Phylogenetic relationships of the elopomorph fish †Paraelops cearensis Silva Santos revisited: Evidence from new specimens

Figueiredo, Francisco J. de; Gallo, Valéria; Leal, Maria E. C.

doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2012.03.012

Cited by 9 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used the modifications of Pyron (2011) to include fossil taxa as noncontemporaneous sampled taxa. Our molecular data were combined with a dataset of 74 discretely coded morphological characters, 67 binary and 7 three-state, taken from de Figueiredo et al (2012). The Lewis (2001) Markov model (Mkv) was applied to the morphological characters and ascertained site patterns were applied to account for the sampling of only variable characters (Alekseyenko et al, 2008).…”

Section: Divergence Time Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Lewis (2001) Markov model (Mkv) was applied to the morphological characters and ascertained site patterns were applied to account for the sampling of only variable characters (Alekseyenko et al, 2008). The morphological matrix includes representatives of several living elopomorph lineages; however, eels were not scored in the morphological studies (de Figueiredo et al, 2012). As such we restricted the divergence time analyses to reflect anguilliform monophyly, which has been well established on the basis of morphological and molecular analyses (Inoue et al, 2004;Wiley and Johnson, 2010;Johnson et al, 2012;Chen et al, 2014).…”

Section: Divergence Time Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This result is concordant with other phylogenetic investigations of fossil elopomorphs beginning with Woodward (1901), who proposed a close affinity between †Istieus and living Pterothrissus. This hypothesis has been continually supported based on various aspects of cranial and caudal anatomy (Greenwood et al, 1966;Forey, 1973;Forey and Maisey, 2010;de Figueiredo et al, 2012). Indeed, the close correspondence between †Isteus and Pterothrissus led Robins (1989) to suggest that the latter should be a junior synonym of the former, with naming of the fossil genus predating the living form by several decades.…”

Section: What Does It Mean To Be a Bonefish?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Uncertain relationships between albuliform lineages and anguilliformes also present a challenge to understanding the phylogenetic diversity of elopomorphs in the fossil record. (e.g., de Figueiredo et al 2012). Key albuliform taxa like †Baugeichthys, †Brannerion , and †Bullichthys appear in the Early Cretaceous (Filleul, 2000;Mayrinck et al, 2010;de Figueiredo et al, 2012;Bartholomai, 2013;Sweetman, 2013), but their significance is obscured by two interrelated factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Key albuliform taxa like †Baugeichthys, †Brannerion , and †Bullichthys appear in the Early Cretaceous (Filleul, 2000;Mayrinck et al, 2010;de Figueiredo et al, 2012;Bartholomai, 2013;Sweetman, 2013), but their significance is obscured by two interrelated factors. First, the exclusion of notacanthiforms and anguilliforms from many paleontological analyses (Forey and Maisey, 2010;de Figueiredo et al, 2012) means that the relationships of putative fossil albuliforms to several modern elopomorph lineages remain largely untested. Instead, paleontological studies generally interpret these fossils as stem members of the clade comprising Albula and pterothrissids (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Phylogenetic analysis of molecular and morphological data highlights uncertainty in the relationships of fossil and living species of Elopomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei)

Dornburg

Friedman

Near

2015

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elopomorpha is one of the three main clades of living teleost fishes and includes a range of disparate lineages including eels, tarpons, bonefishes, and halosaurs. Elopomorphs were among the first groups of fishes investigated using Hennigian phylogenetic methods and continue to be the object of intense phylogenetic scrutiny due to their economic significance, diversity, and crucial evolutionary status as the sister group of all other teleosts. While portions of the phylogenetic backbone for Elopomorpha are consistent between studies, the relationships among Albula, Pterothrissus, Notacanthiformes, and Anguilliformes remain contentious and difficult to evaluate. This lack of phylogenetic resolution is problematic as fossil lineages are often described and placed taxonomically based on an assumed sister group relationship between Albula and Pterothrissus. In addition, phylogenetic studies using morphological data that sample elopomorph fossil lineages often do not include notacanthiform or anguilliform lineages, potentially introducing a bias toward interpreting fossils as members of the common stem of Pterothrissus and Albula. Here we provide a phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences sampled from multiple nuclear genes that include representative taxa from Albula, Pterothrissus, Notacanthiformes and Anguilliformes. We integrate our molecular dataset with a morphological character matrix that spans both living and fossil elopomorph lineages. Our results reveal substantial uncertainty in the placement of Pterothrissus as well as all sampled fossil lineages, questioning the stability of the taxonomy of fossil Elopomorpha. However, despite topological uncertainty, our integration of fossil lineages into a Bayesian time calibrated framework provides divergence time estimates for the clade that are consistent with previously published age estimates based on the elopomorph fossil record and molecular estimates resulting from traditional node-dating methods.

show abstract