4.7 Article

World-wide species distributions in the family Kyphosidae (Teleostei: Perciformes)

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 252-266

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.04.037

关键词

Sea chub; Drummer; Kyphosus; Scorpis; Girella

资金

  1. New Zealand Government
  2. Faculty Research development Fund of the University of Auckland
  3. Julie von Mullens Fond (Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab [Royal Danish Society of Sciences])
  4. Australian Museum Geddes Postgraduate Award
  5. NZ Ministry of Research and Innovation [C01X0502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sea chubs of the family Kyphosidae are major consumers of macroalgae on both temperate and tropical reefs, where they can comprise a significant proportion of fish biomass. However, the relationships and taxonomic status of sea chubs (including the junior synonyms Hermosilla, Kyphosus, Neoscorpis and Sectator) worldwide have long been problematical due to perceived lack of character differentiation, complicating ecological assessment. More recently, the situation has been further complicated by publication of conflicting taxonomic treatments. Here, we resolve the relationships, taxonomy and distribution of all known species of sea chubs through a combined analysis of partial fragments from mitochondrial markers (12s, 16s, cytb, tRNA -Pro, -Phe, -Thr and -Val) and three nuclear markers (rag1, rag2, tmo4c4). These new results provide independent evidence for the presence of several junior synonyms among Atlantic and Indo-Pacific taxa, demonstrating that several sea chub species are more widespread than previously thought. In particular, our results can reject the hypothesis of endemic species in the Atlantic Ocean. At a higher taxonomic level, our results shed light on the relationships between Girellidae, Kuhliidae, Kyphosidae, Microcanthidae, Oplegnathidae and Scorpididae, with Scorpididae resolved as the sister group to Kyphosidae. (C) 2016 Elsevier 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