2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2006.12.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular phylogenetic study on the origin and evolution of Mustelidae

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

13
64
1
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
13
64
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Notably, Mustela was found to consistently group with Lutrinae to the exclusion of Martes (BS>85% and PP>0.95), indicating the paraphyly of Mustelinae. The sister-grouping of Mustela with Mustelinae and Lutrinae recovered here was in accordance with the results of previous studies based on analyses of other mito-chondrial and nuclear gene combinations (Sato et al, 2003(Sato et al, , 2004(Sato et al, , 2006Koepfli and Wayne, 2003;Marmi et al, 2004;Delisle and Strobeck, 2005;Flynn et al, 2005;Fulton and Strobeck, 2006;Yonezawa et al, 2007). The traditional view from fossil evidence (Wolsan, 1999) and from morphological data (Hunt, 1974;Wozencraft, 1989;Wyss and Flynn, 1993;Bryant et al, 1993), as well as from mustelid supertree construction (Bininda-Emonds et al, 1999), in which Lutrinae was closer to Mephitinae, was not supported in this study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Notably, Mustela was found to consistently group with Lutrinae to the exclusion of Martes (BS>85% and PP>0.95), indicating the paraphyly of Mustelinae. The sister-grouping of Mustela with Mustelinae and Lutrinae recovered here was in accordance with the results of previous studies based on analyses of other mito-chondrial and nuclear gene combinations (Sato et al, 2003(Sato et al, , 2004(Sato et al, , 2006Koepfli and Wayne, 2003;Marmi et al, 2004;Delisle and Strobeck, 2005;Flynn et al, 2005;Fulton and Strobeck, 2006;Yonezawa et al, 2007). The traditional view from fossil evidence (Wolsan, 1999) and from morphological data (Hunt, 1974;Wozencraft, 1989;Wyss and Flynn, 1993;Bryant et al, 1993), as well as from mustelid supertree construction (Bininda-Emonds et al, 1999), in which Lutrinae was closer to Mephitinae, was not supported in this study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The monophyly of the subfamilies in Mustelidae has also been a subject of controversies arising from previous investigations. Among them, Mustelinae, the largest and most diverse subfamily in Mustelidae, has been gradually accepted to be a paraphyletic group (Bryant et al, 1993;Dragoo and Honeycutt, 1997;Wayne, 1998, 2003;Hosoda et al, 2000;Sato et al, 2003Sato et al, , 2004Sato et al, , 2006Marmi et al, 2004;Delisle and Strobeck, 2005;Flynn et al, 2005;Fulton and Strobeck, 2006;Yonezawa et al, 2007), although there are still diverging views from molecular and morphological data (Bininda-Emonds et al, 1999). Our analyses confirmed non-monophyletic origin of this subfamily, as evidenced by its inclusion of Lutrinae.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
See 3 more Smart Citations