Multilocus phylogeny of Paratelmatobiinae (Anura: Leptodactylidae) reveals strong spatial structure and previously unknown diversity in the Atlantic Forest hotspot.

The Brazilian Atlantic Forest harbors high levels of anuran diversity and endemism, including several taxa restricted to small geographic ranges. Here, we provide a multilocus phylogeny for Paratelmatobiinae, a leptodactylid subfamily composed of small-ranged species distributed in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and in the campo rupestre ecosystem. We performed Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood analyses using three mitochondrial and five nuclear markers, and a matrix comprising a broad taxonomic sampling. We then delimitated independently evolving lineages within the group. We recovered Paratelmatobiinae and each of its four genera as monophyletic and robustly supported. Five putatively new species included in our analyses were unambiguously supported in the phylogenetic trees and delimitation analyses. We also recovered other deeply divergent and geographically structured lineages within the four genera of Paratelmatobiinae. Our estimation of divergence times indicates that diversification in the subfamily began in the Eocene and continued until the Pleistocene. We discuss possible scenarios of diversification for the four genera of Paratelmatobiinae, and outline the implications of our findings for taxonomy and conservation.

The tadpole of Odontophrynus monachus Caramaschi & Napoli, 2012 (Amphibia, Anura: Odontophrynidae).

The genus Odontophrynus Reinhardt & Lütken comprises 11 species distributed throughout South and East of South America (Frost 2016) clustered in three phenetic groups: O. americanus, O. cultripes, and O. occidentalis (Savage & Cei 1965; Cei 1987; Caramaschi & Napoli 2012). Only the O. occidentalis group is recovered as monophyletic in the most recent phylogenetic hypotheses (Pyron & Wiens 2011; Pyron 2014). In these analyses, the O. cultripes group is not recovered and the monophyly of O. americanus group was not tested, since only one species of the group was included (Pyron & Wiens 2011; Pyron 2014). Therefore, the relationships within the genus are still inconclusive due to low support values and limited taxon sampling.