Relationships of Lower Euteleostean Fishes

Johnson, G. David; Patterson, Colin

doi:10.1016/b978-012670950-6/50013-8

Cited by 178 publications

(259 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

220

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…gobioids arose in freshwater, from a marine ancestor, then returned to marine habitats once or many times.'' Whether diadromy or euryhalinity is a primitive or derived life history pattern for fishes has been debated seemingly endlessly (Tchernavin, 1939;Denison, 1956;Patterson, 1975;Griffith, 1987;McDowall, 1988McDowall, , 1993McDowall, , 1997aJohnson & Patterson, 1996;Bemis & Kynard, 1997;Waters et al, 2000; see especially review in Janvier, 2007). The distribution of fishes throughout epicontinental seas, including along their margins, as proposed for basal actinopterygians, is in accord with numerous explanations for the evolution of solely freshwater or marine taxa from widespread diadromous or euryhaline ancestors.…”

Section: Epicontinental Seas: the Setting For Bony Fish Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes¹

Parenti¹

2008

Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diadromy, broadly defined here as the regular movement between freshwater and marine habitats at some time during their lives, characterizes numerous fish and invertebrate taxa. Explanations for the evolution of diadromy have focused on ecological requirements of individual taxa, rarely reflecting a comparative, phylogenetic component. When incorporated into phylogenetic studies, center of origin hypotheses have been used to infer dispersal routes. The occurrence and distribution of diadromy throughout fish (aquatic non-tetrapod vertebrate) phylogeny are used here to interpret the evolution of this life history pattern and demonstrate the relationship between life history and ecology in cladistic biogeography. Cladistic biogeography has been mischaracterized as rejecting ecology. On the contrary, cladistic biogeography has been explicit in interpreting ecology or life history patterns within the broader framework of phylogenetic patterns. Today, in inferred ancient life history patterns, such as diadromy, we see remnants of previously broader distribution patterns, such as antitropicality or bipolarity, that spanned both marine and freshwater habitats. Biogeographic regions that span ocean basins and incorporate ocean margins better explain the relationship among diadromy, its evolution, and its distribution than do biogeographic regions centered on continents.

show abstract

Section: Epicontinental Seas: the Setting For Bony Fish Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes¹

Parenti¹

2008

Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2). This new hypothesis that includes the ostarioclupeomorphs as sister to the euteleosts is supported by morphological (e.g., Johnson & Patterson 1996, Arratia 1997) and molecular (e.g., Inoue et al 2001) evidence, but see Li et al (2008;Fig. 3), where the cohort Clupeocephala appears in an unresolved position along with elopomorphs (non-monophyletic) and osteoglossomorphs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…During the last 30 years, the branchial arches have been a source of characters for numerous papers, which provide a variety of synapomorphies that identify groups within the clupeocephalans, such as the ostariophysans (Fink & Fink 1981, 1996, cypriniforms (Siebert 1987), salmoniforms (Rosen 1974), lower euteleosts (Johnson & Patterson 1996), and higher euteleosts (Rosen 1973). …”

Section: Branchial Archesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies

Arratia

2010

Rev. biol. mar. oceanogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen.-Se revisan los caracteres que soportan la monofilia de la cohorte Clupeocephala -el clado más grande de Teleostei-. La re-evaluación de estos caracteres demuestra que: 1) varios de ellos no son únicos, contradiciendo interpretaciones previas, sino que son homoplasias que se presentan también en grupos ajenos a clupeocéfalos (e.g., †crossognátidos y osteoglosomorfos), 2) otros están ausentes en clupeocéfalos basales, 3) algunos son variables en clupeocéfalos, 4) otros son, aparentemente, caracteres errados y 5) algunos de esos caracteres, en la forma en que fueron descritos, no son homólogos. El presente estudio muestra que la monofilia de Clupeocephala está soportada por varios caracteres que no son ambiguos. Tres de ellos son aparentemente caracteres derivados únicos (osificación temprana del autopalatino, arteria hioidea perforando el hipohial ventral, placa dentaria del último faringobranquial o cartilaginoso faringobranquial 4 resultan del crecimiento de una placa y no de la fusión de varias de ellas) y siete son homoplásticos pero son interpretados como adquiridos independientemente en cada uno de los linajes en que se presentan (e.g., presencia de anguloarticular, retroarticular excluído de la faceta articular para el cuadrado, ausencia de placas dentarias en faringobranquial 1 y presencia de seis o menos hipurales). Un caracter previamente interpretado como una sinapomorfía de clupeocéfalos es propuesto como una posible sinapomorfía de euteleósteos (arco neural del centro ural 1 [terminología poliural] atrofiado o ausente). Además, los resultados obtenidos revelan la necesidad de más estudios morfológicos, ontogenéticos y filogenéticos que incluyan numerosas especies de elopomorfos, osteoglosomorfos y clupeocéfalos, tanto primitivos como avanzados, para entender el significado y distribución de los caracteres homoplásticos y testar aquellos que se consideran como únicos en la evolución de ciertos grupos de teleósteos. Palabras clave: Peces, Teleostei, monofilia, sinapomorfias, homoplasiasAbstract.-The characters supporting the monophyly of Clupeocephala are revised. The re-evaluation of these characters demonstrates that: 1) several characters as previously interpreted, are not unique, but homoplastic occurring elsewhere in non clupeocephalans (e.g., †crossognathiforms and osteoglossomorphs); 2) other characters are absent in most basal clupeocephalans; 3) some are variably present in basal clupeocephalans; 4) other characters seem to be wrong; and 5) several characters as previously defined, represent ambiguous homologies. Nevertheless, the present study reveals that the monophyly of Clupeocephala is supported by several unambiguous characters. Three of them are, apparently, uniquely derived novelties (early ossification of autopalatine; hyoidean artery piercing ventral hypohyal; toothplate of last pharyngobranchial or pharyngobranchial cartilage 4 corresponds to growth of only one toothplate), and seven are homoplastic, but are interpreted here as independently acquired in the different teleost...

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, a number of potential examples exist in teleost ¢shes, including the reacquisition of teeth on the third basibranchial in some centrarchids and the parasphenoid of some nandids (Gosline 1985). Johnson & Patterson (1996) suggested that maxillary and gill raker teeth were lost and reacquired in the lineage Weitzman & Fink (1985). Oral dentition and phylogeny of four species of the Xenurobryconini (Teleostei, Characidae).…”

Section: Dissociability and The Evolution Of Tooth Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The genetic basis of modularity in the development and evolution of the vertebrate dentition

Stock

2001

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B

109

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction of organisms from units that develop under semi-autonomous genetic control (modules) has been proposed to be an important component of their ability to undergo adaptive phenotypic evolution. The organization of the vertebrate dentition as a system of repeated parts provides an opportunity to study the extent to which phenotypic modules, identi¢ed by their evolutionary independence from other such units, are related to modularity in the genetic control of development. The evolutionary history of vertebrates provides numerous examples of both correlated and independent evolution of groups of teeth. The dentition itself appears to be a module of the dermal exoskeleton, from which it has long been under independent genetic control. Region-speci¢c tooth loss has been a common trend in vertebrate evolution. Novel deployment of teeth and reacquisition of lost teeth have also occurred, although less frequently. Tooth shape di¡erences within the dentition may be discontinuous (referred to as heterodonty) or graded. The occurrence of homeotic changes in tooth shape provides evidence for the decoupling of tooth shape and location in the course of evolution. Potential mechanisms for regionspeci¢c evolutionary tooth loss are suggested by a number of mouse gene knockouts and human genetic dental anomalies, as well as a comparison between fully-developed and rudimentary teeth in the dentition of rodents. These mechanisms include loss of a tooth-type-speci¢c initiation signal, alterations of the relative strength of inductive and inhibitory signals acting at the time of tooth initiation and the overall reduction in levels of proteins required for the development of all teeth. Ectopic expression of tooth initiation signals provides a potential mechanism for the novel deployment or reacquisition of teeth; a single instance is known of a gene whose ectopic expression in transgenic mice can lead to ectopic teeth. Di¡er-ences in shape between incisor and molar teeth in the mouse have been proposed to be controlled by the region-speci¢c expression of signalling molecules in the oral epithelium. These molecules induce the expression of transcription factors in the underlying jaw mesenchyme that may act as selectors of tooth type. It is speculated that shifts in the expression domains of the epithelial signalling molecules might be responsible for homeotic changes in tooth shape. The observation that these molecules are regionally restricted in the chicken, whose ancestors were not heterodont, suggests that mammalian heterodonty may have evolved through the use of patterning mechanisms already acting on skeletal elements of the jaws. In general, genetic and morphological approaches identify similar types of modules in the dentition, but the data are not yet su¤cient to identify exact correspondences. It is speculated that modularity may be achieved by gene expression di¡erences between teeth or by di¡erences in the time of their development, causing mutations to have cumulative e¡ects on later-developing teeth. The mam...

show abstract

Relationships of Lower Euteleostean Fishes

Cited by 178 publications

References 61 publications

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes¹

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes¹

The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies

The genetic basis of modularity in the development and evolution of the vertebrate dentition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Relationships of Lower Euteleostean Fishes

Cited by 178 publications

References 61 publications

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes1

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes1

The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies

The genetic basis of modularity in the development and evolution of the vertebrate dentition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes¹

Life History Patterns and Biogeography: An Interpretation of Diadromy in Fishes¹