A new fossil actinistian from the Early Jurassic of Chile and its bearing on the phylogeny of Actinistia

Arratia, Gloria; Schultze, Hans‐Peter

doi:10.1080/02724634.2015.983524

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Morphological synapomorphies : see R Cloutier and P Ahlberg [ 348 ], H Dutel, JG Maisey, DR Schwimmer, P Janvier, M Herbin and G Clément [ 350 ] and G Arratia and HP Schultze [ 351 ] (extant taxa only).…”

Section: Construction and Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFish classifications, as those of most other taxonomic groups, are being transformed drastically as new molecular phylogenies provide support for natural groups that were unanticipated by previous studies. A brief review of the main criteria used by ichthyologists to define their classifications during the last 50 years, however, reveals slow progress towards using an explicit phylogenetic framework. Instead, the trend has been to rely, in varying degrees, on deep-rooted anatomical concepts and authority, often mixing taxa with explicit phylogenetic support with arbitrary groupings. Two leading sources in ichthyology frequently used for fish classifications (JS Nelson’s volumes of Fishes of the World and W. Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes) fail to adopt a global phylogenetic framework despite much recent progress made towards the resolution of the fish Tree of Life. The first explicit phylogenetic classification of bony fishes was published in 2013, based on a comprehensive molecular phylogeny (www.deepfin.org). We here update the first version of that classification by incorporating the most recent phylogenetic results.ResultsThe updated classification presented here is based on phylogenies inferred using molecular and genomic data for nearly 2000 fishes. A total of 72 orders (and 79 suborders) are recognized in this version, compared with 66 orders in version 1. The phylogeny resolves placement of 410 families, or ~80% of the total of 514 families of bony fishes currently recognized. The ordinal status of 30 percomorph families included in this study, however, remains uncertain (incertae sedis in the series Carangaria, Ovalentaria, or Eupercaria). Comments to support taxonomic decisions and comparisons with conflicting taxonomic groups proposed by others are presented. We also highlight cases were morphological support exist for the groups being classified.ConclusionsThis version of the phylogenetic classification of bony fishes is substantially improved, providing resolution for more taxa than previous versions, based on more densely sampled phylogenetic trees. The classification presented in this study represents, unlike any other, the most up-to-date hypothesis of the Tree of Life of fishes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Construction and Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, this correction has not been applied in all subsequent analyses (e.g. Geng et al, 2009;Dutel et al, 2012Dutel et al, , 2015Wendruff & Wilson, 2012;Zhu et al, 2012;Cavin et al, 2013Cavin et al, , 2017Wen et al, 2013;Cavin & Grădinaru, 2014;Gess & Coates, 2015;Arratia & Schultze, 2015), excepting Fragoso (2014).…”

Section: United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2012) assign the state 1 (bones unornamented), which is followed by Cavin et al (2013Cavin et al ( , 2017, Cavin & Grădinaru (2014), Dutel et al (2015) and Arratia & Schultze (2015). On the other hand, Fragoso (2014) assigns the state "?".…”

Section: 25mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of coelacanth fishes (Sarcopterygii, Actinistia) with comments on the composition of the Mawsoniidae and Latimeriidae: evaluating old and new methodological challenges and constraints

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Section 1: Inputs for analyses ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.1. List of characters ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.2. Scoring of Mawsonia …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.3. Data matrix and notes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.4. Stratigraphic occurrences ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.5. R commands for Stratigraphic Tree Analyses …………………………………………………………………….. Section 2: Phylogenetic analyses ………………………………………………………………………………………………….2.1. List of common synapomorphies of the analysis performed with all taxa …………….…………… 2.2. Majority rule consensus (50%) ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.3. Implied weighting (analysis performed with all taxa) ……………………………………………………………….2.4. Unstable taxa and Iterative PCR report ………….……………………………………………………………………….. 2.5. MPTs of the analysis performed without three taxa ……………………………………………………………….. 2.6. List of common synapomorphies of the analysis performed without three taxa ……………………... 2.7. Implied weighting (analysis performed without three taxa) …………………………………………………….Section 3: Time-scaled phylogenies ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.1. Time-scaled phylogeny with 'basic' approach …………………………………………………………………….3.2. Time-scaled phylogeny with 'mbl' approach ……………………………………………………………………… 3.3. Time-scaled phylogeny with 'equal' approach …………………………………………………………………… Section 4: Indexes throughout bibliography …….………………………………………………………………………..……… Section 5: Methodological considerations on the 'average ghost range' measure …………………………….

show abstract

“…Onychodontiformes are known from only six genera, and their fossil record extends from the Lower to the Upper Devonian (Cloutier & Ahlberg, 1996;Lu & Zhu, 2010;. Actinistians, or coelacanths, are known from two extant species, and their fossil record extends from the Lower Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous (Arratia & Schultze, 2015;Cloutier & Ahlberg, 1996;Cloutier & Forey, 1991;Forey, 1998;Friedman, 2007;Johanson, Long, Talent, Janvier, & Warren, 2006;Zhu, Yu, Choo, Wang, et al, 2012;. Actinistians, or coelacanths, are known from two extant species, and their fossil record extends from the Lower Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous (Arratia & Schultze, 2015;Cloutier & Ahlberg, 1996;Cloutier & Forey, 1991;Forey, 1998;Friedman, 2007;Johanson, Long, Talent, Janvier, & Warren, 2006;Zhu, Yu, Choo, Wang, et al, 2012;.…”

Section: Sarcopterygiimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Postcranial material is known only for a few species: they all have pectoral and pelvic fins, two dorsal fins, a single anal fin, and a caudal fin (Andrews, Long, Ahlberg, Barwick, & Campbell, 2005;Jessen, 1966). Actinistians, or coelacanths, are known from two extant species, and their fossil record extends from the Lower Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous (Arratia & Schultze, 2015;Cloutier & Ahlberg, 1996;Cloutier & Forey, 1991;Forey, 1998;Friedman, 2007;Johanson, Long, Talent, Janvier, & Warren, 2006;Zhu, Yu, Choo, Wang, et al, 2012;. Actinistians display little disparity in fin configurations, even in terms of the shape of individual fins with a few rare exceptions concerning caudal fin morphology (Cloutier, 1991(Cloutier, , 1996Forey, 1998;Wendruff & Wilson, 2012).…”

Section: Sarcopterygiimentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fishes are both extremely diverse and morphologically disparate. Part of this disparity can be observed in the numerous possible fin configurations that may differ in terms of the number of fins as well as fin shapes, sizes and relative positions on the body. Here, we thoroughly review the major patterns of disparity in fin configurations for each major group of fishes and discuss how median and paired fin homologies have been interpreted over time. When taking into account the entire span of fish diversity, including both extant and fossil taxa, the disparity in fin morphologies greatly complicates inferring homologies for individual fins. Given the phylogenetic scope of this review, structural and topological criteria appear to be the most useful indicators of fin identity. We further suggest that it may be advantageous to consider some of these fin homologies as nested within the larger framework of homologous fin‐forming morphogenetic fields. We also discuss scenarios of appendage evolution and suggest that modularity may have played a key role in appendage disparification. Fin modules re‐expressed within the boundaries of fin‐forming fields could explain how some fins may have evolved numerous times independently in separate lineages (e.g., adipose fin), or how new fins may have evolved over time (e.g., anterior and posterior dorsal fins, pectoral and pelvic fins). We favour an evolutionary scenario whereby median appendages appeared from a unique field of competence first positioned throughout the dorsal and ventral midlines, which was then redeployed laterally leading to paired appendages.

show abstract

A new fossil actinistian from the Early Jurassic of Chile and its bearing on the phylogeny of Actinistia

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of coelacanth fishes (Sarcopterygii, Actinistia) with comments on the composition of the Mawsoniidae and Latimeriidae: evaluating old and new methodological challenges and constraints

A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About