View Item 

Show simple item record

Has the evolution of complexity in the amphibian papilla influenced anuran speciation rates?

dc.contributor.authorRichards, Corinne L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:11:25Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:11:25Z
dc.date.issued2006-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationRICHARDS, C. L. (2006). "Has the evolution of complexity in the amphibian papilla influenced anuran speciation rates?." Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19(4): 1222-1230. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72375>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1010-061Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1420-9101en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72375
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16780523&dopt=citationen_US
dc.format.extent197451 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights2006 The Author Journal Compilation 2006 European Society for Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.otherEvolution of Communicationen_US
dc.subject.otherKey Innovationsen_US
dc.subject.otherMate Recognitionen_US
dc.subject.otherSexual Selectionen_US
dc.titleHas the evolution of complexity in the amphibian papilla influenced anuran speciation rates?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid16780523en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72375/1/j.1420-9101.2006.01079.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01079.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbouheif, E. 1999. A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1: 895 – 909.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaptista, L.F. & Trail, P.W. 1992. The role of song in the evolution of passerine diversity. Syst. Biol. 41: 242 – 247.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBiju, S.D. & Bossuyt, F. 2003. New frog family from India reveals and ancient biogeographical link with the Seychelles. Nature 425: 711 – 714.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlair, W.F. 1964. Isolating mechanisms and interspecies interactions in anuran amphibians. Q. Rev. Biol. 39: 334 – 344.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlair, W.F. 1972. Evolution in the Genus Bufo. University of Texas Press, Austin.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoughman, J.W. 2002. How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 17: 571 – 577.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCannatella, D.C., Hillis, D.M., Chippindale, P.T., Weigt, L., Rand, A.S. & Ryan, M.J. 1998. Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group, with an examination of data incongruence. Syst. Biol. 47: 311 – 335.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCapranica, R.R. 1965. The Evoked Vocal Response of the Bullfrog: A Study of Communication by Sound. MIT Press, Cambridge.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCapranica, R.R. & Moffat, A.J.M. 1975. Selectivity of the peripheral auditory system of spadefoot toads ( Scaphiopus couchi ) for sounds of biological significance. J. Comp. Physiol. 100: 231 – 249.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCracraft, J. 1990. The origin of evolutionary novelties: pattern and process at different hierarchical levels. In: Evolutionary Innovations ( M. H. Nitecki, ed. ), pp. 21 – 44. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDarst, C.R. & Cannatella, D.C. 2004. Novel relationships among hyloid frogs inferred from 12s and 16s mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31: 462 – 475.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuellman, W.E. & Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw Hill, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEndler, J.A. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am. Nat. 139: S125 – S153.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFelsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125: 1 – 15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeng, A.S., Narins, P.M. & Xu, C.H. 2002. Vocal acrobatics in a Chinese frog, Amolops tormotus. Naturwissenschaften 89: 352 – 356.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFitzpatrick, J.W. 1988. Why so many passerine birds – response. Syst. Zool. 37: 71 – 76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFouquette, M.J. 1975. Speciation in chorus frogs. I. reproductive character displacement in the Pseudacris nigrita complex. Syst. Zool. 24: 16 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrishkopf, L.S., Capranica, R.R. & Goldstein, M.H. 1968. Neural coding in bullfrogs auditory system – a teleological approach. Proc. Inst. Electron. Electic. Eng. 56: 969 – 980.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrost, D.R. 2004. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. [www document], URL http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerhardt, H.C. 1994. The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 293 – 324.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerhardt, H.C. & Huber, F. 2002. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerhardt, H.C. & Schwartz, J.J. 2001. Auditory tuning and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Anuran Communication ( M. J. Ryan, ed. ), pp. 73 – 85. Oxford University Press, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGiacoma, C. & Castellano, S. 2001. Mating call variation and speciation in the Bufo viridis complex. In: Anuran Communication ( M. J. Ryan, ed. ), pp. 205 – 219. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHall, J.C. 1994. Central processing of communication sounds in the anuran auditory-system. Am. Zool. 34: 670 – 684.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHetherington, T.E. 1992. The effects of body size on functional-properties of middle-ear systems of anuran amphibians. Brain Behav. Evol. 39: 133 – 142.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHetherington, T.E. 1994. Sexual differences in the tympanic frequency responses of the American bullfrog ( Rana catesbeiana ). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96: 1186 – 1188.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoskin, C.J., Higgie, M., McDonald, K.R. & Moritz, C. 2005. Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation. Nature 437: 1353 – 1356.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377: 420 – 422.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKaneshiro, K.Y. & Boake, C.R.B. 1987. Sexual selection and speciation: issues raised by Hawaiian Drosophila. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2: 207 – 212.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78: 3721 – 3725.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLardner, B. & bin Lakim, M. 2002. Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects. Nature 420: 475.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. 1977. Structural correlates of function of the anuran amphibian papillae. In: Scanning Electron Microscopy ( O. Johari & R. P. Becker, eds ), pp. 429 – 436. ITT Research Institute, Chicago.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. 1978. Comparative studies of the anuran auditory papillae. Scan. Electron. Micros. II: 633 – 642.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. 1981a. Evolution of inner-ear auditory apparatus in the frog. Brain Res. 219: 149 – 155.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. 1981b. Suggested evolution of tonotopic organization in the frog amphibian papilla. Neurosci. Lett. 21: 131 – 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. 1984. On the frog amphibian papilla. Scan. Electron. Micros. IV: 1899 – 1913.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. & Leverenz, E.L. 1983. Morphological basis for tonotopy in the anuran amphibian papilla. Scan. Electron. Micros. I: 189 – 200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R. & Narins, P.M. 1999. The acoustic periphery of amphibians: anatomy and physiology. In: Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research ( R. R. Fay & A. N. Popper, eds ), pp. 101 – 154. Springer, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R., Baird, R.A., Leverenz, E.L. & Koyama, H. 1982. Inner ear: dye injection reveals peripheral origins of specific sensitivities. Science 215: 1641 – 1643.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, E.R., Hecht, E.I. & Narins, P.M. 1992. Diversity of form in the amphibian papilla of Puerto-Rican frogs. J. Comp. Physiol. A 171: 421 – 435.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLittlejohn, M.J. 1965. Premating isolation in the Hyla ewingi -complex (Anura, Hylidae). Evol. 19: 234 – 243.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoftus-Hills, J.J. 1973. Comparative aspects of auditory function in Australian anurans. Aust. J. Zool. 21: 353 – 367.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoftus-Hills, J.J. & Littlejohn, M.J. 1992. Reinforcement and reproductive character displacement in Gastrophryne carolinensis and G. olivacea (Anura, Microhylidae) – a reexamination. Evol. 46: 896 – 906.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller, A.H. 1949. Some ecological and morphologic considerations in the evolution of higher taxonomic categories. In: Ornithologie als Biologische Wissenschaft ( E. Mayr & E. Schuz, eds ), pp. 84 – 88. Carl Winter, Heidelberg.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoriarty, E.C. & Cannatella, D.C. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the North American chorus frogs ( Pseudacris: Hylidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30: 409 – 420.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNarins, P.M. & Capranica, R.R. 1976. Sexual differences in the auditory system of the tree frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Science 192: 378 – 380.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNevo, E. & Capranica, R.R. 1985. Evolutionary origin of ethological reproductive isolation in cricket frogs, Acris. Evol. Biol. 19: 147 – 214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePayne, R.J.H. & Krakauer, D.C. 1997. Sexual selection, space, and speciation. Evolution 51: 1 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePtacek, M.B. 2000. The role of mating preferences in shaping interspecific divergence in mating signals in vertebrates. Behav. Process. 51: 111 – 134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Queiroz, A. 2002. Contingent predictability in evolution: key traits and diversification. Syst. Biol. 51: 917 – 929.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRaikow, R.J. 1986. Why are there so many kinds of passerine birds. Syst. Zool. 35: 255 – 259.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRead, K., Keogh, J.S., Scott, I.A.W., Roberts, J.D. & Doughty, P. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the Australian frog genera Crinia, Geocrinia, and allied taxa (anura: Myobatrachidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21: 294 – 308.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRheindt, F.E., Grafe, T.U. & Abouheif, E. 2004. Rapidly evolving traits and the comparative method: how important is testing for phylogenetic signal? Evol. Ecol. Res. 6: 377 – 396.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoelants, K. & Bossuyt, F. 2005. Archaeobatrachian paraphyly and pangean diversification of crown-group frogs. Syst. Biol. 54: 111 – 126.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyan, M.J. 1986a. Factors influencing the evolution of acoustic communication - biological constraints. Brain Behav. Evol. 28: 70 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyan, M.J. 1986b. Neuroanatomy influences speciation rates among anurans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83: 1379 – 1382.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyan, M.J. 1988. Constraints and patterns in the evolution of anuran acoustic communication. In: Evolution of the Amphibian Auditory System ( B. Fritzsch, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski, T. E. Hetherington & W. Walkowiak, eds ), pp. 637 – 678. Wiley-Interscience, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyan, M.J. & Wilczynski, W. 1988. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 240: 1786 – 1788.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyan, M.J. & Wilczynski, W. 1991. Evolution of intraspecific variation in the mating call of a cricket frog ( Acris crepitans, hylidae). Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 44: 249 – 271.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchauble, C.S., Moritz, C. & Slade, R.W. 2000. A molecular phylogeny for the frog genus Limnodynastes (anura: Myobatrachidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16: 379 – 391.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimmons, D.D., Bertolotto, C. & Narins, P.M. 1994. Morphological gradients in sensory hair cells of the amphibian papilla of the frog, Rana pipiens pipiens. Hear. Res. 80: 71 – 78.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimpson, G.G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmotherman, M.S. & Narins, P.M. 1999. The electrical properties of auditory hair cells in the frog amphibian papilla. J. Neurosci. 19: 5275 – 5292.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmotherman, M.S. & Narins, P.M. 2000. Hair cells, hearing and hopping: a field guide to hair cell physiology in the frog. J. Exp. Biol. 203: 2237 – 2246.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1981. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman, San Fransisco.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThornhill, R. & Alcock, J. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVermeij, G.J. 1988. The evolutionary success of passerines – a question of semantics. Syst. Zool. 37: 69 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalkowiak, W., Capranica, R.R. & Schneider, H. 1981. A comparative study of auditory sensitivity in the genus Bufo (amphibia). Behav. Process. 6: 223 – 237.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWest-Eberhard, M.J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58: 155 – 183.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWest-Eberhard, M.J. 1984. Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. In: Insect Communication ( T. Lewis, ed. ), pp. 283 – 324. Academic Press, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilczynski, W., Zakon, H.H. & Brenowitz, E.A. 1984. Acoustic communication in spring peepers: Call characteristics and neurophysiological aspects. J. Comp. Physiol. A 155: 577 – 584.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilczynski, W., Keddyhector, A.C. & Ryan, M.J. 1992. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I. Differences among populations and between the sexes. Brain Behav. Evol. 39: 229 – 237.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZakon, H.H. & Wilczynski, W. 1988. The physiology of the anuran eighth nerve. In: Evolution of the Amphibian Auditory System ( B. Fritzsch, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski, T. E. Hetherington & W. Walkowiak, eds ), pp. 125 – 156. Wiley-Interscience, New York.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1420-9101.2006.01079.x.pdf
Size:
192.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.