Failed species, innominate forms, and the vain search for species limits: cryptic diversity in dusky salamanders (Desmognathus) of eastern Tennessee
Article first published online: 8 SEP 2013
© 2013 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Ecology and Evolution
Volume 3, Issue 9, page 3194, September 2013
How to Cite
Tilley, S. G., Bernardo, J., Katz, L. A., López, L., Devon Roll, J., Eriksen, R. L., Kratovil, J., Bittner, N. K. J. and Crandall, K. A. (2013), Failed species, innominate forms, and the vain search for species limits: cryptic diversity in dusky salamanders (Desmognathus) of eastern Tennessee. Ecology and Evolution, 3: 3194. doi: 10.1002/ece3.780
- Issue published online: 8 SEP 2013
- Article first published online: 8 SEP 2013
Vol. 3, Issue 8, 2547–2567, Article first published online: 27 JUN 2013
Ecology and Evolution 2013; 3(8): pages 2547–2567
Table 2 reports incorrect GAPDH allozyme frequencies for the Lemon Gap form at Locality 61, which is actually fixed for GAPDH4, and for the Sinking Creek form at Locality 31, which is actually polymorphic for GAPDH2 and GAPDH3. We still assert that the allozyme frequencies at Locality 36 may reflect gene exchange with LGF.
A corrected version of Table 2 appears below. The text at the end of the Results section at the bottom of P. 15 should read as follows:
|Clade γ Locality 73||Clade γ Locality 36||Lemon Gap form Locality 61||Sinking Creek form Locality 31|
|AK||N = 10||N = 7||N = 39||N = 5|
|GAPDH||N = 10||N = 7||N = 34||N = 5|
|GDH||N = 10||N = 6||N = 29||N = 5|
|LDH2||N = 9||N = 7||N = 45||N = 5|
|PEP||N = 10||N = 6||N = 45||N = 4|
|PGDH||N = 10||N = 7||N = 53||N = 5|
“The populations at localities 36 and 73 are fixed or nearly fixed for the same variants at 16 presumptive loci, but exhibit complete differentiation at the remaining six (AK, GAPDH, GDH, LDH-2, PEP, and PGDH). At each of these diagnostic loci except GAPDH, the population at Locality 36 shares a variant with LGF at Locality 61 (Table 2).”