Phylogenetic relationships among fantail darters (Percidae: Etheostoma: Catonotus): Total evidence analysis of morphological and molecular data

Copeia

Volumn , Issue 3, 1999, Pages 551-564

  Porterfield, Jean C ^a,b   Page, Lawrence M ^a   Near, Thomas J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

^b CENTRE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHEOSTOMA; ETHEOSTOMA BARBOURI; ETHEOSTOMA CHIENENSE; ETHEOSTOMA CROSSOPTERUM; ETHEOSTOMA FLABELLARE; ETHEOSTOMA NEOPTERUM; ETHEOSTOMA OLIVACEUM; ETHEOSTOMA OOPHYLAX; ETHEOSTOMA PERCNURUM; ETHEOSTOMA PSEUDOVULATUM; ETHEOSTOMA SQUAMICEPS; ETHEOSTOMA VIRGATUM;

EID: 0033517023     PISSN: 00458511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1447589     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. ALVES-GOMES, J.A., G. ORTI, M. HAYGOOD, W. HEILIGENBERG, AND A. MEYER. 1995. Phylogenetic analysis of the South American electric fishes (order Gymnotiformes) and the evolution of their electrogenic system: a synthesis based on morphology, electrophysiology, and mitochondrial sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:298-318.
2. AVISE, J.C. 1994. Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Chapman and Hall, New York.
3. BAILEY, R. M., AND W. A. GOSLINE. 1955. Variation and systematic significance of vertebral counts in the American fishes of the family Percidae. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 93:1-44.
4. BART JR., H. L., AND L. M. PAGE. 1991. Morphology and adaptive significance of fin knobs in egg-clustering darters. Copeia 1991:80-86.
5. BRAASCH, M. E., AND R. L. MAYDEN. 1985. Review of the subgenus Catonotus (Percidae) with descriptions of two new darters of the Etheostoma squamiceps species group. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kans. 119:1-83.
6. _, AND L. M. PAGE. 1979. Systematic studies of darters of the subgenus Catonotus (Percidae), with the description of a new species from Caney Fork, Tennessee. Ibid. 78:1-10.
7. BREMER, K. 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42:795-803.
8. BULL, J. J., J. P. HUELSENBECK, C. W. CUNNINGHAM, D. L. SWOFFORD, AND P. J. WADDELL. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-397.
9. DIMMICK, W. W., AND A. LARSON. 1996. A molecular and morphological perspective on the phylogenetic relationships of the otophysan fishes. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 6:120-133.
10. FARRIS, J. S. 1969. A successive approximations approach to character weighting. Syst. Zool. 18:374-385.
11. _, M. KALLERSJO, A. G. KLUGE, AND C. BULT. 1995. Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44:570-572.
12. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
13. HASEGAWA, M., H. KISHINO, AND T. YANO. 1985. Dating the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
14. HIGGINS, D. J., A. G. BLEASBY, AND R. FUCHS. 1992. CLUSTAL V: improved software for multiple sequence alignment. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 8:189-191.
15. HILLIS, D. M. 1987. Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 23-42.
16. _, AND J.P. HUELSENBECK. 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in phylogenetic analyses. J. Hered. 83:189-195.
17. _, B. K. MABLE, AND C. MORTIZ. 1996. Applications of molecular systematics: the state of the field and a look to the future, p. 515-543. In: Molecular systematics. 2d ed. D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable (eds.). Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
18. HUELSENBECK, J. P., J. J. BULL, AND C. W. CUNNINGHAM. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:152-158.
19. JENKINS, R. E., AND N. M. BURKHEAD. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
20. KISHINO, H., AND M. HASEGAWA. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 31:151-160.
21. KLUGE, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
22. KNAPP, R. A., AND R. C. SARGENT. 1989. Egg-mimicry as a mating strategy in the fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare: females prefer males with eggs. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25:321-326.
23. KUEHNE, R. A., AND J. W. SMALL, JR. 1971. Etheostoma barbouri, a new darter (Percidae, Etheostomatini) from the Green River with notes on the subgenus Catonotus. Copeia 1971:18-26.
24. LARSON, A. 1994. The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics, p. 371-390. In: Molecular ecology and evolution: approaches and applications. B. Schierwater, B. Streit, G. P. Wagner, and R. DeSalle (eds.). Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.
25. LYDEARD, C. A., AND K. ROE. 1997. The phylogenetic utility of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene for inferring relationships among actinopterygian fishes, p. 285-303. In: Molecular systematics of fishes. T. D. Kocher and C. A. Stepien (eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
26. MAYDEN, R. L. 1985. Nuptial structures in the subgenus Catonotus, genus Etheostoma (Percidae). Copeia 1985:580-583.
27. MESSENGER, S. L., AND J. A. MCGUIRE. 1998. Morphology, molecules, and the phylogenetics of cetaceans. Syst. Biol. 47:90-124.
28. MICKEVICH, M. F., AND J. S. FARRIS. 1981. The implications of congruence in Menidia. Syst. Zool. 30: 351-370.
29. MIYAMOTO, M. M. 1996. A congruence study of molecular and morphological data for eutherian mammals. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 6:373-390.
30. NAYLOR, G. J. P., AND W. M. BROWN. 1998. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47:61-76.
31. NEI, M. 1987. Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
32. PAGE, L. M. 1975. Relations among the darters of the subgenus Catonotus of Etheostoma. Copeia 1975:782-784.
33. _. 1981. The genera and subgenera of darters (Percidae, Etheostomatini). Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kans. 90:1-69.
34. _. 1985. Evolution of reproductive behaviors in percid fishes. Bull. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. 33:275-295.
35. _, AND H. L. BART JR. 1989. Egg-mimics in darters (Pisces: Percidae). Copeia 1989:514-517.
36. _, AND D. L. SWOFFORD. 1984. Morphological correlates of ecological specialization in darters. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2:139-159.
37. _, P. A. CEAS, D. L. SWOFFORD, AND D. G. BUTH. 1992. Evolutionary relationships within the Etheostoma squamiceps complex (Percidae; subgenus Catonotus) with descriptions of five new species. Copeia 1992:615-646.
38. POE, S. 1996. Data set incongruence and the phylogeny of crocodilians. Syst. Biol. 45:393-414.
39. SONG, C. B., T. J. NEAR, AND L. M. PAGE. 1998. Phylogenetic relations among percid fishes as inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b DNA sequence data. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 10:343-353.
40. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? p. 295-333. In: Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft (eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
41. TEMPLETON, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the humans and apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
42. WOOD, R. M., AND R. L. MAYDEN. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships among selected darter subgenera (Teleostei: Percidae) as inferred from analysis of allozymes. Copeia 1997:265-274.