Dismantling the trachinoidei: evidence of a scorpaenoid relationship for the Champsodontidae

Abstract

. 1997. Dismantling the Trachinoidei: evidence of a scorpaenoid relationship for the Champsodontidae. Ichthyol. Res., 44 (2): 143-176. AbstractAn examination of the osteology and myology of the Champsodontidae reveals a number of apomorphic features (e.g., double-headed palatine, large pelvic radial, epaxial muscle inserting on the medial pelvic-fin ray, posterior levator internus inserting on the third epibranchial). The evidence for a Champsodontidae/Chiasmodontidae relationship is examined through a re-evaluation of the basal characters used to define the suborder Trachinoidei. The Champsodoutidae are removed from the Trachinoidei and a chiasmodontid sister relationship is rejected. After investigation of severaI possible alternative relationships (Paracanthopterygii, Gobioidei, Callionymoidei, Kurtoidei, Apogonidae, Blennioidei, Trichodontidae), champsodontids are hypothesized to be members of the perciform suborder Scorpaenoidei. This hypothesis is based largely on the synapomorphy of a parietal spine with an opening for passage of the supratemporal sensory canal, a unique condition of champsodontids and some scorpaenoids. A shared Type 1 epaxial muscle morphology, with separate fibre insertions on the distal tips of the spine-bearing dorsal-fin pterygiophores, is unusual and probably derived among perciforms. Champsodontids also share with some scorpaenoids Type 5 spinoid scales and the origin of Baudelot's ligament from the first vertebra rather than the basi-occipital, although neither of these features is unique to these taxa. The occurrence of an enclosed sensory. canal on the parietals of Trichodontidae suggest that their relationships might also lie with the Scorpaenoidei. Arguments pertaining to the removal of champsodontids from the trachinoids apply equally to the hypothesized membership of the Cheimarrichthyidae, Pinguipedidae, Percophididae, Trichonotidae, Creediidae, Chiasmodontidae, and notothenioids in the Trachinoidei. Inclusion of these taxa within the Trachinoidei is not well-supported, and their relationships require further investigation.

Redefinition and phylogenetic relationships of the family Pinguipedidae (Teleostei: Perciformes)

“…For example, the Uranoscopidae and Trachinidae share seven derived characters among the characters listed in Tables 1 and 3, and at least the following nine additional derived characters recognized in this study: 1, the parasphenoid and pterosphenoid attached; 2, the cranium with many tubercles and/or lumps; 3, presence of a developed hyomandibular process; 4, the cleithrum with a strong spine posteriorly; 5, the lateral and medial sides of the lower two actinosts expanded anteriorly and sandwiching the coracoid; 6, the pelvic girdle strongly extended from the pectoral girdle anteriorly; 7, the lower two hypurals fused, the epidermal covering of the scales fully united between the adjacent scales; 8, the scales forming discrete and oblique rows; and 9, the cutaneous axillary appendage associated with the pectoral fin (see also Pietsch and Zabetian, 1990). As Mooi and Johnson (1997) questioned the monophyly and limits of the Trachinoidei, it is difficult to hypothesize the ingroup, including Cheimarrichthys and the Pinguipedidae, for a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis. Therefore, it is proposed here that the family Pinguipedidae be redefined as a taxon, excluding Cheimarrichthys, which is placed in its own family, Cheimarrichthyidae, without hypothesizing a sister group for either Cheimarrichthys or the Pinguipedidae.…”

“…In this study, the phylogenetic relationships of the Pinguipedidae plus Cheimarrichthys are analyzed to test McDowall's (1973) hypothesis, recognizing provisionally these taxa as comprising a monophyletic group, sharing nine derived characters (PC), for the operational procedure of the phylogenetic analysis, although the monophyly of Pinguipedidae plus Cheimarrichthys is uncertain. Although it may be effective to include additional taxa, such as other trachinoid families, for phylogenetic analysis to test a close relationship of Parapercis and Cheimarrichthys, we did not include them in the analysis because the relationships of these taxa and other trachinoids are unclear (Mooi and Johnson, 1997) (see also comments under Discussion).…”

“…When comparing nine PC with other trachinoids (sensu Nelson, 1994, minus Champsodontidae, which was removed from the suborder by Mooi and Johnson, 1997), it was revealed that they are widely distributed among the suborder Trachinoidei and that no characters are autapomorphic for the Pinguipedidae and Cheimarrichthys (Table 1). Therefore, the monophyly of these taxa cannot be strongly supported by these characters.…”

Enigmatic spiny‐rayed fish from the Eocene of Monte Bolca, Italy

“…Pietsch (1989) and Pietsch and Zabetian (1990) provided a cladistic analysis of the group, restricting it to 11 families. Johnson (1993) and subsequently Mooi and Gill (1995) and Mooi and Johnson (1997) considered some of the synapomorphies listed by Pietsch (1989) and Pietsch and Zabetian (1990) as unconvincing and interpreted the integrity of the group as dubious. Pietsch (1989) and Pietsch and Zabetian (1990) listed two synapomorphies for all trachinoid families: presence of small, short, wide pectoral-fin radials and presence of a pelvic spur.…”

Phylogenetic position of the family Trichodontidae (Teleostei: Perciformes), with a revised classification of the perciform suborder Cottoidei

“…1), which had been regarded as a synapomorphy of the former "Scorpaeniformes" (e.g., Gill, 1888;Matsubara, 1943;Shinohara, 1994;Yabe and Uyeno, 1996), the posterior margin of the third infraorbital is slightly pointed in the family. Additionally, there are several osteological similarities, which had been regarded as homoplasies a priori, in the previous descriptions of Trichodontidae and Cottoidei (Starks, 1930;Mooi and Johnson, 1997;Nazarkin and Voskoboinikova, 2000;Imamura and Yabe, 2002).…”