Interrelationships of Fishes 1996
DOI: 10.1016/b978-012670950-6/50015-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interrelationships of Aulopiformes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0
6

Year Published

2001
2001
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
26
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…AMS 18314002) and syngnathid (Bridge, 1896;Rauther, 1925) gasterosteiforms. Fusion of several, but not all proximalmiddle radials was reported in the posteriormost dorsal pterygiophores of osmerids and salangids (Johnson and Patterson, 1996), in a few posterior dorsal or anal pterygiophores of early stages of three aulopiforms (Baldwin and Johnson, 1996), and in Metavelifer (Baldwin and Johnson, 1996).…”
Section: Ontogeny Of Dorsal-and Anal-fin Skeletonmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…AMS 18314002) and syngnathid (Bridge, 1896;Rauther, 1925) gasterosteiforms. Fusion of several, but not all proximalmiddle radials was reported in the posteriormost dorsal pterygiophores of osmerids and salangids (Johnson and Patterson, 1996), in a few posterior dorsal or anal pterygiophores of early stages of three aulopiforms (Baldwin and Johnson, 1996), and in Metavelifer (Baldwin and Johnson, 1996).…”
Section: Ontogeny Of Dorsal-and Anal-fin Skeletonmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…1), we demonstrate that the suborder Enchodontoidei is not a monophyletic group, as two genera of the outgroup belonging to another suborder and even to another order (Trachinocephalus and Protostomias, respectively) went to the ingroup. Although Trachinocephalus belongs to the same order of the taxa herein studied (Aulopiformes), it is allocated into the suborder Synodontoidei, together with other extant members of Aulopiformes (Baldwin andJohnson 1996, Sato andNakabo 2002). Arambourg (1954) and Taverne (1991) included Protostomias in the order Stomiifomes, based on generalized anatomical features, such as general shape of the body and a massive and tooth-bearing dentary, as well as the position of the median fins.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(missing data). All characters previously proposed in the literature have been reviewed: the character 54 was adapted from Goody (1969); the characters 1, 2, 21, 23, 26, 41, 63, 70, 71, 83, and 84 were from Chalifa (1989a); the characters 3, 10, 11, 16, 19, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 38, 42, 64, 65, 77, and 86 were from Taverne (1991); the characters 75, 76, and 81 were from Baldwin and Johnson (1996); the characters 5, 6, 7, 17, 31, 48, 49, 50, 52, 57, 62, 66, and 79 were from Fielitz (2004); the characters 4, 12, 14, 15, 18, 34, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 56, 59, 60, 61, 67, 78, 85, and 87 were from Gallo et al (2005). The new characters are 8, 9, 13, 20, 22, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 37, 53, 55, 58, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 80, and 82.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The order Aulopiformes currently comprises 4 suborders, 12 families, 43 genera (Rosen, 1973;Baldwin and A lthough molecular phylogenetic studies have been expected to prove decisive in resolving persistent controversies over higher-level relationships of teleosts (Nelson, 1984;Nelson, 1989), they have not yet fulfilled their promise (Stepien and Kocher, 1997). Indeed, with the exception of the sister relationship of Clupeomorpha ϩ Ostariophysi (Lê et al, 1993), no novel molecular phylogenetic hypotheses have been considered significant in recent studies (Lecointre and Nelson, 1996;Johnson and Patterson, 1996).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%