scholarly journals Phylogenetic Systematics of the Family Peristediidae (Teleostei: Actinopterygii)

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshio Kawai
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
The Family

Systematic relationships of Propelops, with a modification of family-group taxa in Phenopelopoidea (Acari: Oribatida)

1986 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 2370-2383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy A. Norton ◽  
Valerie M. Behan-Pelletier
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Oribatid Mite ◽  
Family Group ◽  
Coniferous Forests ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
The Family ◽  
Systematic Relationships ◽  
Mite Genus ◽  
Subjective Synonym

Relationships of the oribatid mite genus Propelops, whose members are common in the litter of North American coniferous forests, are assessed using the principles of phylogenetic systematics; characters of both adults and newly discovered immatures are analyzed. The closest relatives of Propelops are among the Phenopelopidae (despite the lack of specialized mouthparts previously used to characterize the family) rather than the Ceratozetidae, as commonly suggested. A new phenopelopid subfamily, Propelopinae, is proposed to include Propelops. The phenopelopid genus Tectopelops Jacot, 1929 is considered a junior subjective synonym of Eupelops Ewing, 1917. Unduloribatidae, most commonly included among the Oribatelloidea, is transferred to the Phenopelopoidea, and new diagnoses are presented for all phenopelopoid family-group taxa.

scholarly journals Phylogenetic Systematics of Pterostichites (Carabidae)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kipling Will
Keyword(s):  
Northern Hemisphere ◽  
Phylogenetic Study ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
The Family

As typically comprised, Pterostichitae includes about 10% of the species described in Carabidae. The phylogenetic study of the family Carabidae headed up by D. Maddison (OSU) that includes 550 carabid species covers all major clades of pterostichites and their putative relatives in Harpalinae. I will present results for the Pterostichitae from that analysis, focusing on relationships among major clades in the Northern Hemisphere (Pterostichina, Zabrina, Sphodrina) and the placement of more distantly related taxa (e.g., Abacetini, Drimostomatini). As analyses of the data have not yet been completed, there will be additional discoveries this summer, about which I will report in my talk.

scholarly journals Phylogenetic Systematics of the Family Pentacerotidae(Actinopterygii: Order Perciformes)

Zootaxa ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3366 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEONG-YONG KIM
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Monophyletic Group ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
Consensus Tree ◽  
Strict Consensus Tree ◽  
Center Of Origin ◽  
Region I ◽  
The Family ◽  
Lateral Ethmoid ◽  
Transformation Series

The osteologic and myologic characteristics of the family Pentacerotidae are described in detail. The family Pentaceroti-dae is a monophyletic group supported by 11 synapomorphies found in all family members. Of their synapomorphies, two(the second infraorbital and endopterygoid articulate with lateral ethmoid conditions) are considerably rare in percoidsand strongly support the monophyly of the family. A comparison of 44 transformation series among all species revealedfour equally parsimonious trees, and a strict consensus tree was adopted. On the basis of the inferred phylogenetic rela-tionships of the Pentacerotidae, this family was cladistically classified into two subfamilies and seven genera: Histiopter-inae (Histiopterus, Evistias, Zanclistius, Pentaceropsis, Paristiopterus, and Parazanclistius) and Pentacerotinae(Pentaceros). The center of origin of pentacerotids was inferred to be the Southern Australian region. I propose that the two families, Ostracoberycidae and Chaetodontidae, are closely related with Pentacerotidae.

scholarly journals Phylogenetic systematics of the driftwood catfishes (Siluriformes: Auchenipteridae): a combined morphological and molecular analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 187 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bárbara B Calegari ◽  
Richard P Vari ◽  
Roberto E Reis
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Classification Scheme ◽  
Optimality Criteria ◽  
Valid Species ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
Species Relationships ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Consensus Tree ◽  
Strict Consensus Tree ◽  
The Family

Abstract A comprehensive phylogeny of species relationships of the Auchenipteridae is reconstructed here with a large-scale taxon sampling based on combined morphological and molecular datasets. The hypothesized phylogeny includes most species of Auchenipteridae (97 of 124 valid species) and multiple members of siluriform families as an outgroup (32 species) to embrace the diversity of forms among related catfishes. As the first large-scale phylogeny of the Auchenipteridae, comparison between taxa included information from both morphology (264 characters) and mitochondrial and nuclear molecular markers (3490 nucleotides) from five genes: coI, 16S, rag2, myh6 and SH3PX3. Trees were generated under two different optimality criteria (Maximum Parsimony and Bayesian Inference). A new classification for the family is presented herein to bring the taxonomy more in line with the new phylogenetic hypothesis. The strict consensus tree corroborates the monophyly of superfamily Doradoidea, family Auchenipteridae and its two subfamilies, Centromochlinae and Auchenipterinae. The new classification scheme proposes nine tribes in Auchenipteridae, based on the monophyly of major groups in both subfamilies. Centromochlus, Glanidium and Tatia are each recovered as paraphyletic. To maintain a monophyletic classification, some species treated as Tatia and Centromochlus are assigned to genera not previously recognized as valid.

scholarly journals The phylogenetic systematics of blue-tailed skinks (Plestiodon) and the family Scincidae

2012 ◽  
Vol 165 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTHEW C. BRANDLEY ◽  
HIDETOSHI OTA ◽  
TSUTOMU HIKIDA ◽  
ADRIÁN NIETO MONTES DE OCA ◽  
MANUEL FERÍA-ORTÍZ ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
The Family

scholarly journals Theoretical and applied significance of systematics, its methodologies in the study of aphids (Homoptera, Aphidoidea)

2016 ◽  
pp. 316-339
Author(s):  
V.A. Mamontova
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Level ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
Species Determination ◽  
Genealogical Tree ◽  
Full Compliance ◽  
School Teaching ◽  
The Family ◽  
Main Thing ◽  
Evolutionary Taxonomy ◽  
Morphological Patterns

The literature data and the author’s own research, have exhaustively proved that taxonomy provides a framework for all other studies in entomology. The main thing in the taxonomy is full compliance with the genealogical tree of the study group, i.e., its evolutionary path determining the phylogeny of the group. There are two accepted methods for compiling the system and species determination: “evolutionary taxonomy”, which the author of the article is based on and economical computer Hennig’s “phylogenetic systematics” (Hennig, 1954, 1956) or cladistics. Specific examples show that the preference to cladistics among foreign aphidologists leads to by no means reliable conclusions, inconsistent with the systems under study. Even carried out at the high molecular level (Normark, 2000), it does not save the family tree from errors and conventions. Thus, cladistic methodology in the study of aphids (due to their complex biology, and polymorphism in particular) is completely unacceptable. Only evolutionary taxonomy, based on A. N. Severtsov’s and his school teaching «Morphological Patterns of Evolution» is allowable.

Phylogenetic systematics of Tertiary monophorasterid sand dollars (Clypeasteroida: Echinoidea) from South America

2000 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rich Mooi ◽  
Sergio Martínez ◽  
Sara G. Parma
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Analysis ◽  
New Species ◽  
South America ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
South American ◽  
The South ◽  
Parsimonious Tree ◽  
The Family ◽  
Sand Dollars ◽  
A New Species

Sand dollars in the Monophorasteridae Lahille, 1896, form an important part of the South American Cenozoic echinoid fauna. Re-examination of type and other material adds significantly to our knowledge of the morphology and taxonomy of the family, and shows that besides Monophoraster darwini (Desor, 1847), M. duboisi (Cotteau, 1884), Amplaster coloniensis Martínez, 1984, and A. alatus Rossi de Garcia and Levy, 1989, there is a new species, A. ellipticus. We also show that Karlaster Marchesini Santos, 1958, is not a monophorasterid as once thought. A phylogenetic analysis of 24 characters assessed from all species of Monophoraster Lambert and Thiéry, 1921, and Amplaster Martínez, 1984, along with genera of the Mellitidae Stefanini, 1912, produced a single most parsimonious tree. The analysis demonstrates monophyly of mellitids and monophorasterids, and that Iheringiella Berg, 1898, should be excluded from the latter. Although both Monophoraster Lambert and Thiéry, 1921, and Amplaster Martínez, 1984, retain many features of an ancestor in common with the Mellitidae Stefanini, 1912, they also exhibit bizarre morphologies quite different from those of mellitids. The study has also resulted in a clearer picture of the biogeography and biostratigraphy of the Monophorasteridae, and their great significance in the evolution of lunulate sand dollars in the Americas.

Phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of the sand crab families Albuneidae and Blepharipodidae (Crustacea : Anomura : Hippoidea)

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher B. Boyko ◽  
Alan W. Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Characters ◽  
Sensu Stricto ◽  
Morphological Evidence ◽  
Phylogenetic Systematics ◽  
Fossil Species ◽  
The Family ◽  
Outgroup Species ◽  
Phylogenetic Hypotheses

Many unrelated crustaceans sharing a suite of convergent specialisations for a sand-burrowing existence have been placed in the anomuran family Albuneidae at one time or another. Although most of these non-albuneids have long since been reassigned to other families, recent molecular and morphological evidence has suggested a further split within the family between the Albuneidae (sensu stricto) and the Blepharipodidae. We used 173 morphological characters to test phylogenetic hypotheses about the monophyly of the Albuneidae and Blepharipodidae, as well as their constituent genera. We included 61 known species of albuneids and blepharipodids (including eight fossil species) and six outgroup species in five anomuran families. Analyses confirm that the Albuneidae and the Blepharipodidae are separate and monophyletic taxa that have convergently evolved similar adaptations to sand burrowing. Zygopa Holthuis, 1961 and Squillalbunea Boyko, 2002 are sister-taxa to the rest of the Albuneidae; all other Recent genera of albuneids are well supported and form two clades at the subfamily level. An Indo-Pacific origin for the Albuneidae is proposed and various scenarios regarding possible routes of dispersal are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document