4.7 Article

Global phylogeny and new classification of the Rapaninae (Gastropoda: Muricidae), dominant molluscan predators on tropical rocky seashores

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 91-102

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.09.014

关键词

Classification; Molecular phylogeny; Systematics; Taxonomy; Thais

资金

  1. Total Foundation
  2. French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  3. Lounsbery Foundation
  4. Stavros Niarchos Foundation
  5. Natural History Museum, London
  6. Imperial College Deputy Rector's studentship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The monophyly of the muricid subfamily Rapaninae has recently been confirmed with molecular techniques, but its composition and the relationships among its constituent genera remain unclear. We use four genes (28S rRNA, 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, COI) to construct a Bayesian phylogeny of 80 rapanine species (73% of the approximately 109 currently accepted), representing 27 of the 31 nominal genera. This is the most complete phylogeny of this taxonomically confusing subfamily yet produced. We propose a revised phylogenetic classification of the Rapaninae, assigning the recognized species to 28 genera. Most of the morphologically-defined rapanine genera are considered valid, including Purpura, Drupa, Thais and Nassa, but many of them are here restricted or redefined so that they are monophyletic. In particular the familiar genus Thais is narrowly restricted to a single species. Many groups previously accepted as subgenera, including Mancinella, Vasula, Thalessa and Thaisella, are here accorded full generic rank. We describe one new genus, Indothais. While we do not formally alter species-level taxonomy, we show molecular evidence for two cryptic species and several instances of probable species synonymy. We estimate the age of diversification of the Rapaninae as Late Cretaceous (75.9 Ma) and of many of its genera as Miocene. (C) 2012 Elseviei Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据