4.5 Review

Phylogenetic analysis of the family Ariidae (Ostariophysi: Siluriformes), with a hypothesis on the monophyly and relationships of the genera

Journal

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 165, Issue 3, Pages 534-669

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00822.x

Keywords

Ariinae; Bagreinae; Galeichthyinae; morphological evidence; new hypotheses of relationships; phylogeny; sea catfishes

Categories

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [Proc.97/11302-3, 03/04509-3]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico of the Brazilian Federal Government [CNPq - Proc. 152782/2007-9, Proc. 304576/2006-9]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ariid monophyly and intrafamilial relationships are investigated based on cladistic analysis of 230 morphological characters. Terminal taxa examined include whenever possible type-species, or the most morphologically similar species to the type-species of the nominal genera, and the largest possible number of species, including cleared and stained specimens, available in zoological collections. Previous hypotheses about monophyly of the Ariidae are strongly corroborated by new synapomorphies discovered in the present study. The subfamily Galeichthyinae and the remaining ariids are strongly supported by new morphological characters. The monotypic subfamily Bagreinae is recognized as the sister group to all nongaleichthyin ariids, supported by a large series of exclusive synapomorphies. A new concept of Ariinae is presented: the subfamily is found to be unequivocally monophyletic and includes all ariid genera, except Galeichthys and Bagre. New data supporting the monophyly of the genera included in the Ariinae are introduced and previous hypotheses of monophyly, species composition, morphological definition, and relationships are reviewed and discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available