Advertisement

Journal of Mammalian Evolution

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 149–162 | Cite as

Molecular Systematics of Chipmunks (Neotamias) Inferred by Mitochondrial Control Region Sequences

  • Jenner L. Banbury
  • Greg S. SpicerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Western chipmunks (Neotamias) exhibit a complex geographical distribution and can vary by minute morphological differences. This has lead to confusion around the taxonomy and evolutionary history of this group. The main focus of this molecular study was to infer taxonomic relationships within Neotamias, especially at the tips of the tree. Sequences of the complete control region for 16 species of chipmunks (Tamias, Neotamias) were analyzed independently and in combination with previously published sequences of two mitochondrial genes, cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase II. The control region data set corroborated the findings of Piaggio and Spicer (2001) in finding five discrete clades, while also providing stronger bootstrap support for most terminal branches. Analysis of individual mitochondrial genes revealed that not all genes have the same phylogenetic signal and when analyzed in combination, this incongruence amongst genes is resolved.

Keywords

Chipmunks Tamias Neotamias Phylogenetics Mitochondrial DNA Control region 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Museum of Southwestern Biology for many of the tissue samples. We also thank the University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, the Burke Museum of Natural History, and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. We would like to thank Eric Routman and Robert Patterson for their useful comments and suggestions during the editing process. We would also like to thank Corrie Saux, Maria DeAngelo, and Rebecca Carson for their support and advice. Thanks to Frank Cipriano and Craig Reading of the SFSU Conservation Genetics Lab for their instruction in molecular techniques. This work was partly funded by a Research Infrastructure in Minority Institutions award from the National Center for Research Resources with funding from the Office of Research on Minority Health, NIH 5 P20 RR11805 awarded to G.S.S.

Literature Cited

  1. Allard MW, Carpenter JM (1996) On weighting and congruence. Cladistics 12:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applied Biosystems, Inc (1999) Sequencing Analysis, Version 3.4. Perkin Elmer Corp., Foster City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Demboski JR, Sullivan J (2003) Extensive mtDNA variation within the yellow-pine chipmunk, Tamias amoenus (Rodentia: Sciuridae), and phylogeographic inferences for northwest North America. Mol Phylogenet Evol 26:389–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Felsenstein J (1978) Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool 27:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. GeneCodes Corporation (1998) Sequencher, Version 3.1.1. Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  7. Hafner DJ (1984) Evolutionary relationships of the Nearctic Sciuridae. In: JO Murie, GR Michener (eds), Biology of ground dwelling squirrels, pp 3–23. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall ML, Jones DS, Wood BA (1998) Evolution of the gibbon subgenera inferred from cytochrome b DNA sequence data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 10:281–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hassanin A, Douzery EJP (1999) The tribal radiation of the family Bovidae (Artiodactyla) and the evolution of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. Mol Phylogenet Evol 13:227–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hillis DM (1987) Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillis DM (1995) Approaches for assessing phylogenetic accuracy. Syst Biol 44:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howell AH (1922) Diagnoses of seven new chipmunks of the genus Eutamias, with a list of the American species. J Mammal 3:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM (1993) Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst Biol 42:247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jameson Jr EW (1999) Host-ectoparasite relationships among North American chipmunks. Acta Theriol 44:225–231Google Scholar
  15. Kocher TD, Wilson AC (1991) Sequence evolution of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees: Control region and a protein-coding region. In: S Osawa, T Honjo (eds), Evolution of life, pp 391–413. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Levenson H, Hoffman RS, Nadler CF, Deutsch L, Freeman SD (1985) Systematics of the Holoarctic chipmunk (Tamias). J Mammal 66:219–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mullis KB, Faloona F, Scharf S, Saiki R, Horn G, Erlich HA (1987) Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: The polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 51:263–273Google Scholar
  18. Nadler CF, Hoffmann RS, Lay DM (1969) Chromosomes of the Asian chipmunk Eutamias sibiricus Laxmann (Rodentia: Sciuridae). Experientia 25:868–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nadler CF, Hoffman RS, Honacki JH, Pozin D (1977) Chromosomal evolution in chipmunks, with special emphasis on A and B karotypes of the subgenus Neotamias. Am Mid Nat 98:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patterson BD (1982) Pleistocene vicariance, montane islands, and the evolutionary divergence of some chipmunks (genus Eutamias). J Mammal 63:387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Piaggio AJ, Spicer GS (2000) Molecular phylogeny of the chipmunk genus Tamias based on the mitochondrial cytochrome oxdiase subunit II gene. J Mamm Evol 7:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Piaggio AJ, Spicer GS (2001) Molecular phylogeny of the chipmunks inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase II gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 20:335–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollack DD, Zwickl DJ, McGuire JA, Hillis DM (2002) Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol 51:664–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rohlf FJ (1982) Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Mathe Biosci 59:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, Horn GT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA (1988) Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with thermostable DNA polymerase. Science 239:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M (1999) Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol 16:1114–1116Google Scholar
  28. Swofford DL (2001) PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods), Version 4.0b8. Sinauer, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. Werman SD, Springer MS, Britten RJ (1990) Nucleic acids I: DNA and DNA hybridization. In: DM Hillis, C Moritz, BK Mable (eds), Molecular systematics (2nd edn), pp 169–203, Sinauer, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  30. White A (1953) Genera and subgenera of chipmunks. Univ Kansas Publ Mus Nat Hist 5:545–561Google Scholar
  31. Zwickl DJ, Hillis DM (2002) Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst Biol 51:588–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations