We present a molecular phylogenetic analysis of the hylid tribe Hylini, with the goals of testing the monophyly of the genera Duellmanohyla, Isthmohyla, and Ptychohyla and providing a discussion on the monophyly of Bromeliohyla, Charadrahyla, Ecnomiohyla, Exerodonta, Megastomatohyla, and Sarcohyla. Our results indicate the paraphyly of Ptychohyla, with Bromeliohyla and Duellmanohyla nested within it, and, as in previous analyses, the paraphyly of Duellmanohyla (due to Ptychohyla legleri and P. salvadorensis being nested within it). To resolve this situation, we restrict the contents of Ptychohyla, redelimit those of Duellmanohyla and Bromeliohyla, and erect two new genera, one to include the former Ptychohyla panchoi and P. spinipollex, and the other for the former Ptychohyla acrochorda, P. sanctaecrucis, P. zoque, and tentatively, P. erythromma. Exerodonta as currently defined is not monophyletic, inasmuch as Exerodonta juanitae is nested within Charadrahyla. Consequently, we transfer this species and, tentatively, E. pinorum to Charadrahyla. Also, we discuss some possible taxonomic problems within Exerodonta. Our results indicate that Isthmohyla is polyphyletic, the bromeliad-dwelling Isthmohyla melacaena being the sister taxon of our only exemplar of Bromeliohyla, B. bromeliacia. For this reason, we transfer I. melacaena to Bromeliohyla, rendering Isthmohyla monophyletic. The former Isthmohyla pictipes Group is shown to be paraphyletic due to having the non-monophyletic I. pseudopuma Group within it. Accordingly, we recognize a redelimited I. pseudopuma Group (contents: I. infucata and I. pseudopuma), an I. zeteki Group (contents: I. picadoi and I. zeteki), and a newly defined I. tica Group (contents: I. angustilineata, I. calypsa, I. debilis, I. graceae, I. lancasteri, I. pictipes, I. tica, I. rivularis, and, tentatively, I. insolita and I. xanthosticta). The three groups of Isthmohyla are supported by molecular evidence with jackknife support values > 90%, and two of them by putative morphological synapomorphies. We discuss the recognition of Dryophytes, Hyliola, Rheohyla, and Sarcohyla and whether it is useful to recognize Anotheca, Diaglena, and Triprion as three distinct, monotypic genera. Finally, we discuss a recent taxonomic proposal involving changes in rank and from ranked to unranked names in hylids that overall we consider to have been poorly justified and only superficially discussed.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.