Biochemical systematics of the marine fish family Centrolophidae (Teleostei:Stromateoidei) from Australian waters

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationships of 11 stromateoid species (nine from the Family Centrolophidae and one each from the Nomeidae and Tetragonuridae) were examined by allozyme electrophoresis. Data from 30 loci were used for three phylogenetic analyses. Two phenetic trees were derived: a UPGMA tree derived from Nei's unbiased genetic distance, and a distance-Wagner tree based on modified Rogers' distances. A cladistic analysis, using maximum parsimony, was also carried out with loci as characters and alleles as unordered states. The tree topology of all three analyses showed a high degree of similarity, which increased confidence in the phylogenetic interpretation and generally supported the classical taxonomic theory of centrolophid relationships. The 'hard-spined' centrolophid taxa, including Seriolella, Psenopsis, Schedophilus labyrinthicus and Hyperoglyphe, formed a stable group In all trees. Psenopsis was closely allied to Seriolella in all three analyses, which supports the view that this genus is derived from Seriolella. Centrolophus and Tubbia consistently diverged from the ancestral line of taxa near the base of the tree, so may have diverged from ancestral stock earlier than previously thought. The most striking departure from current taxonomic theory was the wide separation of Schedophilus labyrinthicus and Schedophilus huttoni, indicating that the genus Schedophilus is polyphyletic. A revision of the genus is needed and should include morphological and electrophoretic analyses of all Schedophilus species, with particular reference to the type species S. medusophagus.

Genetic relationship in goatfishes (Mullidae: Perciformes) of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, with remarks on Suez Canal migrants

“…Thirteen species have been reported from the Red Sea region, belonging to three genera: Mulloides Bleeker, 1849, Parupeneus Bleeker, 1863 and Upeneus Cuvier, 1829. Electrophoretic analysis can add a different dimension, which provides insight into the interrelationship of species and genera, to these taxonomic studies (Avise, 1974;Buth, 1984;Bolch et al, 1994). Regarding the Red Sea Mullidae, electrophoretic studies may be of particular interest, since two members of this family, the brownband goatfish Upeneus pori Ben-Tuvia and Golani, 1989 (previously known in this area as U. asymmetricus), and the goldband goatfish, Upeneus SCI.…”

Biogeography and Biodiversity of Seamounts

“…Three studies of fi shes found no genetic differentiation between seamount and nearby non-seamount populations: the trevalla Hyperoglyphe antarctica around Australia (Bolch et al, 1994), a boarfi sh species (Pentacerotidae) on the Hawaiian chain (Borets, 1980), and the alfonsino Beryx splendens in the southwest Pacifi c (Hoarau and Borsa, 2000). Two other studies looked at the genetics of seamount populations and found no differentiation, but could not be certain that the sequences used had suffi cient mutation rates for recent speciation to be found: France and Hoover (2002) for octocorals of the subclass Octocorallia, and Smith et al (2004) for the bamboo coral Keratoisis, also an octocoral.…”

Molecular and morphological identification of an uncommon centrolophid fish

“…S. ovalis and S. velaini) and the other is weak-spined and soft-fleshed (e.g. S. medusophagus and S. huttoni) [17,25]. Thus, the breadth and validity of the genus has been debated by various authors [e.g.…”

“…[26][27][28]. In this context, an allozyme survey of 11 stromateoid species from Australian waters [25], including two Schedophilus species, clearly evidenced the separate clustering of the weakspined S. huttoni and the hard-spined S. labyrinthicus, and the non monophyly of the genus. Bolch et al [25] therefore proposed reconsidering the composition of the genus and suggested that the hard-spined, firm-fleshed group might be more correctly represented as a distinct centrolophid genus.…”

“…Bolch et al [25] therefore proposed reconsidering the composition of the genus and suggested that the hard-spined, firm-fleshed group might be more correctly represented as a distinct centrolophid genus. They also emphasized that the taxonomic revision of the genus was hampered by the rarity of Schedophilus material, particularly of the type species S. medusophagus [25].…”