ArticleGenetics and molecular biology2021
Cytogenetic and genetic data support Crossodactylus aeneus Müller, 1924 as a new junior synonym of C. gaudichaudii Duméril and Bibron, 1841 (Amphibia, Anura).
Article in Genetics and molecular biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nominal anuran species Crossodactylus gaudichaudii Duméril and Bibron, 1841 and Crossodactylus aeneus Müller, 1924 are indistinguishable based on adult and larval morphology, being subject of taxonomic doubts. Here, we describe the karyotypes of C. gaudichaudii and C. aeneus, using classical and molecular cytogenetic markers. In addition, we used sequences of the H1 mitochondrial DNA to infer their phylogenetic relationships by Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Maximum Parsimony (MP) approaches and species delimitation test (by bPTP approach). The karyotypic data do not differentiate C. gaudichaudii and C. aeneus in any of the chromosome markers assessed. In both phylogenetic analyses, C. gaudichaudii and C. aeneus were recovered into a strongly supported clade. The species delimitation analysis recovered the specimens assigned to C. gaudichaudii and C. aeneus as a single taxonomic unit. Taken the cytogenetic and genetic results together with previous studies of internal and external morphology of tadpoles and biacoustic pattern, C. gaudichaudii and C. aeneus could not be differentiated, which supports the hypothesis that they correspond to the same taxonomic unit, with C. aeneus being a junior synonym of C. gaudichaudii.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.