2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.04.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogeny of Cephalobina (Nematoda): Molecular evidence for recurrent evolution of probolae and incongruence with traditional classifications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
76
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
76
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Probolae are continuous with the collagenous body wall cuticle and are secreted de novo during each of four molts. Probolae are specific to the Cephalobinae and appear to have evolved rapidly, diversifying greatly within the group (Sauer and Annels, 1984;Nadler et al, 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probolae are continuous with the collagenous body wall cuticle and are secreted de novo during each of four molts. Probolae are specific to the Cephalobinae and appear to have evolved rapidly, diversifying greatly within the group (Sauer and Annels, 1984;Nadler et al, 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of this uniqueness, the absence of a characteristic gonoduct system for early diverging Tylenchina (Bert et al, 2008), and the fact that in rhabditid nematodes the gonoduct structure even varies significantly across genera (Geraert et al, 1980), it is difficult to compare the Steinernema gonoduct structure with putatively closed related taxa. Thus, the gonoduct structure does not provide any morphological clues to the molecular based discussion about the phylogenetic position of Steinernema, i.e., within (De Ley & Blaxter, 2002) or outside (Nadler et al, 2006a) the Tylenchina. However, the overall similarity in gonoduct structure within the genus may be an additional argument supporting the coherence of the genus Steinernema, a feature also shown from other morphological and molecular studies (Stock et al, 2001;Spiridonov et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Despite several phylogenetic SSU and LSU rDNA analyses the position of Steinernematidae remains uncertain. In this paper we follow De Ley and Blaxter (2002) and place the family under the Strongyloidoidea within the Tylenchina, a placement also accepted by Holterman et al (2006), Hunt (2007), Meldal et al (2007) and Bert et al (2008), although rejected by Nadler et al (2006a).…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…As described, molecular sequence data of A. nanus was the same or very similar to some other acrobeloids; however, its morphology clearly distinguishes A. nanus from A. thornei (with two lateral incisures, setose labial probolae and pointed tail), A. buetschlii (with three lateral incisures), A. ellesmerensis (with four lateral incisures with three extending to tail end, and setose labial probolae), A. uberrinus (with two to three incisures extending to tail end, and setose labial probolae), and A. apiculatus (with a pointed tail). In addition, earlier studies have reported that the D2-D3 region of 28S rDNA and the 18S sequence did not show clear resolution in their relationships among some species within Cephalobidae (Holterman et al, 2006;Nadler et al, 2006;Smythe and Nadler, 2006;Sonnenberg et al, 2007;RybarczykMydłowska et al, 2012). Therefore, the D2-D3 region of 28S rDNA and 18S rDNA should be used with great caution as molecular markers for species level identification of Acrobeloides species.…”
Section: Systematic Accountsmentioning
confidence: 91%