Comparison of hypotheses on the relationships of sarcopterygians

Systematic Biology

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 1994, Pages 155-173

  Schultze, Hans Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Cladistics; Fossil and Recent taxa; Homology; Phylogenetic hypotheses; Sarcopterygii

Indexed keywords

CHOANATA; COELACANTHIMORPHA; DIPNOI; OSTEOLEPIDIDA; SARCOPTERYGII; TETRAPODA;

EID: 12044251396     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/43.2.155     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Arratia, G., and H. P. Schultze. 1990. The urohyal: Development and homology within osteichthyans. J. Morphol. 203:247-282.
2. Arratia, G., and H.-P. Schultze. 1991. The pala-toquadrate and its ossifications: Development and homology within osteichthyans. J. Morphol. 208: 1-81.
3. Ax, P. 1964. Der Begriff Polyphylie ist aus der Terminologie der natürlichen, phylogenetischen Systematik zu eliminieren. Zool. Anz. 173:52-56.
4. Ax, P. 1984. Das Phylogenetische System. Systematisierung der lebenden Natur aufgrund ihrer Phylogenese. G. Fischer, Stuttgart.
5. Ax, P. 1987. The phylogenetic system. The systematization of organisms on the basis of their phytogenies. Wiley & Sons, New York.
6. Bischoff, T. L. W. Von. 1840. Lepidosiren paradoxa. Anatomisch untersucht und beschrieben. Leopold Voss, Leipzig.
7. Chang M.-M. 1991. "Rhipidistians," dipnoans, and tetrapods. Pages 3-28 in Origins of the major groups of tetrapods: Controversies and consensus (H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb, eds.). Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.
8. Chang M.-M. and Yu X. 1984. Structure and phylogenetic significance of Diabolichthys speratus gen. et sp. nov., a new dipnoan-like form from the Low er Devonian of Eastern Yunnan, China. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 107:171-184.
9. Clark, K. A. 1992. What good are fossils? Review of Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods: Controversy and Consensus, by H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds.). J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 12:532-536.
10. Cloutier, R. 1991. Interrelationships of Palaeozoic actinistians: Patterns and trends. Pages 379-426 in Early vertebrates and related problems of evolutionary biology (Chang M.-M., Zhang G., and Liu Y., eds.). Science Press, Beijing.
11. Cloutier, R. 1994. Phylogenetic status, basal taxa, and interrelationships of lower sarcopterygian groups. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. (in press).
12. Cope, E. D. 1892. On the phylogeny of the Verte-brata. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 30:278-281.
13. Forey, P. L. 1987. Relationships of lungfishes. Pages 75-91 in The biology and evolution of lungfishes (W. E. Bemis, W. W. Burggren, and N. E. Kemp, eds.). J. Morphol. Suppl. 1, 1986. A. R. Liss, New York.
14. Forey, P. L., B. G. Gardiner, and C. Patterson. 1991. The lungfish, the coelacanth, and the cow revisited. Pages 145-172 in Origins of the major groups of tetrapods: Controversies and consensus (H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb, eds.). Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.
15. Fritzsch, B. 1987. Inner ear of the coelacanth fish Latimeria has tetrapod affinities. Nature 327:153-154.
16. Gaffney, E. S. 1979. Tetrapod monophyly: A phylogenetic analysis. Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 13:92-105.
17. Gardiner, B. 1980. Tetrapod ancestry: A reappraisal. Pages 177-185 in The terrestrial environment and the origin of land vertebrates (A. L. Panchen, ed.). Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol. 15. Academic Press, London.
18. Gauthier, J., A. G. Kluge, and T. Rowe. 1988. Am-niote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cla-distics 4:105-209.
19. Gorr, T., T. Kleinschmidt, and H. Fricke. 1991. Close tetrapod relationships of the coelacanth Latimeria indicated by haemoglobin sequences. Nature 351: 394-397.
20. Gross, W. 1964. Polyphyletische Stämme im System der Wirbeltiere? Zool. Anz. 173:1-22.
21. Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin.
22. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana.
23. Herre, W. 1964. Zum Abstammungsproblem von Amphibien und Tylopoden sowie über Parallelbildungen und zur Polyphyliefrage. Zool. Anz. 173: 66-91.
24. Holmes, E. B. 1985. Are lungfishes the sister group of tetrapods? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 25:379-397.
25. Janvier, P. 1986. Les nouvelles conceptions de la phylogénie et de la classification des "agnathes" et des sarcopterygiens. Océanis 12:123-138.
26. Jarvik, E. 1942. On the structure of the snout of crossopterygians and lower gnathostomes in general. Zool. Bidr. Upps. 21:235-675.
27. Jarvik, E. 1962. Les porolépiformes et l'origine des urodèles. Colloq. Int. C.N.R.S. 104:87-101.
28. Jarvik, E. 1965. Die Raspelzunge der Cyclostomen und die pentadactyle Extremität der Tetrapoden, als Beweise für monophyletische Herkunft. Zool. Anz. 175:101-143.
29. Jarvik, E. 1972. Middle and Upper Devonian Po-rolepiformes from East Greenland with special reference to Glyptolepis groenlandica n. sp. and a discussion on the structure of the head in the Porolepiformes. Medd. Gronl. 187:1-307.
30. Jarvik, E. 1980. Basic structure and evolution of vertebrates, Volume 1. Academic Press, New York.
31. Jarvik, E. 1981. Review of Lungjishes, Tetrapods, Paleontology, and Plesiomorphy, by D. E. Rosen, P. L. Forey, B. G. Gardiner, and C. Patterson. Syst. Zool. 30:378-384.
32. Jarvik, E. 1986. The origin of the Amphibia. Pages 1-24 in Studies in herpetology (Z. Rocek, ed.). Charles Univ., Prague.
33. KLUGE, A. J. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
34. Lauder, G. V., and K. F. Liem. 1983. The evolution and interrelationships of the actinopterygian fishes. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harv. Univ. 150:95-197.
35. Long, J. A. 1990. Heterochrony and the origin of tetrapods. Lethaia 23:157-166.
36. Maisey, J. 1986. Heads and tails: A chordate phy-logeny. Cladistics 2:201-256.
37. Marshall, C, and H. P. Schultze. 1992. Relative importance of molecular, neontological, and paleontological data in understanding the biology of the vertebrate invasion of land. J. Mol. Evol. 35:93101.
38. Meyer, A., and S. I. Dolven. 1992. Molecules, fossils, and the origin of tetrapods. J. Mol. Evol. 35:102-113.
39. Meyer, A., and A. C. Wilson. 1990. Origin of tetrapods inferred from their mitochondrial DNA affiliation to lungfish. J. Mol. Evol. 31:359-364.
40. Miles, R. S. 1977. Dipnoan (lungfish) skulls and the relationships of the group: A study based on new species from the Devonian of Australia. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. 61:1-328.
41. Normark, B. B., A. R. McCune, and R. G. Harrison. 1991. Phylogenetic relationships of neopterygian fishes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 8:819-834.
42. Northcutt, R. G. 1987. Lungfish neural characters and their bearing on sarcopterygian phylogeny. Pages 277-297 in The biology and evolution of lungfishes (W. E. Bemis, W. W. Burggren, and N. E. Kemp, eds.). J. Morphol. Suppl. 1, 1986. A. R. Liss, New York.
43. Panchen, A. L., and T. R. Smithson. 1987. Character diagnosis, fossils and the origin of tetrapods. Biol. Rev. 62:341-438.
44. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pages 21-74 in Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction (K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday, eds.). Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol. 21. Academic Press, London.
45. Remane, A. 1956. Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik, 2nd edition. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig.
46. Remane, A. 1964. Das Problem Monophylie-Poly-phylie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Phy-logenie der Tetrapoden. Zool. Anz. 173:22-49.
47. Rosen, D. E., P. L. Forey, B. G. Gardiner, and C. Patterson. 1981. Lungfishes, tetrapods, paleontology, and plesiomorphy. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 167:159-276.
48. Schmalhausen, I. I. 1968. The origin of terrestrial vertebrates. Academic Press, New York.
49. Schultze, H.-P. 1981. Hennig und der Ursprung der Tetrapoda. Paläontol. Z. 55:71-86.
50. Schultze, H.-P. 1987. Dipnoans as sarcopterygians. Pages 39-74 in The biology and evolution of lungfishes (W. E. Bemis, W. W. Burggren, and N. E. Kemp, eds.). J. Morphol. Suppl. 1, 1986. A. R. Liss, New York.
51. Schultze, H.-P. 1991. A comparison of controversial hypotheses on the origin of tetrapods. Pages 29-67 in Origins of the major groups of tetrapods: Controversies and consensus (H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb, eds.). Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.
52. Schultze, H.-P., and K. S. W. Campbell. 1987. Characterization of the Dipnoi, a monophyletic group. Pages 25-37 in The biology and evolution of lung-fishes (W. E. Bemis, W. W. Burggren, and N. E. Kemp, eds.). J. Morphol. Suppl. 1, 1986. A. R. Liss, New York.
53. Sharp, P. M„ A. T. Lloyd, and D. G. Higgins. 1991. Coelacanth's relationships. Nature 353:218-219.
54. Stock, D. W„ K. D. Moberg, L. R. Maxson, and G. S. Whitt. 1991. A phylogenetic analysis of the 18S ribosomal RNA sequence of the coelacanth Lati-meria chalumnae. Pages 99-117 in The biology of Latimeria chalumnae and evolution of coelacanths (J. A. Musick, M. N. Bruton, and E. K. Balon, eds.). Environ. Biol. Fishes 32. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
55. Stock, D. W„ and D. L. Swofford. 1991. Coelacanth's relationships. Nature 353:217-218.
56. Swofford, D. L. 1991. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0s. User's manual. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.
57. Szarski, H. 1962. The origin of the Amphibia. Q. Rev. Biol. 37:189-241.
58. Vorobyeva, E., and H.-P. Schultze. 1991. Description and systematics of panderichthyid fishes with comments on their relationship to tetrapods. Pages 68-109 in Origins of the major groups of tetrapods: Controversies and consensus (H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb, eds.). Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.
59. Waehneldt, T. V., and J. Malotka. 1989. Presence of proteolipid protein in coelacanth brain. Myelin demonstrates tetrapod affinities and questions a chondrichthyan association. J. Neurochem. 52:1941-1943.
60. Wagner, G. P. 1989. The biological homology concept. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:51-69.
61. Willmann, R. 1987. Phylogenetic systematics, classification and the plesion concept. Verh. Naturwiss. Ver. Hambg. 29:221-233.
62. Willmann, R. 1990. Die Bedeutung paläontolo-gischer Daten für die zoologische Systematik. Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges. 83:277-289.