Relationships among major lineages of characid fishes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characiformes), based on molecular sequence data

Abstract

The family Characidae is a group of freshwater bony fishes that exhibits high species-level diversity and whose members inhabit parts of Texas, Mexico, and Central and South America. Thus far, morphological data have been of limited use in discerning relationships among subfamilies and incertae sedis genera of the family Characidae. In this study, DNA sequence data from GenBank were combined with new sequences for analyses under Bayesian and parsimony schemes. Sequences fell into four gene partitions, with three genes in the mitochondrial subset (12S, 16S, COI genes) and one gene in the nuclear subset (RAG2 gene). Inferred Bayesian and parsimony-based phylogenies reject the monophyly of certain groups (e.g., Astyanax, Hyphessobrycon, and Bryconamericus), do not reject the monophyly of others (e.g., Cheirodontinae and "clade A" of previous authors), and present new sister-group hypotheses (e.g., Brittanichthys sister to Paracheirodon). Sister to clade A is a lineage referred to herein as "clade B" which includes Exodon and exemplars from Cheirodontinae (the most basal lineage within clade B), Aphyocharacinae, Tetragonopterinae, and Characinae (excluding Gnathocharax). "Clade C" is sister to A+B and contains representatives of large incertae sedis genera (e.g., Hyphessobrycon, Hemigrammus), as well as members of Stethaprioninae. Unless certain other subfamilial names are to be disregarded, the use of Tetragonopterinae should continue to be restricted to species of Tetragonopterus because other genera previously referred to this subfamily grouped in clades A or C, quite distant from Tetragonopterus.

Molecular phylogeny and biogeographic history of the Neotropical tribe Glandulocaudini (Characiformes: Characidae: Stevardiinae)

“…In despite of that, a well-supported clade contained five of the seven valid species of Mimagoniates was recovered. Similar results were obtained by previous molecular hypotheses (e.g., Javonillo et al, 2010;Thomaz et al, 2015a). Therefore, apparently there is no doubt about the monophyletic status of this genus.…”

“…Although the monophyly of Mimagoniates is well supported in the most current morphological hypothesis (i.e., Menezes, Weitzman, 2009) In the present hypothesis, there were no polytomies and the relationships among Mimagoniates species were fully resolved and received strong statistical support. Among the previous molecular hypotheses, only those of Javonillo et al (2010) and Thomaz et al (2015a) included more than one species of Mimagoniates and, in both, M. inequalis and M. rheocharis also appeared as closely related to each other, as found herein. According to Thomaz et al (2015a), this clade is sister to M. microlepis, but sequences of M. lateralis and M. sylvicola were not analyzed.…”

“…The assessment of the relationships between Glandulocaudini and other tribes of Stevardiinae was not a primary objective of the present paper, thus this issue will not discuss in depth. However, all available information suggests a putative relationship between Glandulocaudini and Stevardiini; despite the reduced taxon sampling, previous phylogenetic studies based on both morphology (e.g., Mirande, 2010) and DNA sequences (e.g., Calcagnotto et al, 2005;Javonillo et al, 2010;Oliveira et al, 2011) also proposed a close relationship between Glandulocaudini and Stevardiini sensu Thomaz et al (2015a).…”

“…2). Representatives of Glandulocaudini were included in phylogenetic studies based on molecular data by Calcagnotto et al (2005), Javonillo et al (2010), Oliveira et al (2011), and Thomaz et al (2015a). However, neither of them focused their work on the tribe as a whole and just a few species were analyzed leaving evolutionary issues involving the tribe unsolved.…”

A new species of Astyanax (Ostariophysi: Characiformes: Characidae) from the upper rio Iguaçu basin, southern Brazil

“…The monophyly of the genus is widely rejected at its current composition, being considered a polyphyletic or paraphyletic group (Weitzman & Malabarba, 1998;Calcagnoto et al, 2003;Javonillo et al, 2010;Mirande, 2010;Oliveira et al, 2011), what requires robust revisionary and phylogentic studies about the genus.…”