Additional closely connected to the J2 and H lineages. Simply because the J1 lineage has an introgressed mitochondria, it truly is not possible to establish its origin among P. baratus by means of mtDNA phylogenetics alone. Nonetheless, J1’s phylogenetic pattern may be strongly linked for the J2 lineage by many indirect lines of proof. Very first, the present distribution and life history of the J1 lineage appear immutably linked to J2, which leads us to presuppose a shared origin for the two J lineages. On top of that, the mitochondrial lineage of J1 seems to be derived from one of the western clades of P. rugosus in either the Sonoran or Mojave Desert. These desert P. rugosus clades occupy locations adjacent for the present distribution of J2 (and J1) in the Apache highlands, and all other putative P. barbatus parents for J1 are much further removed in New Mexico, Texas, or south-central Mexico (Fig. two). As a result, when it comes to phylogeography and life history, the J2 lineage seems to be by far the most parsimonious supply for the J1 lineage’s P. barbatus ancestry.Sadly, this study did not recover any more populations that were closely associated towards the MX2 sample, and we lack the nuclear data essential to repeat the admixture analyses conducted in previous studies. Nevertheless, it appears clear that future research around the hybrid character and putative origins on the GCD JK184 site lineages would advantage from like these southern Mexico clades in their analyses.Origin and evolution of dependent lineage pairs with GCDAs defined in this study via mtDNA sequences, the H lineages may be traced to a single origin (i.e., they form a monophyletic clade), which implies that the hybrid introgression that established the clade occurred as an proficiently discrete occasion (i.e., PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21108950 either the introgression occurred inside a narrow geographic space or the lineages were bottlenecked sometime after). This really is consistent with the outcomes from prior research (Anderson et al. 2006; Schwander et al. 2007a), and it logically indicates that any populations that carry this hybrid signature must be the outcome of proliferation and expansion from this proficiently discrete introgression event. If this presupposed radiation is comparatively current, then we ought to be in a position to detect this proliferation with our tests for recent population expansion. This hypothesis is partially supported by the statistically considerable Fu’s Fs estimate within this subgroup, although not with R2 (Table six). If this pattern is supported in future studies, it may indicate the fast expansion of the H lineages in response to shifts in climate and habitat availability within the late Pleistocene or Holocene. Nevertheless, the exceptional breadth in the H lineage distribution may possibly also indicate a competitive advantage for the clade, possibly as a result of their hybrid ancestry or some as-yet unidentified benefit in the GCD phenotype. As using the H lineages, the hybrid-introgressed mtDNA inside the J lineage seems to form a monophyletic clade, which necessarily indicates that it has radiated out from an properly discrete hybridization occasion. In J1, we discovered evidence for current population expansion with each Fu’s Fs and R2 (Table six), which suggests that, like the H lineages, it most likely expanded its distribution in the late Pleistocene or Holocene. Nevertheless, the J2 clade does not share this signal for recent population expansion, and similar to Anderson et al. (2006), we discovered that the J2 clade contained much more internal genetic variation than either J1 or the combined H.
