Assessment of otocephalan and protacanthopterygian concepts in the light of multiple molecular phylogenies;Une évaluation des concepts d'Otocephala et de Protacanthopterygii à la lumière de phylogénies moléculaires multiples

Comptes Rendus - Biologies

Volumn 325, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 1191-1207

  Zaragüeta Bagils, René ^a   Lavoué, Sébastien ^a   Tillier, Annie ^a   Bonillo, Céline ^a   Lecointre, Guillaume ^a  

^a MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

Author keywords

Clupeomorpha; Esocoidei; Ostariophysi; Otocephala; Phylogeny; Protacanthopterygii; Rhodopsin; Teleostei

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME B; DNA 16S; MIXED LINEAGE LEUKEMIA PROTEIN; RAG1 PROTEIN; RHODOPSIN; RNA 18S;

PHYLOGENY;

CLADISTICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA SEQUENCE; FOSSIL; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; MONOPHYLY; MORPHOLOGY; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SALMONID; SISTER GROUP; TAXONOMIC IDENTIFICATION; TELEOST; UNINDEXED SEQUENCE;

CLUPEOMORPHA; ESOCIFORMES; OSTARIOPHYSI; OTOCEPHALA; PROTACANTHOPTERYGII; SALMONIDAE; TELEOSTEI;

EID: 0036910937     PISSN: 16310691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1631-0691(02)01535-4     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. G.D. Johnson, C. Patterson, Relationships of lower euteleostean fishes, in: M.L.J. Stiassny, L.R. Parenti, G.D. Johnson (Eds.), Interrelationships of fishes, Academic Press, San Diego, 1996, pp. 251-332.
2. P.H. Greenwood, D.E. Rosen, S.H. Weitzman, G.S. Myers, Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 131 (1966) 339-456.
3. G. Arratia, Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny, Palaeoichthylogica 7 (1997) 5-168.
4. G. Arratia, The monophyly of Teleostei and stem-group teleosts. Consensus and disagreements, in: G. Arratia, H.-P. Schultze (Eds.), Mesozic Fishes 2 - Systematics and the Fossil Record, Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, 1999, pp. 265-334.
5. C. Patterson, D.E. Rosen, Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 158 (1977) 83-172.
6. J.S. Nelson, Fishes of the World, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.
7. D.E. Rosen, An essay on euteleostean classification, Am. Mus. Novitates 2827 (1985) 1-57.
8. H.L.V. Le, G. Lecointre, R. Perasso, A 28S rRNA-based phylogeny of the gnathostomes: first steps in the analysis of conflict and congruence with morphologically based cladograms, Mol. Phyl. Evol. 2 (1993) 31-51.
9. G. Lecointre, Étude de l'impact de l'échantillonnage des espèces et la longueur des séquences sur la robustesse des phylogénies moléculaires. Implications sur la phylogénie des téléostéens, thèse, université Paris-7, 1993
10. G. Lecointre, G. Nelson, Clupeomorpha, sister-group of Ostariophysi, in: M.L.J. Stiassny, L.R. Parenti, G.D. Johnson (Eds.), Interrelationships of fishes, Academic Press, San Diego, 1996, pp. 193-207.
11. D.E. Rosen, Interrelationships of higher euteleostean fishes, in: P.H. Greenwood, R.S. Miles, C. Patterson (Eds.), Interrelationships of fishes, Academic Press, London, 1973.
12. G. Arratia, Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of Jurassic teleosts and their implications in teleostean phylogeny, in: G. Arratia, G. Viohl (Eds.), Mesozoic Fishes - 1: Systematics and Paleoecology, Verlag Dr. Pfeil, München, 1996, pp. 219-242.
13. L. Grande, Recent and fossil clupeomorph fishes with materials for revision of the subgroups of clupeoids, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 181 (1985) 231-372.
14. D.E. Rosen, Phylogeny and zoogeography of salmoniform fishes and relationships of Lepidogalaxias salamandroides, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 153 (1974) 265-326.
15. W.L. Fink, Basal euteleosts: relationships, in: H.G. Moser, W.J. Richards, D.M. Cohen, M.P. Fahay, A.W. Kendall Jr, S.L. Richardson (Eds.), Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes, Special Publication No. 1, Am. Soc. Ichthyol. Herpetol. Spec. Publ., 1984, pp. 202-206.
16. C.P.J. Sanford, The phylogenetic relationships of the salmonoid fishes, Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Zool. 56 (1990) 145-153.
17. D.P. Begle, Relationships of osmeroid fishes and the use of reductive characters in ohylogenetic analysis, Syst. Zool. 40 (1991) 33-53.
18. D.P. Begle, Monophyly and relationships of the argentinoid fishes, Copeia (1992) 350-366.
19. C. Patterson, Null or minimal models, in: R.W. Scotland, D.J. Siebert, D.W. Williams (Eds.), Models in phylogeny reconstruction, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 173-192.
20. W.L. Fink, S.H. Weitzman, Relationships of the stomiiform fishes (Teleostei) with a description of Diplophos, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 150 (1982) 31-93.
21. G.V. Lauder, E.F. Liem, The evolution and interrelationships of the actinopterygian fishes, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 150 (1983) 232-314.
22. G. Bernardi, G. D'Onofrio, S. Caccio, G. Bernardi, Molecular phylogeny of bony fishes, based on the amino acid sequence of the growth hormone, J. Mol. Evol. 37 (1993) 644--649.
23. A.G. Kluge, A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes), Syst. Zool. 38 (1989) 7-25.
24. K.C. Nixon, J.M. Carpenter, On simultaneous analysis, Cladistics 12 (1996) 221-241.
25. G. Lecointre, P. Deleporte, Le Principe du total evidence requiert l'exclusion de données trompeuses, in: V. Barriel, T. Bourgoin (Eds.), Biosystema 18 : Caractères, Société française de systématique, Paris, 2000, pp, 129-151.
26. B. Winnpenminck, T. Backeljau, R.D. Wachter, Extraction of high molecular weight DNA from molluscs, T.I.G. 9 (1993) 407.
27. K.B. Mullis, F.A. Faloona, Specific synthesis of DNA in vitro via polymerase-catalysed chain reaction, Meth. Enz. 155 (1987) 335-350.
28. R.K. Saiki, D.H. Gelfand, S. Stoffel, S.J. Scharf, R. Higuchi, G.T. Horn, K.B. Mullis, H.A. Erlich, Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase, Science 239 (1988) 487-491.
29. J. Sambrook, E.F. Fritsch, T. Maniatis, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1989.
30. F. Sanger, S. Nicklen, A.R. Coulson, DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 74 (1977) 5463-5467.
31. H. Philippe, MUST: a computer package of Management Utilities for Sequences and Trees, Nucl. Ac. Res. 21 (1993) 5264-5272.
32. H. Philippe, E. Douzery, The pitfalls of molecular phylogeny based on four species, as illustrated by the Cetacea/Artiodactyla relationships, J. Mammal. Evol. 2 (1994) 133-152.
33. A. Hassanin, G. Lecointre, S. Tillier, The 'evolutionary signal' of homoplasy in protein-coding gene sequences and its consequences for a priori weighting in phylogeny, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. III 321 (1998) 611-620.
34. S. Lavoué, R. Bigorne, G. Lecointre, J.-F. Agnèse, Phylogenetic Relationships of mormyrid electric fishes (Mormyridae; Teleostei) inferred from cytochrome b sequences, Mol. Phyl. Evol. 14 (2000) 1-10.
35. D.L. Swofford, PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, 1993.
36. M. Barrett, M.J. Donoghue, E. Sober, Against consensus, Syst. Zool. 40 (1991) 486-493.
37. K. Bremer, Branch support and tree stability, Cladistics 10 (1994) 295-304.
38. J. Felsenstein, Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap, Evolution 39 (1985) 783-791.
39. D.M. Hillis, J.J. Bull, An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis, Syst. Biol. 42 (1993) 182-192.
40. H. Philippe, A. Adoutte, The molecular phylogeny of Eukaryota: solid facts and uncertainties, in: G.H. Cooms, K. Vickerman, M.A. Sleigh, A. Warren (Eds.), Evolutionary Relationships among Protozoa, Chapman and Hall, London, 1998, pp. 25-56.
41. J. Felsenstein, Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading, Syst. Zool. 27 (1978) 401-410.
42. J.P. Huelsenbeck, Is the Felsenstein zone a fly trap? Syst. Biol. 46 (1997) 69-74.
43. H. Philippe, J. Laurent, How good deep phylogenetic trees?, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8 (1998) 616-623.
44. A. Germot, H. Philippe, Critical analysis of eukaryotic phylogeny: a case study based on the HSP70 family, J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 46 (1999).
45. H. Philippe, P. Forterre, The rooting of the universal tree of life is not reliable, J. Mol. Evol. 49 (1999) 509-523.
46. H. Philippe, P. Lopez, H. Brinkman, K. Budin, A. Germot, J. Laurent, D. Moreira, M. Miffier, H. Le Guyader, Early branching or fast evolving Eukaryotes? An answer based on slowly evolving positions, Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 267 (2000) 1213-1221.
47. J.J. Bull, J.P. Huelsenbeck, C.W. Cunningham, D.L. Swofford, P.J. Waddell, Partitioning and combining data in phylogenefic analysis, Syst. Biol. 42 (1993) 384-397.
48. M.F. Mickevich, Taxonomic congruence, Syst. Zool. 27 (1978) 143-158.
49. G.J. Nelson, Cladistic analysis and synthesis: principles and definitions, with a historical note on Adanson's Familles des Plantes (1763-1764), Syst. Zool. 28 (1979) 1-21.
50. L. Grande, Repeating patterns in nature. Predictability and 'impact' in science, in: L. Grande, O. Rieppel (Eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature, Academic Press, New York, 1994, pp. 61-84.
51. M.M. Miyamoto, W.M. Fitch, Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence, Syst. Biol. 44 (1995) 64-76.
52. D.L. Swofford, PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2000.
53. H. Philippe, G. Lecointre, H.L.V. Le, H. Le Guyader, A critical study of homoplasy in molecular data in the light of morphologically based cladograms, and the consequences for character weighting, Mol. Phyl. Evol. (1996).
54. J.W. Wenzel, M.E. Siddall, Noise, Cladistics (1999) 51-64.
55. M. Källersjö, V.A. Albert, J.S. Farris, Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure, Cladistics 15 (1999) 91-93.
56. B. Sennbland, B. Bremer, Is there a justification for differential a priori weighting in coding sequences? A case study from rbc L and Apocynaceae s. 1, Syst. Biol. 49 (2000) 101-113.
57. A.R. Templeton, Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes, Evolution 37 (1983) 221-244.
58. C. Lydeard, K.J. Roe, Tbe phylogenetic utility of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene for inferring relationships among Actinopterygian fishes, in: T.D. Kocher, C.A. Stepien (Eds.), Molecular Systematics of Fishes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1997, pp. 185-303.
59. J.W. Archie, Homoplasy excess ratios: new indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index, Syst. Zool. 38 (1989) 253-269.
60. L. Grande, A revision of the fossil genus 1Diplomystius, with comments on the interrelationships of Clupeomorph fishes, Am. Mus. Novitates 2728 (1982) 1-34.
61. C. Patterson, A clupeomorph fish from the Gault (Lower Cretaceous), Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 49 (1970) 161-182.
62. M. Gayet, Ramallichthys Gayet du Cénomanien inférieur marin de Ramallah (Monts de Judée), une introduction aux relations phylogénétiques des Ostariophysi, Mém. Mus. Natl Hist. Nat., Ser. C Geol. 51 (1986) 1-8.
63. G. Arratia, M. Gayet, Sensory canals and related bones of Tertiary siluriform crania from Bolivia and North America and comparison with recent forms, J. Vert. Palaeontol. 15 (1995) 482-505.
64. J.G. Maisey, A new clupeomorph fish from the Santana Formation (Albian) of NE Brazil, Am. Mus. Novitates 3076 (1993) 1-15.
65. A.F. Bannikov, F. Bacchia, A remarkable clupeomorph fish (Pisces, Teleostei) from a new Upper Cretaceous marine locality in Lebanon, Senck. lethaea 80 (2000) 3-11.
66. P.L. Forey, A primitive clupeomorph fish from the Middle Cenomanian of Hakel, Lebanon, Can. J. Earth Sci. 10 (1973) 1302-1318.
67. L. Taverne, Ostéologie, phylogenèse et systématique des téléostéens fossiles et actuels du super-ordre des Ostéoglossomorphes. Première partie. Ostéologie des genres Hiodon, Eohiodon, Lycoptera, Osteoglossum, Scleropages, Heterotis et Arapaima, Mém. Class. Sci. Acad. R. Belg. 42 (1977) 1-235.
68. L. Taverne, Ostéologie, phylogenèse et systématique des téléostéens fossiles et actuels du super-ordre des Ostéoglossomorphes. Deuxième partie. Ostéologie des genres Phareodus, Phareoides, Brychaetus, Musperia, Pantodon, Singida, Notopterus, Xenomystus et Papyrocranus, Mém. Class. Sci. Acad. R. Belg. 42 (1978) 1-213.
69. L. Taverne, Ostéologie, phylogenèse et systématique des téléostéens fossiles et actuels du super-ordre des Ostéoglossomorphes. Troisième partie. Évolution des structures ostéologiques et conclusions générales relatives à la phylogénèse et à la systématique du Super-Ordre, Addendum, Mém.