Shark tales: A molecular species-level phylogeny of sharks (Selachimorpha, Chondrichthyes)

Vélez‐Zuazo, Ximena; Agnarsson, Ingi

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.11.018

Cited by 161 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Proscyllium habereri is clustered to Pseudotriakis microdon with high support value (100%). In addition, two monophyletic families Sphyrnidae and Hemigaleidae are embedded between Galeocerdo cuvier (Carcharhinidae) and the remaining Carcharhinidae species, which is consistent with the prior molecular phylogenetic result that constructed by one nuclear (Rag1) and four mitochondrial (COI, ND2, Cytb and 16S) genes (Velez-Zuazo et al 2011). It suggests that the current family Carcharhinidae is paraphyletic, and the taxonomy of G. Cuvier need more study.…”

supporting

confidence: 78%

Complete mitochondrial genome and the phylogenetic position of the graceful catshark Proscyllium habereri (Carcharhiniformes: Proscylliidae)

Chen

et al. 2016

Mitochondrial DNA Part B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 78%

Complete mitochondrial genome and the phylogenetic position of the graceful catshark Proscyllium habereri (Carcharhiniformes: Proscylliidae)

Chen

et al. 2016

Mitochondrial DNA Part B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the case of the Galeomorphii and Squalimorphii, a number of studies, both molecular and morphological, have revealed a variety of controversial relationships within each group, and even the relationships among the orders vary between studies. One major example is the position of the Heterodontiformes, which has yet to be resolved [3,7,9,10,13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One other unresolved question is the phylogenetic position of the orders within the Galeomorphii, in which the available morphological inferences place Lamniformes as the sister order of the Carcharhiniformes [7,15], although molecular studies have confirmed that the Orectolobiformes is the sister group of the Carcharhiniformes [13]. The topologies generated in other studies have nevertheless placed Lamniformes as the sister order of the Carcharhiniformes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Mitogenomic Phylogeny of the Chondrichthyes

Cunha¹,

Rodrigues‐Filho²,

Sales³

2017

Chondrichthyes - Multidisciplinary Approach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phylogenetic analysis of the Chondrichthyes has been the subject of intense debate over the past two decades. The principal relationships within the group based on the analysis of morphological traits are inconsistent with the available molecular topologies, and the phylogeny of these animals is highly controversial, at all levels, ranging from superorders to families and even the genera within families. With the recent development of new generation sequencing (NGS), many phylogenies are now being inferred based on the complete genome of the species. In 2015 and 2016 alone, around 21 new elasmobranch genomes were made available in GenBank. In this context, the principal objective of the present study was to infer the phylogeny of the sharks and rays based on the complete mitochondrial genomes available in the literature. A total of 73 mitogenomes of chondrichthyan species were analyzed. The phylogenetic trees generated rejected the "Hypnosqualea" hypothesis and confirmed the monophyly of the Neoselachii and Batoidea as sister groups of the sharks. These mitogenomic analyses provided ampler and more complete insights into the relationships between the sharks and rays, in particular, the topologies obtained by the analyses revealed a number of incongruities in certain groups of sharks and rays, and the interrelationships between them.

show abstract

“…The exact pattern of reproductive evolution in chondrichthyans remains open to debate, with older studies finding oviparity to be the ancestral form (Dulvy and Reynolds 1997), whereas studies using more recent phylogenetic hypotheses argue that viviparity is ancestral (Musick and Ellis 2005). Ultimately, the ancestral reproductive mode depends largely on the underlying evolutionary tree, which is still subject to considerable debate (Naylor et al 2005;Vélez-Zuazo and Agnarsson 2010). Both Dulvy and Reynolds (1997) and Musick and Ellis (2005) yielded a relatively high amount of transitions between oviparity and viviparity; the former estimated 9 or 10 transitions from oviparity to viviparity, with two reversals, whereas the latter study estimated six transitions from viviparity to oviparity, with one reversal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does more maternal investment mean a larger brain? Evolutionary relationships between reproductive mode and brain size in chondrichthyans

Mull

Yopak

Dulvy

2011

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Chondrichthyans have the most diverse array of reproductive strategies of any vertebrate group, ranging from egg-laying to live-bearing with placental matrotrophy. Matrotrophy is defined as additional maternal provisioning beyond the yolk to the developing neonate; in chondrichthyans, this occurs through a range of mechanisms including uterine milk, oophagy, uterine cannibalism and placentotrophy. Chondrichthyans also exhibit a wide range of relative brain sizes and highly diverse patterns of brain organisation. Brains are energetically expensive to produce and maintain, and represent a major energetic constraint during early life in vertebrates. In mammals, more direct maternal-fetal placental connections have been associated with larger brains (steeper brain-body allometric scaling relationships). We test for a relationship between reproductive mode and relative brain size across 85 species from six major orders of chondrichthyans by using several phylogenetic comparative analyses. Ordinary least-squares (OLS) and reduced major axis (RMA) regression of body mass versus brain mass suggest that increased maternal investment results in a larger relative brain size. Our findings were supported by phylogenetic generalised least-squares models (pGLS), which also highlighted that these results vary with evolutionary tempo, as described by different branch-length assumptions. Across all analyses, maximum body size had a significant influence on the relative brain size, with large-bodied species (body mass .100 kg) having relatively smaller brains. The present study suggests that there may be a link between reproductive investment and relative brain size in chondrichthyans; however, a more definitive test requires a better-resolved phylogeny and a more nuanced categorisation of the level of maternal investment in chondrichthyans.

show abstract

Shark tales: A molecular species-level phylogeny of sharks (Selachimorpha, Chondrichthyes)

Cited by 161 publications

References 49 publications

Complete mitochondrial genome and the phylogenetic position of the graceful catshark Proscyllium habereri (Carcharhiniformes: Proscylliidae)

Complete mitochondrial genome and the phylogenetic position of the graceful catshark Proscyllium habereri (Carcharhiniformes: Proscylliidae)

A Review of the Mitogenomic Phylogeny of the Chondrichthyes

Does more maternal investment mean a larger brain? Evolutionary relationships between reproductive mode and brain size in chondrichthyans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About