Literature DB >> 21600996

Monophyly and interrelationships of Snook and Barramundi (Centropomidae sensu Greenwood) and five new markers for fish phylogenetics.

Chenhong Li1, Betancur-R Ricardo, Wm Leo Smith, Guillermo Ortí.   

Abstract

Centropomidae as defined by Greenwood (1976) is composed of three genera: Centropomus, Lates, and Psammoperca. But composition and monophyly of this family have been challenged in subsequent morphological studies. In some classifications, Ambassis, Siniperca and Glaucosoma were added to the Centropomidae. In other studies, Lates+Psammoperca were excluded, restricting the family to Centropomus. Recent analyses of DNA sequences did not solve the controversy, mainly due to limited taxonomic or character sampling. The present study is based on DNA sequence data from thirteen genes (one mitochondrial and twelve nuclear markers) for 57 taxa, representative of all relevant species. Five of the nuclear markers are new for fish phylogenetic studies. The monophyly of Centropomidae sensu Greenwood was supported by both maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses of a concatenated data set (12,888 bp aligned). No support was found for previous morphological hypotheses suggesting that ambassids are closely allied to the Centropomidae. Putative affinities between centropomids and Glaucosoma, Niphon, or Siniperca were strongly rejected by topology tests. In agreement with previous molecular hypotheses, our results place Centropomidae within a group of fishes that includes carangoids (e.g., jacks, remoras, dolphinfish, roosterfish, and cobia), flatfishes, barracudas, archerfishes, billfishes, moonfish, and threadfins. The phylogeny for the extant Centropomidae is ((Lates, Psammoperca), Centropomus).
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21600996     DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.05.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol        ISSN: 1055-7903            Impact factor:   4.286


  6 in total

1.  Are flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) monophyletic?

Authors:  Matthew A Campbell; Wei-Jen Chen; J Andrés López
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 4.286

2.  The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes.

Authors:  Ricardo Betancur-R; Richard E Broughton; Edward O Wiley; Kent Carpenter; J Andrés López; Chenhong Li; Nancy I Holcroft; Dahiana Arcila; Millicent Sanciangco; James C Cureton Ii; Feifei Zhang; Thaddaeus Buser; Matthew A Campbell; Jesus A Ballesteros; Adela Roa-Varon; Stuart Willis; W Calvin Borden; Thaine Rowley; Paulette C Reneau; Daniel J Hough; Guoqing Lu; Terry Grande; Gloria Arratia; Guillermo Ortí
Journal:  PLoS Curr       Date:  2013-04-18

3.  Phylogenomic analysis of carangimorph fishes reveals flatfish asymmetry arose in a blink of the evolutionary eye.

Authors:  Richard C Harrington; Brant C Faircloth; Ron I Eytan; W Leo Smith; Thomas J Near; Michael E Alfaro; Matt Friedman
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.260

4.  Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes.

Authors:  Ricardo Betancur-R; Edward O Wiley; Gloria Arratia; Arturo Acero; Nicolas Bailly; Masaki Miya; Guillaume Lecointre; Guillermo Ortí
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 3.260

5.  Phylogenetics of Archerfishes (Toxotidae) and Evolution of the Toxotid Shooting Apparatus.

Authors:  M G Girard; M P Davis; Tan H H; D J Wedd; P Chakrabarty; W B Ludt; A P Summers; W L Smith
Journal:  Integr Org Biol       Date:  2022-03-21

6.  The covert world of fish biofluorescence: a phylogenetically widespread and phenotypically variable phenomenon.

Authors:  John S Sparks; Robert C Schelly; W Leo Smith; Matthew P Davis; Dan Tchernov; Vincent A Pieribone; David F Gruber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.