A reassessment of the genus<i>Groeberia</i>Patterson, 1952 (Mammalia, Metatheria): functional and phylogenetic implications

Zimicz, Ana Natalia; Goin, Francisco J.

doi:10.1080/14772019.2019.1706195

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of †Yalkaparidon in a trichotomy with †Evolestes and our remaining paucituberculatan terminals conflicts with the phylogenetic analyses of Beck et al (2014;, which suggest that †Yalkaparidon is probably an australidelphian (isolated tarsals referred to †Yalkaparidon by Beck et al [2014] exhibit apparently australidelphian apomorphies). However, subsequent analyses by and Zimicz and Goin (2020), which also included data from the putative †Yalkaparidon tarsals described by Beck et al (2014), placed Yalkaparidon in a clade with the caenolestids Caenolestes and †Palaeothentes (and also the argyrolagids †Proargyrolagus and †Argyrolagus; not included in this study), a result similar to that obtained in this analysis.…”

Section: Undated Total Evidence Analysissupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Current evidence (including the analyses presented here) indicates that diprotodontians evolved a similar lower incisor independently of paucituberculatans, so it is plausible that †Yalkaparidon represents a third origin of this tooth type. Based on our results, and those of other recent studies (Beck et al, 2014;Beck et al, 2016;Beck, 2017a;Abello and Candela, 2019;Zimicz and Goin, 2020), we consider the higher-level affinities of †Yalkaparidon to be uncertain, beyond its being a member of Marsupialia.…”

Section: Commentssupporting

confidence: 58%

“…Instead, we acknowledge that retroposon insertion studies (Nilsson et al, 2010;Gallus et al, 2015) and phylogenomic analyses (Duchene et al, 2018) collectively provide strong evidence that Microbiotheria, in fact, falls outside a clade comprising the four modern Australian orders (Eomarsupialia sensu Beck et al, 2014). Similarly, although our morphological and totalevidence analyses consistently placed †Yalkaparidon with Paucituberculata, we do not diagnose this clade below, because the position of †Yalkaparidon has varied considerably in other published studies (Beck et al, 2014;Beck et al, 2016;Beck, 2017a;Abello and Candela, 2019;Zimicz and Goin, 2020), and isolated tarsals tentatively referred to this taxon suggest australidelphian affinities (Beck et al, 2014). Thus, the pupose of these accounts is to summarize what appear to be plausibly supported clades on the basis of all available evidence, and to summarize available craniodental character support (or the lack thereof) as documented in this monograph.…”

Section: Taxonomic Accountsmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Some of these studies found only relatively weak support for monophyly of Eomarsupialia over alternative topologies, but the phylogenomic study of Duchêne et al (2018) strongly supported this clade, and four uncontradicted retrotransposon insertions also provide statistically significant support (p = 0.0123) for Eomarsupialia (Nilsson et al, 2010;Gallus et al, 2015). Although this collective evidence persuades us that Eomarsupialia is probably monophyletic, we did not enforce monophyly of this clade in our dated total-evidence analysis to avoid a priori constraints on taxa with uncertain relationshipsin particular †Yalkaparidon, which fell within Eomarsupialia in the total-evidence analysis of Beck et al (2016), but not in other published analyses (Beck et al, 2014;Abello and Candela, 2019;Zimicz and Goin, 2020).…”

Section: Molecular Analysesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…However, isolated tarsals tentatively referred to †Yalkaparidon by Beck et al (2014) show greater derived similarities to australidelphians than to paucituberculatans, and Beck et al's (2014) accompanying phylogenetic analyses also supported australidelphian affinities for this taxon (see also Beck et al, 2016). Nevertheless, the subsequent phylogenetic analyses of Beck (2017a) and Zimicz and Goin (2020), which included †Yalkaparidon and used character scores from these referred tarsals also placed this taxon in a clade with paucituberculatans (including argyrolagids, a fossil group not been included in our study; but see Abello and Candela, 2019). Although worthy of further investigation, we suspect that placement of †Yalkaparidon in a clade with paucituberculatans largely reflects convergent acquisitions of a gliriform lower incisor.…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Craniodental morphology and phylogeny of marsupials

Beck¹,

Voss²,

Jansa³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current literature on marsupial phylogenetics includes numerous studies based on analyses of morphological data with relatively limited sampling of Recent and fossil taxa, and many studies based on analyses of molecular data that include a dense sampling of Recent taxa, but relatively few that combine both data types. Another dichotomy in the marsupial phylogenetic literature is between studies that focus on New World taxa, others that focus on Sahulian taxa. To date, there has been no attempt to assess the phylogenetic relationships of the global marsupial fauna, based on combined analyses of morphology and molecular sequences, for a dense sampling of Recent and fossil taxa. For this report, we compiled morphological and molecular data from an unprecedented number of Recent and fossil marsupials. Our morphological data consist of 180 craniodental characters that we scored for 97 species representing every currently recognized Recent genus, 42 additional ingroup (crown-clade marsupial) taxa represented by well-preserved fossils, and 5 outgroups (non-marsupial metatherians). Our molecular data comprise 24.5 kb of DNA sequences from whole-mitochondrial genomes and six nuclear loci (APOB, BRCA1, GHR, RAG1, RBP3 and VWF) for 97 marsupial terminals (the same Recent taxa scored for craniodental morphology) and several placental and monotreme outgroups. The results of separate and combined analyses of these data using a wide range of phylogenetic methods support many currently accepted hypotheses of ingroup (marsupial) relationships, but they also underscore the difficulty of placing fossils with key missing data (e.g., †Evolestes), and the unique difficulty of placing others that exhibit mosaics of plesiomorphic and autapomorphic traits (e.g., †Yalkaparidon). Unique contributions of our study are (1) critical discussions and illustrations of marsupial craniodental morphology, including descriptions and illustrations of some features never previously coded for phylogenetic analysis; (2) critical assessments of relative support for many suprageneric clades; (3) estimates of divergence times derived from tip-and-node dating based on uniquely taxon-dense analyses; and (4) a revised, higher-order classification of marsupials accompanied by lists of supporting craniodental synapomorphies. Far from the last word on these topics, this report lays the foundation for future research that may be enabled by the discovery of new fossil taxa, better-preserved material of previously described taxa, novel morphological characters, and improved methods of phylogenetic analysis.

show abstract

Section: Undated Total Evidence Analysissupporting

confidence: 87%