Next Article in Journal
Alpha2 Antagonist Vatinoxan Does Not Abolish the Preconditioning Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Experimental Ischaemia–Reperfusion Injury in the Equine Small Intestine
Previous Article in Journal
Fecal Concentrations of Long-Chain Fatty Acids, Sterols, and Unconjugated Bile Acids in Cats with Chronic Enteropathy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 17
10.3390/ani13172754
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Biogeographic Origin of Kurixalus (Anura, Rhacophoridae) on the East Asian Islands and Tempo of Diversification within Kurixalus

by
Qiumei Mo
1,2,†,
Tao Sun
1,2,†,
Hui Chen
1,2,
Guohua Yu
1,2,* and
Lina Du
1,2,*
1
Key Laboratory of Ecology of Rare and Endangered Species and Environmental Protection (Guangxi Normal University), Ministry of Education, Guilin 541004, China
2
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Rare and Endangered Animal Ecology, College of Life Science, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2023, 13(17), 2754; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172754
Submission received: 29 June 2023 / Revised: 31 July 2023 / Accepted: 7 August 2023 / Published: 30 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

At present, there are two hypotheses about the biogeographic origin of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands. We reconstructed the ancestral distribution of Kurixalus, based on complete sampling and accurate selection of biogeographical analysis models. The results showed that Kurixalus on the East Asian islands have originated from the Asian mainland through two long-distance colonization events (jump dispersal). In addition, the analyses of the tempo of diversification revealed that the diversification rate of Kurixalus showed a slight decreasing trend. The relevant results will help us to comprehensively and accurately understand the geographical origin of Kurixalus and improve our understanding of the origin history of the flora and fauna of Taiwan Island.

Abstract

The ancestral area of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands is under dispute, and two hypotheses exist, namely that distribution occurred only on the Asian mainland (scenario of dispersal) and that wide distribution occurred on both the Asian mainland and the East Asian islands (scenario of vicariance). In this study, we conducted biogeographic analyses and estimated the lineage divergence times based on the most complete sampling of species, to achieve a more comprehensive understanding on the origin of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands. Our results revealed that the process of jump dispersal (founder-event speciation) is the crucial process, resulting in the distribution of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands, and supported the model of the Asian mainland origin: that Kurixalus on the East Asian islands originated from the Asian mainland through two long-distance colonization events (jump dispersal), via the model of vicariance of a widespread ancestor on both the Asian mainland and the East Asian islands. Our results indicated that choices of historical biogeography models can have large impacts on biogeographic inference, and the procedure of model selection is very important in biogeographic analysis. The diversification rate of Kurixaus has slightly decreased over time, although the constant-rate model cannot be rejected.

1. Introduction

Kurixalus Ye, Fei, and Dubois, a genus of the family Rhacophoridae, inhabits various types of montane forests and has a wide distribution, from eastern India, eastward to Indochina, southern mainland China, and adjacent continental islands (Hainan, Taiwan, and Ryukyu), and southwards to Sundaland and the Philippine archipelago [1]. At present, a total of 23 species are recognized in the genus Kurixalus [1], namely: K. silvaenaias Hou, Peng, Miao, Liu, Li, and Orlov, 2021 [2], K. motokawai Nguyen, Matsui, and Eto, 2014 [3], K. absconditus Mediyansyah, Hamidy, Munir, and Matsui, 2019 [4], K. lenquanensis Yu, Wang, Hou, Rao, and Yang, 2017 [5], K. chaseni (Smith, 1924) [6], K. banaensis (Bourret, 1939) [7], K. berylliniris Wu, Huang, Tsai, Li, Jhang, and Wu, 2016 [8], K. wangi Wu, Huang, Tsai, Li, Jhang, and Wu, 2016 [8], K. verrucosus (Boulenger, 1893) [9], K. raoi Zeng, Wang, Yu, and Du, 2021 [10], K. hainanus (Zhao, Wang, and Shi, 2005) [11], K. eiffingeri (Boettger, 1895) [12], K. bisacculus (Taylor, 1962) [13], K. naso (Annandale, 1912) [14], K. viridescens Nguyen, Matsui, and Duc, 2014 [15], K. odontotarsus (Ye and Fei, 1993) [16], K. appendiculatus (Günther, 1858) [17], K. inexpectatus Messenger, Othman, Chuang, Yang, and Borzée, 2022 [18], K. yangi Yu, Hui, Rao, and Yang, 2018 [19], K. idiootocus (Kuramoto and Wang, 1987) [20], K. baliogaster (Inger, Orlov, and Darevsky, 1999) [21], K. gracilloides Nguyen, Duong, Luu, and Poyarkov, 2020 [22], and K. pollicaris (Werner, 1914 “1913”) [23]. Owing to the morphological conservation, the taxonomy of some Kurixalus species was once very conflicting, and disagreements over the taxonomic arrangement of some species existed among scholars. For instances, K. hainanus was once treated as K. odontotarsus by some authors (e.g., [24,25]) or a synonym of K. bisacculus [26], but Yu et al. [27] suggested that it is valid based on broad sampling. Kurixalus verrucosus was once grouped with K. appendiculatus by Wolf [28], and was then removed from the synonymy of K. appendiculatus by Inger et al. [21]. Kurixalus chaseni was grouped with K. appendiculatus by Smith [29] and was removed from the synonymy of K. appendiculatus by Matsui et al. [30], while K. pollicaris was grouped with K. eiffingeri by Zhao and Adler [31] and was recently resurrected by Dufresnes and Litvinchuk [32]. Kurixalus wangi and K. berylliniris were confused with K. eiffingeri [24] and were named as two independent species by Wu et al. [8], and K. absconditus was confused with K. appendiculatus [4] (Table 1). Therefore, previous molecular phylogenetic studies involving Kurixalus mainly focused on taxonomy, with little attention paid to the origin and dispersal history of Kurixalus (e.g., [33,34]).
Continental islands around the southeast edge of Asia have played an important role in creating novel evolutionary lineages and harboring historically diverse organisms [35]. The Taiwan Island and Ryukyu Islands lie on the edge of East Asia and are a part of the island-arc system along the western edge of the Pacific Ocean [36]. Previously, only two Kurixalus species were recorded from Taiwan and Ryukyu, namely K. idiootocus and K. eiffingeri, with the former being endemic to Taiwan and the latter being known from both Taiwan and Ryukyu [24,37]. Based on the morphology of eggs, tadpoles, and adults, mating calls, molecular data, ecology, and other information, Wu et al. considered that K. eiffingeri is a species complex and contains two cryptic species, namely K. beryliniris, being distributed in eastern Taiwan, and K. wangi, being distributed in southern Taiwan [8]. Recently, Dufresnes et al. proposed that the lineage consisting of K. eiffengeri from central and western Taiwan is also an independent species and referred it to K. pollicaris (Wernerm 1914 “1913”) [23,32]. Thus, currently, there are five Kurixalus species known from Taiwan and Ryukyu. Of them, four (K. idiootocus, K. wangi, K. beryliniris, and K. pollicaris) are endemic to Taiwan, and one (K. eiffingeri) is endemic to Ryukyu [1].
The earlier phylogenetic studies once recovered Kurixalus species on the East Asian islands (Taiwan and Ryukyu) to be monophyletic (e.g., [8,38,39]), which led to an understanding that Kurixalus on the East Asian islands has a single origin, until Yu et al. described K. lenquanensis from Yunnan Province, China [5]. This mainland species was recovered as the sister to K. idiootocus, implying that it may have originated from the Taiwan Island [5]. However, results of two recent biogeographic studies on Kurixalus have led to disputes on the origin of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands [22,40]. Yu et al. considered that the ancestor of Taiwanese Kurixalus originated from the Asian mainland via two long-distance colonization events (here referred to as a model of Asian mainland distribution) [40], whereas Nguyen et al. considered that the ancestor of species from Taiwan likely inhabited both Taiwan and the Asian mainland (here referred to as a model of wide distribution across the Asian mainland and East Asian islands) [22]. Probably, two factors may have contributed to these two incompatible biogeographic inferences. Firstly, the new lineage revealed by Yu et al. [40] (K. sp6, now known as K. raoi [10]) was not included in Nguyen et al.’s work [22], while the species described by Nguyen et al. [22] (K. gracilloides) was not included in Yu et al.’s study [40]. Secondly, the choice of the S-DIVA model in Nguyen et al.’s study was arbitrary, owing to the absence of the procedure of model selection [22]. It has been suggested that biogeographic analysis relying on a single DIVA model without the procedure of model selection can be potentially dangerous because this model leaves out the process of founder-event speciation (jump dispersal) [41], where at cladogenesis, one daughter lineage jumps to a new range outside the range of the ancestor (e.g., A->A, B).
Additionally, more recently, Hou et al. described K. silvaenaias from Sichuan Province, China [2], and Messenger et al. described K. inexpectatus from Zhejiang Province, China [18]. These two species are also closely related to K. idiootocus but have not yet been included in biogeographic analyses. Therefore, an analysis based on more comprehensive sampling is necessary to investigate the biogeographic history of Kurixalus and to test for the two hypotheses on the origin of Kurixalus on the east Asian islands mentioned above. Rapid speciation and adaptive radiation triggered by local adaptation and random drift often occur once an island is colonized [42]. Therefore, if Kurixalus has dispersed into Taiwan and Ryukyu from the Asian mainland, it also could be expected that the tempo of lineage accumulation of Kurixalus might have undergone an increase.
Herein, based upon the selection of the best biogeographic model and more complete sampling, we reconstructed the phylogenetic relationships and ancestral biogeographic areas of Kurixalus and estimated the lineage divergence times to achieve a more comprehensive understanding on the origin of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands. In addition, we analyzed the tempo of diversification in the genus to investigate whether Kurixalus has undergone an increase of the diversification rate.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Available sequences of 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, COI, recombination-activating gene 1 (RAG-1), tyrosinase (TYR), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) genes were obtained from GenBank for all known Kurixalus species, with the exceptions of K. pollicaris and K. verrucosus (Figure 1; Table 2), which is probably only distributed in Myanmar [27] and has never been sequenced. Homologous sequences of the three nuclear genes (RAG-1, TYR, BDNF) were sequenced for K. lengquanensis, K. raoi, and K. silvaenaias in this study using the primers and experimental protocols of Yu et al. [27], and all these new sequences have been deposited in GenBank under the Accession Numbers OQ719606–OQ719614. Buergeria buergeri (Temminck and Schlegel, 1895) [43] was included in the data as an outgroup following Yu et al. [40].

2.2. Phylogenetic Analysis

Sequences were aligned using MUSCLE with default parameters in MEGA 7 [44]. The sequence alignments were defined by genes, and then the best partitioning scheme and substitution models were selected in PartitionFinder v.2.1.1 [45] using the “greedy” algorithm [46]. Bayesian inference was performed in MRBAYES v3.2.6 [47], with substitution models for each partition. Two runs were performed simultaneously with four Markov chains, starting from a random tree. The chains were run for 3,000,000 generations and sampled every 100 generations. The first 25% of the sampled tree was discarded as burn-in after the standard deviation of split frequencies of the two runs was less than 0.01. The remaining trees were then used to create a consensus tree and to estimate the Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPPs).

2.3. Biogeographic Inference

We divided the present distribution of Kurixalus into three different biogeographic regions, including mainland Asia (1), Taiwan and Ryukyu (2), and Sundaland and the Philippines (3), according to Nguyen et al. [22], and then assigned each species to its own region. Biogeographic inference was conducted using the Bayesian stochastic search variable selection (BSSVS) [48] of the discrete phylogeographic model in BEAST version 1.8.0 [49], with the specification of the symmetric discrete trait substitution model. For this analysis, three different phylogenetic hypotheses were taken into account owing to the uncertainty of the phylogenetic position of K. gracilloides (see below). Combined with the inference of the ancestral area in BEAST, trees were calibrated in BEAST following Yu et al. [40]. Six independent runs were conducted for 7 × 108 generations by sampling every 1000 generations for each phylogenetic hypothesis. The effective sample size values of parameters were confirmed in Tracer version 1.7.2 [50], and then trees produced by the runs were combined in LogCombiner version 1.8.0 [49]. The maximum clade credibility tree was constructed in TreeAnnotator version 1.8.0 [49].
We also estimated the ancestral ranges using the R package BioGeoBEARS [51] in RASP v.4.0 [52]. This package contains three widely used biogeographic models, namely dispersal-extinction-cladogenesis (DEC) [53], the likelihood version of dispersal-vicariance (DIVALIKE) [54], and the likelihood version of the BayArea model (BAYAREALIKE) [55], as well as three variants of them that concerned the jump dispersal by adding the parameter j (DEC+j, DIVALIKE+j, and BAYAREALIKE+j). We compared the fit of each model for each phylogenetic hypothesis using the AIC-weighted approach [56], and then ancestral ranges were estimated under the best-fit model. For this analysis, the ultra-metric time-calibrated trees generated from BEAST analyses were used. The maximum number of species unit areas was set to 3, and the number of random trees was set to 3000.

2.4. Diversification Analysis

To visualize the tempo of lineage accumulation during the history of Kurixalus, a lineage-through-time (LTT) plot was obtained using the analyses of phylogenetics and evolution (APE) [57].
We further tested for a significant departure from the null hypothesis of a constant rate of diversification using the constant-rate (CR) test [58], as implemented in the package APE. The statistic γ indicates whether internal nodes are closer to the root or to the tips of the tree than expected under a CR model (γ = 0). A significant p-value for a negative value of γ indicates a decrease in the diversification rate over time, and a positive value of γ indicates that nodes are closer to the tips and implies an acceleration of the accumulation of lineages. A CR model of diversification can be rejected at the 95% level of significance if γ < −1.645 [58]. Since we obtained a nearly complete sampling of species, the CR test was appropriate, without having to perform a Monte Carlo simulation to account for missing lineages.
We also analyzed the distribution of relative divergence times among species using the analysis of diversification with survival models [59], as implemented in the package APE. Three alternative models were tested: model A specifies a constant rate of diversification and represents the null hypothesis of no heterogeneity in rates over time, model B specifies that the diversification rate has gradually increased or decreased over time by estimating an additional parameter, β, and model C specifies two different diversification rates before (δ1) and after (δ2) a defined breakpoint at some time point in the past. For model B, values of β are less than one when the diversification rate increases over time, and greater than one when the rate decreases over time [59,60]. The diversification rate (birth rate minus death rate) was estimated using the method of Nee et al. [61] with the birth–death function in the package APE.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic Relationship

Our gene fragments consisted of 388 bp from 12S rRNA, 835 bp from 16S rRNA, 770 bp from COI, 895 bp from RAG-1, 521 bp from TYR, and 608 bp from BDNF. The six genes were defined into five partitions, with the two ribosomal genes being defined as one (Table 3). Phylogenetic analysis based on the best partition scheme and substitution models of the combined data of the six genes strongly supported that K. lenquanensis, K. idiootocus, K. silvaenaias, K. inexpectatus, and K. raoi formed a clade (labeled as I), and that the other three species on the East Asian islands (K. eiffingeri, K. berylliniris, and K. wangi) also formed a clade (labeled as II). Kurixalus gracilloides, clade I, and clade II were grouped together with strong support, but the relationships between them were not resolved (Figure 2).

3.2. Ancestral Area Construction

Considering that the phylogenetic position of K. gracilloides was not yet resolved (Figure 2), we constructed three different phylogenetic hypotheses in BEAST to infer the ancestral area of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands: one assuming that K. gracilloides is the sister to clade I (H1; Figure 3b,e), one assuming that K. gracilloides is the sister to clade II (H2; Figure 3c,f), and one assuming that K. gracilloides is the sister to clades I and II (H3; Figure 3d,g). In all cases, the ancestral area of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands was estimated to be the Asian mainland, and two colonization events (jump dispersal) from mainland Asia to the East Asian islands were identified by the BSSVS analyses, one for the ancestor of K. eiffingeri, K. berylliniris, and K. wangi, and one for the lineage giving rise to K. idiootocus (Figure 3b–d). A similar biogeographic origin and process were also inferred by the BioGeoBEARS analyses based on the model of DIVALIKE+j (Figure 3e–g), which was selected as the best biogeographic model for the genus Kurixalus (Table 4).

3.3. Tempo of Diversification

The LTT plot was almost straight until ca. 5 Mya, and then the slope slightly decreased (Figure 4), indicating that the rate of lineage accumulation slightly decreased since ca. 5 Mya. The survivorship analysis favored model B (AIC = 91.32, Table 5), and the value of β was greater than 1 (β = 1.53), also indicating that the rate of diversification decreased over time. The CR test computed a negative gamma value (γ = −1.01), indicating a decrease in net diversification rates over time, although it was not significant (p = 0.31).

4. Discussion

Taiwan mostly acquired its fauna from the Eurasian mainland since it emerged during the Late Miocene or early Pliocene [62,63]. In this study, our results of BSSVS and BioGeoBEARS analyses based on the best-fit biogeography model (DIVALIKE+j) also strongly supported that Kurixalus immigrated to Taiwan from the Asian mainland through two long-distance colonization events (jump dispersal). The common ancestor of K. eiffingeri, K. berylliniris, and K. wangi (clade II) dispersed to Taiwan at ca. 5 Mya and then diverged into different species from ca. 3.2 Mya, and the lineage giving rise to K. idiootocus also dispersed to Taiwan from ca. 1 Mya (Figure 3). This result is in congruence with the inference of Yu et al. [40] and matches with the geological evidence that proto-Taiwan Island emerged from water in the late Miocene (ca. 6.5 Mya) [64] or early Pliocene (4–5 Mya) [65]. The land–bridge connection across the Taiwan Strait occurred after 2.6 Mya [40,66,67]. Therefore, as assumed by Yu et al. [40], initially, the genus Kurixalus likely colonized Taiwan by way of transoceanic dispersal, which might be the major pathway to disperse to Taiwan for vertebrate animals [63]. More studies are necessary to obtain the precise timing of the two colonization events because the phylogenetic relationships between clade I, clade II, and K. gracilloides were not resolved here (Figure 2).
Different historical biogeography models involve different assumptions about the processes that have produced the geographic ranges [68], and it has been suggested that the process of founder-event speciation is crucial, especially in island systems [69,70,71,72]. When we used the pure DIVA model (DIVALIKE) in the biogeographic analysis, it was inferred that two vicariance events of ancestors, widely distributed on both the Asian mainland and East Asian islands, induced the speciation of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands (Figure 5). The difference in the biogeographic inferences that resulted from the DIVALIKE+j and pure DIVA (DIVALIKE) models indicates that the choice of the historical biogeography model can have a large impact on biogeographic inference, and that the process of jump dispersal (founder-event speciation) is also the crucial process resulting in the distribution of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands. The pure DIVA method is, on the whole, biased towards vicariance, and hence tends to result in the ancestors being spuriously inferred as widespread owing to the fact that the process of jump dispersal is not assumed by the DIVA model [18,72].
Additionally, the scenario of jump dispersal was favored over the scenario of vicariance for the clades of the East Asian islands in all three phylogenetic hypotheses (Figure 3), indicating that assumptions about the process can have a much larger impact on conclusions about the biogeographical history of oceanic clades than differences in phylogenetic topology. This result further highlights the importance of the procedure of model selection in biogeographic inference.
Contrary to the expectation that the tempo of lineage accumulation of Kurixalus might have undergone an increase, the analyses of diversification revealed that the diversification rate of Kurixalus has slightly decreased since ca. 5 Mya, although the model of constant diversification was not rejected by the CR test. Possibly, the filling of geographical and/or ecological space during late history [73], which decreases the likelihood of geographical speciation through range subdivision [74], might have contributed to this slight change in the diversification rate of the genus Kurixalus.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the results of this study supported the hypothesis that Kurixalus originated from the Asian mainland. Based on these data, this study emphasized that the process of jump dispersal is the key to the distribution of Kurixalus on the East Asian islands and stressed that the choice of the historical biogeography model had a significant impact on the biogeographic inference. Additionally, the genus Kurixalus might have undergone a slight decrease in the diversification rate over time, although the constant-rate model cannot be fully rejected.

Author Contributions

G.Y. and L.D., conceptualization (equal); Q.M. and T.S., methodology (equal); Q.M., T.S. and H.C., formal analysis (equal); Q.M. and T.S., writing—original draft preparation (equal); Q.M. and H.C., visualization (equal). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation Project (2022GXNSFAA035526), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32060114), the Key Laboratory of Ecology of Rare and Endangered Species and Environmental Protection (Guangxi Normal University), the Ministry of Education (ERESEP2020Z22), and the Guangxi Key Laboratory of Rare and Endangered Animal Ecology, Guangxi Normal University (18-A-01-08 and 19-A-01-06).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Sequence data used in this study are accessible from GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Lingyun Du and Jing Li for their assistance in cartography.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Frost, D.R. Amphibian Species of the World 6.2; American Museum of Natural History: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Available online: http://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org (accessed on 13 May 2023).
  2. Hou, M.; Peng, X.P.; Miao, J.L.; Liu, S.; Li, P.P.; Orlov, N.L. Description a new species of genus Kurixalus (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Chengdu Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China. Anim. Mol. Breed. 2021, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nguyen, T.T.; Matsui, M.; Eto, K. A new cryptic tree frog species allied to Kurixalus banaensis (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from vietnam. Russ. J. Herpetol. 2014, 21, 295–302. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mediyansyah, M.; Hamidy, A.; Munir, M.; Matsui, M. A new tree frog of the genus Kurixalus Ye, Fei & Dubois, 1999 (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae) from West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Treubia 2019, 46, 51–72. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yu, G.H.; Wang, J.S.; Hou, M.; Rao, D.Q.; Yang, J.X. A new species of the genus Kurixalus from Yunnan, China (Anura, Rhacophoridae). ZooKeys 2017, 694, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Smith, M.A. New tree-frogs from Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1924, 94, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bourret, R. Notes Herpétologiques sur l’Indochine Française; XVII. Reptiles et Batraciens reçus au Laboratoire des Sciences Naturelles de l’Université au cors de l’année 1938. Descriptions de trois espèces Nouvelles; Annexe au Bulletin Général de l’Instruction Publique: Hanoi, Vietnam, 1939; pp. 13–34. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wu, S.P.; Huang, C.C.; Tsai, C.L.; Lin, T.E.; Wu, S.H. Systematic revision of the taiwanese genus kurixalus members with a description of two new endemic species (Anura, Rhacophoridae). ZooKeys 2016, 557, 121–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Boulenger, G.A. Concluding report on the reptiles and batrachians obtained in Burma by Signor L. Fea dealing with the collection made in Pegu and the Karin Hills in 1887–88. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 1893, 13, 304–347. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zeng, J.; Wang, J.S.; Yu, G.H.; Du, L.N. A new species of Kurixalus (Anura, Rhacophoridae) from Guizhou, China. Zool. Res. 2021, 42, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhao, E.M.; Wang, L.J.; Shi, H.T.; Wu, G.F.; Zhao, H. Chinese rhacophorid frogs and description of a new species of Rhacophorus. Sichuan Dong Wu 2005, 24, 297–300. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boettger, O. Neue Frösche und Schlangen von den Liukiu-Inseln. Zool. Anz. 1895, 18, 266–270. [Google Scholar]
  13. Taylor, E.H. The amphibian fauna of Thailand. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 1962, 43, 265–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Annandale, N. Zoological results of the Abor Expedition, 1911–1912. I. Amphibia. Rec. Indian Mus. 1912, 8, 7–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nguyen, T.T.; Matsui, M.; Duc, H.M. A new tree frog of the genus Kurixalus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from vietnam. Curr. Herpetol. 2014, 33, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ye, C.Y.; Fei, L.; Hu, S.Q. Rare and Economic Amphibians of China; Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology: Chengdu, China, 1999; 412p. [Google Scholar]
  17. Günther, A.C.L.G. Neue Batrachier in der Sammlung des britischen Museums. Arch. Naturgesch. 1858, 24, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Messenger, K.R.; Othman, S.N.; Chuang, M.F.; Yang, Y.; Borzée, A. Description of a new Kurixalus species (Rhacophoridae, Anura) and a northwards range extension of the genus. ZooKeys 2022, 1108, 15–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Yu, G.H.; Hui, H.; Rao, D.Q.; Yang, J.X. A new species of Kurixalus from western Yunnan, China (Anura, Rhacophoridae). ZooKeys 2018, 770, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kuramoto, M.; Wang, C.S. A new rhacophorid treefrog from Taiwan, with comparisons to Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura, Rhacophoridae). Copeia 1987, 1987, 931–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Inger, R.F.; Orlov, N.L.; Darevsky, I.S. Frogs of Vietnam: A Report on New Collections; Fieldiana, Zoology, New Series No. 92; Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nguyen, T.V.; Duong, T.V.; Luu, K.T.; Poyarkov, N.A. A new species of kurixalus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from northern vietnam with comments on the biogeography of the genus. J. Nat. Hist. 2020, 54, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  23. Werner, F. Neue oder seltene Reptilien und Frösche des naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg. Jahrb. Hambg. Wiss. Anst. 1912, 30, 1–51. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fei, L. Atlas of Amphibians of China; Henan Publishing House of Science and Technology: Zhengzhou, China, 1999; 432p. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fei, L.; Ye, C.Y.; Jiang, J.P. Colored Atlas of Chinese Amphibians; Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology: Chengdu, China, 2010; 519p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yu, G.; Zhang, M.W.; Yang, J.X. A species boundary within the Chinese Kurixalus odontotarsus species group (Anura: Rhacophoridae): New insights from molecular evidence. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010, 56, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yu, G.H.; Rao, D.Q.; Matsui, M.; Yang, J.X. Coalescent-based delimitation outperforms distance based methods for delineating less divergent species: The case of Kurixalus odontotarsus species group. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, e16124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wolf, S. Revision der Untergattung Rhacophorus (Ausschliesslich der Madagaskar-Formen). Bull. Raffles Mus. 1936, 12, 137–217. [Google Scholar]
  29. Smith, M.A. The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Malay Peninsula: A supplement to G. A. Boulenger’s Reptilia and Batrachia, 1912. Bull. Raffles Mus. 1930, 3, xviii + 149. [Google Scholar]
  30. Matsui, M.; Kawahara, Y.; Eto, K.; Hamidy, A.; Ahmad, N.; Hossman, M.Y.B. Distinct species status of Kurixalus chaseni (Rhacophoridae, Anura) as revealed by mitochondrial phylogeny. Alytes 2018, 36, 170–177. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhao, E.M.; Adler, K.N. Herpetology of China; Contributions to Herpetology 10; Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles: Oxford, OH, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dufresnes, C.; Litvinchuk, S.N. Diversity, distribution and molecular species delimitation in frogs and toads from the Eastern Palaearctic. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2022, 195, 695–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Frost, D.R.; Grant, T.; Faivovich, J.; Bain, R.H.; Haas, A.; Haddad, C.F.B.; De Sa, R.O.; Channing, A.; Wilkinson, M.; Donnellan, S.C.; et al. The amphibian tree of life. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 2006, 297, 8–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, G.H.; Zhang, M.W.; Yang, J.X. Molecular evidence for taxonomy of Rhacophorus appendiculatus and Kurixalus species from northern Vietnam, with comments on systematics of Kurixalus and Gracixalus (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2013, 47, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Suzuki, H. A molecular phylogenetic view of mammals in the “three-story museum” of Hokkaido, Honshu, and Ryukyu Island, Japan. In The Wild Mammals of Japan; Ohdachi, S.D., Ishibashi, Y., Iwasa, M.A., Saitoh, T., Eds.; University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, Japan, 2009; pp. 261–263. [Google Scholar]
  36. Vita-Finzi, C. Deformation and seismicity of Taiwan. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 11176–11180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fei, L.; Hu, S.Q.; Ye, C.Y.; Tian, W.S.; Jiang, J.P.; Wu, G.F.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.S. Fauna Sinica: Amphibia; Volume 2: Anura; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilkinson, J.A.; Drewes, R.C.; Tatum, O.L. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of the family Rhacophoridae with an emphasis on the Asian and African genera. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2002, 24, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yu, G.H.; Rao, D.Q.; Zhang, M.W.; Yang, J.X. Re-examination of the phylogeny of Rhacophoridae (Anura) based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2009, 50, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yu, G.H.; Du, L.N.; Wang, J.S.; Rao, D.Q.; Wu, Z.J.; Yang, J.X. From mainland to islands: Colonization history in the tree frog Kurixalus (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Curr. Zool. 2020, 66, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kodandaramaiah, U. Use of dispersal-vicariance analysis in biogeography—A critique. J. Biogeogr. 2010, 37, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chiang, T.; Schaal, B.A. Phylogeography of plants in Taiwan and the Ryukyu Archipelago. Taxon 2006, 55, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Temminck, C.J.; Schlegel, H. Fauna Japonica Sive Descriptio Animalium, Quae in Itinere per Japonianum, Jussu Et Auspiciis Superiorum, Qui Summum in India Batava Imperium Tenent, Suscepto, Annis 1823–1830 Colleget, Notis Observationibus Et Adumbrationibus Illustrates; Volume 3: Chelonia, Ophidia, Sauria, Batrachia; J. G. Lalau: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1838. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–7184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lanfear, R.; Frandsen, P.B.; Wright, A.M.; Senfeld, T.; Calcott, B.B. PartitionFinder 2: New methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 772–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lanfear, R.; Calcott, B.; Ho, S.Y.W.; Guindon, S. PartitionFinder: Combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29, 1695–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; Vandermark, P.; Ayres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Larget, B.; Liu, L.; Suchard, M.A.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference and Model Choice Across a Large Model Space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lemey, P.; Rambaut, A.; Drummond, A.J.; Suchard, M.A. Bayesian phylogeography finds its roots. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5, e1000520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Drummond, A.J.; Suchard, M.A.; Xie, D.; Rambut, A. Bayesian Phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29, 1969–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rambaut, A.; Drummond, A.J.; Xie, D.; Baele, G.; Suchard, M.A. Posterior Summarization in Bayesian Phylogenetics Using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 2018, 67, 901–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Matzke, N.J. BioGeoBEARS: BioGeography with Bayesian (and Likelihood) Evolutionary Analysis in R Scripts. R Package, Version 0.2.1. 2013. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/BioGeoBEARS/ (accessed on 27 July 2013).
  52. Yu, Y.; Harris, A.J.; Blair, C.; He, X. RASP (Reconstruct Ancestral State in Phylogenies): A tool for historical biogeography. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2015, 87, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ree, R.H.; Smith, S.A. Maximum likelihood inference of geographic range evolution by dispersal, local extinction, and cladogenesis. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ronquist, F. Dispersal-vicariance analysis: A new approach to the quantification of historical biogeography. Syst. Biol. 1997, 46, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Landis, M.J.; Matzke, N.J.; Moore, B.R.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. Bayesian analysis of biogeography when the number of areas is large. Syst. Biol. 2013, 62, 789–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  57. Paradis, E.; Claude, J.; Strimmer, K. APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 2004, 20, 289–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pybus, O.G.; Harvey, P.H. Testing macro-evolutionary models using incomplete molecular phylogenies. Proc. R. Soc. B 2000, 267, 2267–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Paradis, E. Assessing temporal variations in diversification rates from phylogenies: Estimation and hypothesis testing. Proc. R. Soc. B 1997, 264, 1141–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paradis, E. DIVERSI Users Manual; Version 0.20.0; Institut des Sciences de l’ E’volution de Montpellier, Universite’ Montpellier II: Montpellier, France, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nee, S.; May, R.M.; Harvey, P.H. The reconstructed evolutionary process. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1994, 344, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. Hikida, T.; Ota, H. Biogeography of reptiles in the subtropical East Asian Island. In Symposium on the Phylogeny, Biogeography and Conservation of Fauna and Flora of East Asian Region; Lue, K.Y., Chen, T.H., Eds.; National Science Council: Taipei, Taiwan, 1997; pp. 11–28. [Google Scholar]
  63. He, J.; Gao, Z.; Su, Y.; Lin, S.; Jiang, H. Geographical and temporal origins of terrestrial vertebrates endemic to Taiwan. J. Biogeogr. 2018, 45, 2458–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Huang, C.Y. Geological ages of Taiwan stratigraphy and tectonic events. Sci. Sin. Terrae 2017, 47, 394–405. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ali, J.R. Geological data indicate that the interpretation for the age-calibrated phylogeny for the Kurixalus-genus frogs of South, South-east and East Asia (Lv et al., 2018) needs to be rethought. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2020, 145, 106053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Miller, K.G.; Kominz, M.A.; Browning, J.V.; Wright, J.D.; Mountain, G.S.; Katz, M.E.; Sugarman, P.J.; Cramer, B.S.; Christie-Blick, N.; Pekar, S.F. The Phanerozoic Record of global sea-level change. Science 2005, 310, 1293–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Miller, K.G.; Mountain, G.S.; Wright, J.D.; Browning, J.V. A 180-million-year record of sea level and ice volume variations from continental margin and deep-sea isotopic records. Oceanography 2011, 24, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Matzke, N.J. Model selection in historical biogeography reveals that founder-event speciation is a crucial process in island clades. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63, 951–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cowie, R.H.; Holland, B.S. Dispersal is fundamental to biogeography and the evolution of biodiversity on oceanic islands. J. Biogeogr. 2006, 33, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gillespie, R.G.; Baldwin, B.G.; Waters, J.M.; Fraser, C.I.; Nikula, R.; Roderick, G.K. Long-distance dispersal: A framework for hypothesis testing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Templeton, A.R. The reality and importance of founder speciation in evolution. Bioessays 2008, 30, 470–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Matzke, N.J. Probabilistic historical biogeography: New models for founder-event speciation, imperfect detection, and fossils allow improved accuracy and model-testing. Front. Biogeogr. 2013, 5, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schluter, D. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; Volume 86, pp. 749–750. [Google Scholar]
  74. Rosenzweig, M.L. Species Diversity in Space and Time; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Animals 13 02754 g001
Figure 1. Sampling localities of this study.
Figure 1. Sampling localities of this study.
Animals 13 02754 g001
Animals 13 02754 g002
Figure 2. Bayesian phylogram of the genus Kurixalus based on the combined data of three mitochondrial genes (12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, COI) and three nuclear gene sequences (TYR, RAG-1, BDNF). Numbers above branches are the Bayesian posterior probabilities. The biogeographic assignments of each species are highlighted with different colors.
Figure 2. Bayesian phylogram of the genus Kurixalus based on the combined data of three mitochondrial genes (12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, COI) and three nuclear gene sequences (TYR, RAG-1, BDNF). Numbers above branches are the Bayesian posterior probabilities. The biogeographic assignments of each species are highlighted with different colors.
Animals 13 02754 g002
Animals 13 02754 g003
Figure 3. Biogeographic division (a) and ancestral area inferences resulted from BSSVS analyses (b–d) and the best-fit biogeography model (DIVALIKE+j); (e–g). Three different phylogenetic hypotheses (H1–H3) were taken into account because the relationships between K. gracilloides, clade I, and clade II were not resolved. Numbers above branches and near the nodes are the probabilities of the reconstructed ancestral area.
Figure 3. Biogeographic division (a) and ancestral area inferences resulted from BSSVS analyses (b–d) and the best-fit biogeography model (DIVALIKE+j); (e–g). Three different phylogenetic hypotheses (H1–H3) were taken into account because the relationships between K. gracilloides, clade I, and clade II were not resolved. Numbers above branches and near the nodes are the probabilities of the reconstructed ancestral area.
Animals 13 02754 g003
Animals 13 02754 g004
Figure 4. The lineage accumulation over time for the entire Kurixalus genus.
Figure 4. The lineage accumulation over time for the entire Kurixalus genus.
Animals 13 02754 g004
Animals 13 02754 g005
Figure 5. Biogeographic inferences resulting from pure DIVA model (DIVALIKE model) for the three different phylogenetic hypotheses.
Figure 5. Biogeographic inferences resulting from pure DIVA model (DIVALIKE model) for the three different phylogenetic hypotheses.
Animals 13 02754 g005
Table 1. Disputes on the taxonomy of Kurixalus..
Table 1. Disputes on the taxonomy of Kurixalus..
SpeciesResources/Species
Mediyansyah et al. [4]Mediyansyah et al. [4]
K. absconditus [4]K. appendiculatusK. absconditus
Smith [29]Matsui et al. [30]
K. chaseni [6]K. appendiculatusK. chaseni
Fei [24]Wu et al. [8]
K. berylliniris [8]K. eiffingeriK. berylliniris
Fei [24]Fei et al. [25]Yu et al. [26]Yu et al. [27]
K. hainanus [11]K. odontotarsuK. odontotarsuK. bisacculusK. hainanus
Zhao et al. [31]Dufresnes et al. [32]
K. pollicaris [23]K. eiffingeriK. pollicaris
Fei [24]Wu et al. [8]
K. wangi [8]K. eiffingeriK. wangi
Wolf [28]Inger et al. [21]
K. verrucosus [9]K. appendiculatusK. verrucosus
Table 2. Species used in this study (B. = Buergeria, K. = Kurixalus).
Table 2. Species used in this study (B. = Buergeria, K. = Kurixalus).
SpeciesVoucher NumberLocality12S16SCOIRAG-1TYRBDNF
B. buergeriKUHE 13260JapanAB127977AB127977AB127977AB728271AB728322AB72821
K. absconditusMZB Amph 21862Indonesia-MN727052----
K. appendiculatusKU 324192
NMBE 1056476
FMNH 267904		Bohol, Philippines
Malaysia		KF933206--JQ060911KC961232KC961139
K. chaseniFMNH 267896MalaysiaJQ060948JQ060937KX554539---
K. baliogasterROM 29860
ROM 29862		VietnamKX554475KX554537KX554647KX554853KX554740KX554921
K. banaensisROM 32986VietnamGQ285667GQ285667-GQ285752GQ285799GQ285689
K. berylliniris11311Taiwan, China-DQ468669DQ468677---
K. bisacculusTHNHM 10051
KUHE 19333		ThailandGU227279GU227334KX554633KX554850KX554737KX554918
K. eiffingeri11333
UMFS 5969		Taiwan, China-DQ468670DQ468678-DQ28293-
K. gracilloidesSIEZC 30189Vietnam-MN510865----
K. hainanusYGH 090044
HNNU A1180		Yunnan, China
Hainan, China		GU227248GU227299KX554599GQ285749EU215608GQ285686
K. idiootocusA127
SCUM 061107L		Taiwan, China-DQ468674DQ468682GQ285751EU215607GQ285688
K. lenquanensisYGH 20160036Yunnan, ChinaMK348042KY768931MK348050OQ719606OQ719609OQ719612
K. motokawaiVNMN 03458VietnamLC002888LC002888----
K. nasoRao 06301Tibet, ChinaKX554422KX554484KX554547KX554745KX554653-
K. odontotarsusYGH 090131
SCUM 060688L		Yunnan, ChinaGU227240GU227290KX554576GQ285750EU215609GQ285687
K. viridescensVNMN 03802VietnamAB933284AB933284----
K. wangi11328Taiwan, China-DQ468671DQ468679---
K. yangiRao 14102901
Rao 14102908		Yunnan, ChinaKX554429KX554491KX554557KX554761KX554666KX554863
K. raoiYU1406033Guizhou, ChinaMK348044MK348047MK348052OQ719607OQ719610OQ719613
K. silvaenaiasCIB118049Sichun, China-OL898656OL854130OQ719608OQ719611OQ719614
K. inexpectatusNJFU20180704001
NJFU20180706003		Zhejiang, ChinaMW115094---MW148403-
Table 3. Partitioning strategy and the best substitution model for each partition.
Table 3. Partitioning strategy and the best substitution model for each partition.
PartitionsBest Model
(1) 12S rRNA and 16S rRNAGTR+I+G
(2) BDNFGTR+I
(3) COIGTR+G
(4) RAG-1GTR+I+G
(5) TYRK80+G
Table 4. Comparison of the six models of the ancestral area estimation of Kurixalus.
Table 4. Comparison of the six models of the ancestral area estimation of Kurixalus.
HModelLn LndejAICcAICc_wt
H1DEC−14.7320.00441.00 × 10−12034.130.013
DEC+j−10.1938.80 × 10−108.80 × 10−100.02927.790.31
DIVALIKE−13.9720.0121.00 × 10−12032.610.027
DIVALIKE+j−9.5331.00 × 10−121.00 × 10−120.03226.480.59
BAYAREALIKE−23.620.0140.055051.861.80 × 10−6
BAYAREALIKE+j−11.7931.00 × 10−71.00 × 10−70.04430.990.062
H2DEC−16.7420.00821.00 × 10−12038.150.0022
DEC+j−10.5231.00 × 10−121.00 × 10−120.03328.450.28
DIVALIKE−15.9820.0121.00 × 10−12036.620.0048
DIVALIKE+j−9.7131.00 × 10−121.00 × 10−120.03126.840.63
BAYAREALIKE−23.8820.0140.055052.421.80 × 10−6
BAYAREALIKE+j−11.8331.00 × 10−71.00 × 10−70.04431.060.077
H3DEC−15.0321.00 × 10−121.00 × 10−12034.720.012
DEC+j−10.5231.30 × 10−91.60 × 10−100.03328.450.28
DIVALIKE−16.4320.0122.00 × 10−9037.530.003
DIVALIKE+j−9.7131.00 × 10−122.40 × 10−90.03126.840.63
BAYAREALIKE−23.7620.0140.054052.192.00 × 10−6
BAYAREALIKE+j−11.8331.00 × 10−71.00 × 10−70.04431.060.076
Note: Ln L, log-likelihood; n, number of parameters; d, rate of dispersal; e, rate of extinction; j, likelihood of founder-event speciation at cladogenesis; AICc, corrected Akaike information criterion. The AICc_wt was used to compare all the models to select the best one. The preferred model is indicated in bold.
Table 5. Test of constant diversification of Kurixalus with survival models.
Table 5. Test of constant diversification of Kurixalus with survival models.
Ln L (AIC)γ (p-Value)
Model AModel BModel C
−46.204 (94.407)−43.66 (91.32)−45.632 (95.265)−1.01 (0.31)
Note: Model A vs. Model B: χ2 = 5.09, df = 1, p = 0.02. Model A vs. Model C: χ2 = 1.14, df = 1, p = 0.29.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mo, Q.; Sun, T.; Chen, H.; Yu, G.; Du, L. Biogeographic Origin of Kurixalus (Anura, Rhacophoridae) on the East Asian Islands and Tempo of Diversification within Kurixalus. Animals 2023, 13, 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172754

AMA Style

Mo Q, Sun T, Chen H, Yu G, Du L. Biogeographic Origin of Kurixalus (Anura, Rhacophoridae) on the East Asian Islands and Tempo of Diversification within Kurixalus. Animals. 2023; 13(17):2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172754

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mo, Qiumei, Tao Sun, Hui Chen, Guohua Yu, and Lina Du. 2023. "Biogeographic Origin of Kurixalus (Anura, Rhacophoridae) on the East Asian Islands and Tempo of Diversification within Kurixalus" Animals 13, no. 17: 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172754

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop