2006
DOI: 10.1643/0045-8511(2006)2006[559:ctcasn]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Corrections to ‘Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico’

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
205
1
13

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 140 publications
(219 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
205
1
13
Order By: Relevance
“…This coverage includes more than 80% of the 902 Canadian and American species listed by Nelson et al (14). In accordance with the Fish Barcode of Life Campaign (15), we deposited all sequences and collateral specimen information within the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) (16), where this information can be queried by users, annotated, and curated in light of new information.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This coverage includes more than 80% of the 902 Canadian and American species listed by Nelson et al (14). In accordance with the Fish Barcode of Life Campaign (15), we deposited all sequences and collateral specimen information within the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) (16), where this information can be queried by users, annotated, and curated in light of new information.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the genus Etheostoma, for example, we have already included nearly all described species. Thus, we included specimens from 139 Etheostoma species, whereas for the same genus, Nelson et al (14) listed a total of 131 described Canadian and American species. More recently, 142 species (98.6%) were listed in FishBase (17).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nor does our broad conclusion depend upon separate-species status for K. marmoratus and K. ocellatus. Even if these fish are deemed conspecific [as they are in a current formal classification (20)], the empirical case for the long-term retention of self-fertilization would remain. Thus, even under extremely conservative assumptions, the data forcefully argue that the capacity for self-fertilization is a long-term reproductive mode in Kryptolebias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate the presence or absence and the rate of selfing, we screened microsatellite loci in populations of four nominal Kryptolebias species (Table 1): the sister taxa K. marmoratus and Kryptolebias ocellatus; Kryptolebias caudomarginatus, the closest phylogenetic outlier to that clade; and a more distant relative, Kryptolebias brasiliensis (16,17). These taxa are deemed valid species in recent taxonomical evaluations (18), although K. marmoratus and K. ocellatus have been synonymized (19,20). For current purposes (estimating the antiquity of the self-fertilization capacity), the taxonomic status of K. marmoratus and K. ocellatus is much less important than the elapsed time since these evolutionary entities separated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…El análi-sis de afinidad zoogeográfica fue determinada de acuerdo con el esquema básico de Briggs (1974de Briggs ( , 1995, con modificaciones de Boschi (2000), Galván et al (2000), Hastings (2000), Robertson & Allen (2002), Robertson et al (2004) Nelson et al (2004), Love et al (2005), Rodríguez Romero et al 2008. Se presenta el nivel trófico, afinidad biogeográfica y las tallas máximas conocidas para las especies.…”
Section: Materiales Y Métodosunclassified