Molecular phylogenetics of New World searobins (Triglidae; Prionotinae)

Portnoy, David S.; Willis, Stuart C.; Hunt, Elizabeth P.; Swift, Dominic G.; Gold, John R.; Conway, Kevin W.

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2016.11.017

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditional classifications (e.g., Gill, 1888;Washington et al, 1984;Imamura, 1996;Eschmeyer et al, 2017) often treat the Peristediidae and Triglidae as independent, closely related families. Our study corroborates the findings of Smith (2005) and Portnoy et al (2017) that place the traditional peristediids (our peristediines) within the Triglidae. Other than the placement of peristediines inside the triglids, our hypothesized relationships support the phylogenies of Imamura (1996) and Richards and Jones (2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Other than the placement of peristediines inside the triglids, our hypothesized relationships support the phylogenies of Imamura (1996) and Richards and Jones (2002). Similarly, our phylogeny supports the phylogeny of Portnoy et al (2017), including the placement of peristediines inside the Triglidae. This placement and resulting expansion (and monophyly) of the Triglidae is supported by both morphological and molecular data, and our study recovers seven characters supporting the monophyly of this expanded family (Appendix 2).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Despite these similarities to other studies, the combined analysis of morphological and molecular data is frequently in conflict with the traditional taxonomy and prior phylogenetic work. The traditional Peristediidae was nested within the Triglidae (see also Portnoy et al, 2017), Bembradium was allied with Plectrogenium (see also Imamura, 1996Imamura, , 2004, Tetrarogidae was widely polyphyletic within a ''stonefish'' clade (see also Mandrytza, 2001;Smith and Wheeler, 2004;Honma et al, 2013), and representatives of the Scorpaenidae and Sebastidae were variously distributed within a ''scorpionfish'' clade. If we compare our results to a recent classification of fishes (Betancur-R. et al, 2017), we note that their Percoidei, Platycephaloidei, Serranoidei, Scorpaenidae, Serranidae, Tetrarogidae, and Triglidae were recovered as polyphyletic.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These morphological studies have provided phylogenies that are both iterative improvements building upon previous work as well as evolutionary hypotheses that are incongruent with preceding studies. In addition to these morphological phylogenies, there have been DNA-sequencebased explorations of the Scorpaenoidei or major groups within it (e.g., Wheeler, 2004, 2006;Hyde and Vetter, 2007;Smith and Craig, 2007;Lautredou et al, 2013;Portnoy et al, 2017;Fig. 2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Phylogeny and Taxonomy of Flatheads, Scorpionfishes, Sea Robins, and Stonefishes (Percomorpha: Scorpaeniformes) and the Evolution of the Lachrymal Saber

Smíth¹,

Everman²,

Richardson³

2018

Copeia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on the discovery of a remarkable defensive specialization in stonefishes that was identified during a phylogenetic study of scorpionfishes and their relatives. This newly described innovation, the lachrymal saber, involves modifications to the circumorbitals, maxilla, adductor mandibulae, and associated tendons. At its core, the lachrymal saber is an elongation of an anterior spine (or spines) on the ventral surface of the lachrymal that stonefishes are capable of rotating from the standard ventral position to a locked lateral position. The locking mechanism minimally includes a bony spur on the inner surface of the lachrymal and a ridged bony protuberance on the anterolateral end of the maxilla. A modified and highly subdivided adductor mandibulae appears to control the movement of the lachrymal saber by rotating the maxilla while it is engaged with the spur on the medial side of the lachrymal. This maxillary rotation results in a subsequent rotation of the lachrymal that we hypothesize reduces predation on stonefishes. This specialization was included in our phylogenetic analysis of scorpaenoid fishes. This study expands upon the previous higher-level taxonomic sampling reported in earlier evolutionary studies of scorpaenoid fishes and, unlike previous analyses, explicitly combines molecular and morphological data with an expanded taxonomic sampling to mitigate the conflict between these competing datasets. The resulting phylogeny based on a combination of 113 morphological and 5,280 molecular characters for 63 species is used to produce a revised taxonomy of flatheads, scorpionfishes, sea robins, and stonefishes. Our results do not support the monophyly of the traditional Scorpaeniformes, Scorpaenoidei, Scorpaenoidea, Platycephaloidea, Bembridae, Scorpaenidae, Sebastidae, Serranidae, Tetrarogidae, or Triglidae. Our monophyletic taxonomy recognizes nine monophyletic families: Bembridae, Congiopodidae, Hoplichthyidae, Neosebastidae, Platycephalidae, Plectrogeniidae, Scorpaenidae, Synanceiidae, and Triglidae. The taxonomic composition of the Congiopodidae, Hoplichthyidae, Neosebastidae, and Platycephalidae are unchanged. The Bembridae is expanded to include the recently described Parabembridae, while Bembradium is moved to the Plectrogeniidae. The Scorpaenidae is expanded to include the traditional Sebastidae and Setarchidae. The Triglidae is expanded to include the Peristediidae. Finally, a revised Synanceiidae, diagnosed by the lachrymal saber, is expanded to include the Apistidae, Aploactinidae, Eschmeyeridae, Gnathanacanthidae, Pataecidae, Perryenidae, and Tetrarogidae. Based on these results, we recommend treating all of these traditional scorpaenoid clades as families in an expanded Scorpaeniformes that includes a restricted Scorpaenoidei that includes all traditional scorpaenoid families except the Congiopodidae. The resulting phylogeny is then used to explore aspects of scorpaenoid evolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phylogeny and Taxonomy of Flatheads, Scorpionfishes, Sea Robins, and Stonefishes (Percomorpha: Scorpaeniformes) and the Evolution of the Lachrymal Saber

Smíth¹,

Everman²,

Richardson³

2018

Copeia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Benthic fishes frequently interact with the substrate during both feeding and locomotion, resulting in adaptations for both functions in benthic residents. For example, lie-and-wait predation is associated with diverse secondary adaptations in benthic fish and modifications to the paired fins of sea robins, frogfishes, clingfishes and dragonets that facilitate walking and gripping the substrate [42][43][44]. In addition to the emergence of unique and novel appendages, physical contact with the substrate appears to be a significant cause of body shape diversification in benthic fishes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body shape diversification along the benthic–pelagic axis in marine fishes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colonization of novel habitats can result in marked phenotypic responses to the new environment that include changes in body shape and opportunities for further morphological diversification. Fishes have repeatedly transitioned along the benthic–pelagic axis, with varying degrees of association with the substrate. Previous work focusing on individual lineages shows that these transitions are accompanied by highly predictable changes in body form. Here, we generalize expectations drawn from this literature to study the effects of habitat on body shape diversification across 3344 marine teleost fishes. We compare rates and patterns of evolution in eight linear measurements of body shape among fishes that live in pelagic, demersal and benthic habitats. While average body shape differs between habitats, these differences are subtle compared with the high diversity of shapes found within each habitat. Benthic living increases the rate of body shape evolution and has led to numerous lineages evolving extreme body shapes, including both exceptionally wide bodies and highly elongate, eel-like forms. By contrast, we find that benthic living is associated with the slowest diversification of structures associated with feeding. Though we find that habitat can serve as an impetus for predictable trait changes, we also highlight the diversity of responses in marine teleosts to opportunities presented by major habitats.

show abstract