas Publ., Nat. Hist. 13: 429-611. Zug, G. R. 1966. The penial morphology and the relationships of cryptodiran turtles. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 647: 1-24.