4.7 Article

Remarkable morphological stasis in an extant vertebrate despite tens of millions of years of divergence

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1639

关键词

living fossil; morphological stasis; rate of evolution; cryptic diversity; Osteoglossomorpha

资金

  1. National Geographic Society [7879-05]
  2. JSPS [16570082, 15380131, 17207007, 19207007]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15380131, 19207007, 23370041, 17207007, 16570082] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between genotypic and phenotypic divergence over evolutionary time varies widely, and cases of rapid phenotypic differentiation despite genetic similarity have attracted much attention. Here, we report an extreme case of the reverse pattern-morphological stasis in a tropical fish despite massive genetic divergence. We studied the enigmatic African freshwater butterfly fish (Pantodon buchholzi), whose distinctive morphology earns it recognition as a monotypic family. We sequenced the mitochondrial genome of Pantodon from the Congo basin and nine other osteoglossomorph taxa for comparison with previous mitogenomic profiles of Pantodon from the Niger basin and other related taxa. Pantodon populations form a monophyletic group, yet their mitochondrial coding sequences differ by 15.2 per cent between the Niger and Congo basins. The mitogenomic divergence time between these populations is estimated to be greater than 50 Myr, and deep genetic divergence was confirmed by nuclear sequence data. Among six sister-group comparisons of osteoglossomorphs, Pantodon exhibits the slowest rate of morphological divergence despite a level of genetic differentiation comparable to both species-rich (e. g. Mormyridae) and species-poor (e.g. Osteoglossidae) families. Morphological stasis in these two allopatric lineages of Pantodon offers a living vertebrate model for investigating phenotypic stability over millions of generations in the face of profound fluctuations in environmental conditions.

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