Chavez Viteri, Daniel Eduardo
Thumbnail Image
Preferred name
Chavez Viteri, Daniel Eduardo
Main Affiliation
Quito

Research Output

Filters

2
2
Reset filters

Settings
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
No Thumbnail Available
Publication

Museums and zoos: a formula for rapid genetic identification of elusive species and practical applications for conservation and systematics in the Global South

2026 , Chavez Viteri, Daniel Eduardo , Julio C Carrión-Olmedo , María B Cabezas , Katherine Apunte-Ramos , Daniela Reyes-Barriga , Pamela Lojan-Cueva , David Mora , Martin Bustamante , C Miguel Pinto , Pablo Jarrín-V

Obtaining genetic information from elusive species is challenging for scientists, but it is crucial for understanding animal evolutionary history and informing conservation management initiatives. We present the first example of a local network of collaboration that includes zoos and natural history collections to investigate the geographical origin, systematics, and conservation concerns of the olingo (genus Bassaricyon). We sequenced in situ the entire (1146bp) cytochrome b gene to phylogenetically identify individuals that have been victims of wildlife trafficking. Unexpectedly, we recovered a sample belonging to Bassaricyon medius orinomus, which suggests that this individual may represent a new geographical record for Ecuador. Through practical experience, we describe how local collaboration is possible and crucial for promoting wildlife genetic research in the Global South and contributing to protect the remaining populations of medium-sized mammals. We discuss the significance of wild animals under human care as a valuable genetic resource for scientific research, conservation strategies, and informed wildlife management decisions. © The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Linnean Society of London.

View
No Thumbnail Available
Publication

Divergent understandings in comparative oncology

2026 , Zachary T. Compton , Amy M. Boddy , Lisa M. Abegglen , Chavez Viteri, Daniel Eduardo , Joshua D. Schiffman , Marc Tollis , Carlo C. Maley

Butler et al.’s recent exploration of the rates of species diversification and cancer is an important addition to the study of comparative oncology (1). Do lineages that tend to diversify more rapidly get more cancer? The authors hypothesize that a susceptibility to genomic rearrangements might lead to higher diversification and cancer rates. However, because deleterious rearrangements are swiftly eliminated, only lineages with robust, stabilized genomes can diversify (2). Diversification is a signature of genomic stability rather than instability. Therefore, species with more stable genomes might diversify more and have less cancer. Unfortunately, the statistical model, previously published in Butler et al.’s analysis of body size and cancer (3), is deeply flawed. Butler et al. treat tumor counts as additive, therefore, any apparent relationship between diversification and cancer prevalence may simply reflect differences in sample size rather than related to evolution. Their approach estimates a proportion of necropies that will have cancer, which implies that all species have the same rate of cancer. The species differences only come through their differences in the other predictors (body size, change in body size, and diversification rate) which add or subtract a fixed number of cancers, regardless of the number of necropsies observed. With only 87 mammal and 76 bird species in their analysis, Butler et al. may lack the statistical power needed to detect interactions between the number of necropsies and their other predictors (they do not report testing for those interactions). An alternative statistical model allows each species to have a different intrinsic rate of cancer which is then modified by the other predictors like body size or diversification rate. When we reanalyzed their data under these assumptions using methods from Compton et al. (4), we found no evidence of an association between diversification rate and either malignancy or benign tumor prevalence in either mammals or birds (Fig. 1). Nor did we find an association between change in body size and malignancy in either birds or mammals (Fig. 1). While a larger sample size may prove such a relationship in the future, it is unlikely to rescue fundamentally flawed methodology.

View