**3. Results**

## *3.1. Phylogenetic Systematics*

The relationships among glassfrog genera are shown in Figure 19. We also included a tree for each genus that occurs in Ecuador. These trees are the source of evidence for generic placement and comments on the evolutionary relationships among species discussed below and are summarized in Table S1. Each genus was well supported and congruen<sup>t</sup> with the trees estimated by Guayasamin et al. [1,2], Castroviejo-Fisher et al. [3], and Twomey et al. [19], with only a few di fferences resulting from our improved taxon sampling. There was significant support (ML: Greater than 95% bootstrap [BS]; BA: Greater than 0.95 posterior probability [PP]) for all genera.

**Figure 19.** Evolutionary relationships among glassfrog genera (family: Centrolenidae) under maximum likelihood and Bayesian criteria.

## *3.2. Potential Distribution*

The area of the potential distribution of each glassfrog species is summarized in Table S5. AUCs associated to each model are reported in Table S4. The species with the largest area of potential distribution was *Cochranella resplendens* (77,792 km2), whereas the species with the most restricted

predicted distribution was *Centrolene heloderma* (1067 km2). The areas with the highest impacts were the interandean valleys and the Pacific lowlands; these were also areas with the highest population density. In terms of distribution and range extensions, agriculture and ranching were the activities that had the highest impact on habitats. Other activities with high impact values are related to mining and the oil industry.
