Molecular phylogeny of the Cheilodactylidae and Latridae (Perciformes: Cirrhitoidea) with notes on taxonomy and biogeography

Burridge, Christopher P.

doi:10.1016/s1055-7903(03)00157-x

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suborder Cirrhitoidei (similar to Cirrhitoidea sensu PH Greenwood [319], and CP Burridge and AJ Smolenski [320]; treated as Cirrhitiformes in previous versions of the classification) (97%).…”

Section: Construction and Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFish classifications, as those of most other taxonomic groups, are being transformed drastically as new molecular phylogenies provide support for natural groups that were unanticipated by previous studies. A brief review of the main criteria used by ichthyologists to define their classifications during the last 50 years, however, reveals slow progress towards using an explicit phylogenetic framework. Instead, the trend has been to rely, in varying degrees, on deep-rooted anatomical concepts and authority, often mixing taxa with explicit phylogenetic support with arbitrary groupings. Two leading sources in ichthyology frequently used for fish classifications (JS Nelson’s volumes of Fishes of the World and W. Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes) fail to adopt a global phylogenetic framework despite much recent progress made towards the resolution of the fish Tree of Life. The first explicit phylogenetic classification of bony fishes was published in 2013, based on a comprehensive molecular phylogeny (www.deepfin.org). We here update the first version of that classification by incorporating the most recent phylogenetic results.ResultsThe updated classification presented here is based on phylogenies inferred using molecular and genomic data for nearly 2000 fishes. A total of 72 orders (and 79 suborders) are recognized in this version, compared with 66 orders in version 1. The phylogeny resolves placement of 410 families, or ~80% of the total of 514 families of bony fishes currently recognized. The ordinal status of 30 percomorph families included in this study, however, remains uncertain (incertae sedis in the series Carangaria, Ovalentaria, or Eupercaria). Comments to support taxonomic decisions and comparisons with conflicting taxonomic groups proposed by others are presented. We also highlight cases were morphological support exist for the groups being classified.ConclusionsThis version of the phylogenetic classification of bony fishes is substantially improved, providing resolution for more taxa than previous versions, based on more densely sampled phylogenetic trees. The classification presented in this study represents, unlike any other, the most up-to-date hypothesis of the Tree of Life of fishes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Construction and Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, the Cheilodactylidae consists of 27 species belonging to four genera, the most speciose of those being the Cheilodactylus Lacépède 1803 (16 species) and Nemadactylus Richardson 1839 (seven species), while the Latridae (trumpeters), consists of three genera ( Latridopsis Gill 1862, Latris Richardson 1839 and Mendosoma Guichenot 1848) and five species. Cheilodactylids and latrids are distributed in temperate coastal marine waters in southern hemisphere regions of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, as well as in waters off China, Japan and the Hawaiian Islands (Allen et al ., ; Nelson et al, ), but are particularly conspicuous members of rocky reef‐fish communities in southern Australian waters (Burridge & Smolenski, ; Gomon et al, ; Lowry & Cappo, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The life‐history ofCheilodactylus rubrolabiatusfrom south‐western Australia and comparison of biological characteristics of the Cheilodactylidae and Latridae: support for an amalgamation of families

Coulson

2019

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cheilodactylus rubrolabiatus collected from the south and lower west coasts of Western Australia were used to investigate the influence of habitat and environmental conditions on the biology of this species. A lack of difference in the growth C. rubrolabiatus from cool south coast and warmer lower west coast waters in Western Australia and the greater maximum ages attained by fish on the latter coast, both run contrary to premises of the metabolic theory of ecology (MTE). Although the greater size (L50) and age (A50) at maturity of C. rubrolabiatus on the south coast is consistent with MTE, this may reflect higher densities of fish on discontinuous shoreline rocky reefs on this coast and thus the need for fish, particularly males, to attain a larger size to successfully defend habitat and mates during spawning. Members of the closely related Cheiodactylidae and Latridae vary in maximum fork length (LFmax 280–950 mm) and age (19–97 years) and display a range of growth patterns. While the L50 of cheilodactylid and latrid species increased with increasing asymptotic lengths (L∞), their maximum ages did not necessary reflect the A50 (i.e., mature early, but live long). The M (natural mortality): k (von Bertalanffy growth parameter) ratios indicate that Cheilodactylus and Nemadactylus species exhibit a type II life‐history strategy, typified by initial rapid growth, L50 close to their L∞ and little or no growth during an extended adult phase. A lack of distinct difference in the biological characteristics of the Cheilodactylidae and latrids may assist in resolving uncertainty regarding the taxonomy of these families.

show abstract

“…1-4) clouds a specific inference of whether temperate aracanids represents a single transition between temperate rocky coasts and tropical coral reef habitats. As dispersal out of the temperate waters of Australia and New Zealand has been invoked for several marine taxa (e.g., Burridge and Smolenski, 2004;Briggs and Bowen, 2011), placing Kentrocapros will be critical for future biogeographic studies of the Aracanidae. However, even when allowing for topological uncertainty, our timetree strongly suggests an origin of the temperate lineages between the Oligocene and early Miocene, an interval of time that marks the onset of cooler oceanic conditions globally (e.g., Zachos et al, 2001).…”

Section: The Timing Of Boxfish Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%