4.6 Review

A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera)

期刊

BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
卷 77, 期 2, 页码 223-259

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1017/S1464793101005899

关键词

bats; evolution; matrix representation; parsimony; phylogeny; supertree construction

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the first estimate of the phylogenetic relationships among all 916 extant and nine recently extinct species of bats (Mammalia:Chiroptera), a group that accounts for almost one-quarter of extant mammalian diversity. This phylogeny was derived by combining 105 estimates of bat phylogenetic relationships published since 1970 using the supertree construction technique of Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP). Despite the explosive growth in the number of phylogenetic studies of bats since 1990, phylogenetic relationships in the order have been studied non-randomly. For example, over one-third of all bat systematic studies to date have focused on relationship within Phyllostomidae, whereas relationships within clades such as Kerivoulinae and Murinae have never been studied using cladistic methods. Resolution in the supertree similarly differs among clades: overall resolution is poor (46.4% of a fully bifurcating solution) but reaches 100% in some groups (e.g. relationships within Mormoopidae). The supertree analysis does not support a recent proposal that Microchiroptera is paraphyletic with respect to Megachiroptera, as the majority of source topologies support microbat monophyly. Although it is not a substitute for comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of primary molecular and morphological data, the bat supertree provides a useful tool for future phylogenetic comparative and macroevolutionary studies. Additionally, it identifies clades that have been studied, highlights groups within which relationships are controversial, and like all phylogenetic studies, provides preliminary hypotheses that can form starting points for future phylogenetic studies of bats.

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

4.6
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