2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.05.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nomenclatural changes should not be based on equivocally supported phylogenies: Reply to Yang et al. 2015

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Yang et al (2015) proposed the revalidation of the genus Enteromius Cope, 1867 to accommodate all African diploid 'Barbus' species, as it is the oldest available genus group name for these fishes. Recently, this revalidation has been criticized (Schmidt & Bart Jr. 2015); we prefer, however, the use of Enteromius over 'Barbus'.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yang et al (2015) proposed the revalidation of the genus Enteromius Cope, 1867 to accommodate all African diploid 'Barbus' species, as it is the oldest available genus group name for these fishes. Recently, this revalidation has been criticized (Schmidt & Bart Jr. 2015); we prefer, however, the use of Enteromius over 'Barbus'.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Resolution of phylogenetic relationships among the more than 300 species of African smiliogastrins remains an outstanding problem in cyprinid systematics (Berrebi et al, 1996;Schmidt and Bart, 2015). While no attempt is made here to place the newly discovered "Barbus" validus phylogenetically, we do note some apparent similarities between this species and certain members of the smiliogastrin genus, Clypeobarbus, as recently rediagnosed by Stiassny and Sakharova (in press).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…While Yang et al 's (2015) study represents progress toward resolution of tribal-level relationships among the more the 1300 species of the subfamily Cyprininae, their sampling of African members of the newly erected tribe Smiliogastrini (viz., all African small barbs and their allies, and most members of the Asian genus Puntius and allies) was limited. And, as noted by Schmidt and Bart (2015), the current lack of resolution of relationships within the tribe renders the adoption of the name Enteromius for the numerous small-bodied African barbs problematical. If classification and nomenclature are to reflect phylogenetic relationships and monophyly is to prevail then, based on the trees presented by Yang et al (2015), certain putatively monophyletic genera such as Barboides and Clypeobarbus will either need to be sunk into Enteromius, or various Enteromius species will need to be reassigned to Barboides and Clypeobarbus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We do not follow the controversial suggestion by Yang et al (2015) to classify 'Barbus' holotaenia and other small 'Barbus' in the genus Enteromius because this nomenclatural change does not consider the type species (Enteromius potamogalis Cope, 1867) and is therefore inconclusive (see Schmidt & Bart, 2015). We follow Berrebi, Kottelat, Skelton, and Rab (1996) and continue to refer to these African barbs as…”
Section: Materials a Nd Methodsmentioning
confidence: 91%