4.1 Review

Evidence from nuclear DNA sequences sheds light on the phylogenetic relationships of pinnipedia: Single origin with affinity to musteloidea

Journal

ZOOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 125-146

Publisher

ZOOLOGICAL SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.2108/zsj.23.125

Keywords

Arctoidea; Carnivora; nuclear DNA; phylogeny; Pinnipedia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Considerable long-standing controversy and confusion surround the phylogenetic affinities of pinnipeds, the largely marine group of fin-footed members of the placental mammalian order Carnivora. Until most recently, the two major competing hypotheses were that the pinnipeds have a single (monophyletic) origin from a bear-like ancestor, or that they have a dual (diphyletic) origin, with sea lions (Otariidae) derived from a bear-like ancestor, and seals (Phocidae) derived from an otter-, mustelid-, or musteloid-like ancestor. We examined phylogenetic relationships among 29 species of arctoid carnivorans using a concatenated sequence of 3228 bp from three nuclear loci (apolipoprotein B, APOB; interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein, IRBP; recombination-activating gene 1, RAG1). The species represented Pinnipedia (Otariidae: Callorhinus, Eumetopias; Phocidae: Phoca), bears (Ursidae: Ursus, Melursus), and Musteloidea (Mustelidae: Mustela, Enhydra, Melogale, Martes, Gulo, Meles; Procyonidae: Procyon; Ailuridae: Ailurus; Mephitidae: Mephitis). Maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian inference phylogenetic analyses of separate and combined datasets produced trees with largely congruent topologies. The analyses of the combined dataset resulted in well-resolved and well-supported phylogeny reconstructions. Evidence from nuclear DNA evolution presented here contradicts the two major hypotheses of pinniped relationships and strongly suggests a single origin of the pinnipeds from an arctoid ancestor shared with Musteloidea to the exclusion of Ursidae.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available