A morphological supermatrix‐based phylogeny for the Neotropical fish superfamily Anostomoidea (Ostariophysi: Characiformes): phylogeny, missing data and homoplasy

Abstract

Although 11 studies have addressed the systematics of the four families and 281 fish species of the ecomorphologically diverse Anostomoidea, none has proposed a global hypothesis of relationships. We synthesized these studies to yield a supermatrix with 463 morphological characters among 174 ingroup species, and inferred phylogeny with parsimony and Bayesian optimization. We evaluated the applicability of the supermatrix approach to morphological datasets, tested its sensitivity to missing data, determined the impact of homoplastic characters on phylogenetic resolution, and determined the distribution of homologies and homoplasies on the topology. Despite more than 60% missing data, analyses supported the monophyly of all families, and phylogenetic structure degraded only with inclusion of species with high percentages of missing data and in analyses limited to homoplasies. The latter differs modestly from the full matrix indicating phylogenetic signal in homoplastic characters. Character distributions differ across the phylogeny, with a greater prevalence of homologies at deeper nodes and homoplasies nearer the tips than expected by chance. This may suggest early diversification into distinct bauplans with subsequent diversification of faster evolving character systems. The morphological supermatrix approach is powerful and allows integration of classical data with modern methods to examine the evolution of multiple character systems.

Molecular phylogenetics of the Neotropical fish family Prochilodontidae (Teleostei: Characiformes)

“…Curimatidae and Prochilodontidae, is of particular note, given that it is recovered in all molecular analyses to date, but conflicts with the sister relationship between Chilodontidae and Anostomidae strongly supported by osteological analyses (Vari, 1983;Dillman et al, 2015).…”

“…Recent molecular phylogenetic studies have focused on the inter-and intrafamilial relationships of several characiform lineages (Ortí et al, 2008;Oliveira et al, 2011;Tagliacollo et al, 2012;Abe et al, 2013;Arroyave et al, 2013;Mariguela et al, 2013;Melo et al, 2014Melo et al, , 2016Thompson et al, 2014;Thomaz et al, 2015) which previously had received only morphological attention. In many cases, molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses agree within Characiformes, as in the strong support returned by both datatypes for the monophyly of the superfamily Anostomoidea, which includes the families Anostomidae, Chilodontidae, Curimatidae, and Prochilodontidae (Vari, 1983;Sidlauskas, 2008;Oliveira et al, 2011;Dillman et al, 2015). In other instances, molecular and morphological hypotheses diverge, as in the African family Alestidae (Zanata and Vari, 2005;Arroyave and Stiassny, 2011).…”

“…Our molecular-based analysis corroborates V r ' (1983) and Castro and V r ' (2004) hypothesis of the monophyly of the Prochilodontidae which was supported by 58 morphological synapomorphies. Dillman et al (2015) reanalyzed a supermatrix of all morphological characters proposed as informative within Anostomoidea and their results slightly reduced the support for the Prochilodontidae to 56 synapomorphies. We reconstruct Prochilodontidae as sister to a clade composed by Chilodontidae plus Curimatidae, a grouping of three families recovered in other recent molecular phylogenies (Oliveira et al, 2011;Melo et al, 2014) but which runs counter to the hypothesis of relationships arrived at by morphology-based analyses (e.g.…”

“…The characiform superfamily Anostomoidea with four trophically diverse families and about 300 species has received extensive systematic and revisionary treatment (Vari, 1983;Sidlauskas, 2008;Dillman et al, 2015) and its monophyly seems certain. However, its supraand intrafamilial relationships have been explored in detail solely with morphology (Vari, 1989;Vari et al, 1995;Castro and Vari, 2004;Sidlauskas and Vari, 2008) and merit molecular examination.…”

First record of Steindachnerina insculpta (Fernández-Yépez, 1948) (Characiformes, Curimatidae) in Argentina

“…Curimatidae is a monophyletic family within Characiformes and is supported by synapomorphies related to the branchial apparatus, buccopharyngeal complex, hyoid arch, jaws, palatine arch, and neurocranium (Vari 1989, Dillman et al 2016, which are associated with specialized food acquisition and processing (Netto-Ferreira and Vari 2011). Vari (1989) proposed the monophyly of Steindachnerina Fowler 1906 on the basis of 4 synapomorphies related to modifications in the first and second infrapharyngobranchials, the ventral process of the third hypobranchial (H3), the basihyal, and associated basihyal tooth-plate.…”