DOCSLIB.ORG

Promoting Resolution of the Percomorph Bush: a Reply to Mooi and Gill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Promoting Resolution of the Percomorph Bush: a Reply to Mooi and Gill Copeia 2010, No. 3, 520–524 Promoting Resolution of the Percomorph Bush: A Reply to Mooi and Gill Wm. Leo Smith1 ‘‘If I’d asked . what they wanted, they’d have said a faster every test available to them at the primary homology stage, I horse.’’—Henry Ford, discussing innovation and the disagree with Mooi and Gill’s ever-present critique of building of his first automobiles character optimization. This stance gives the impression that they disregard or reject character congruence as the N their commentary, abstract, and presentation, Mooi final and decisive test of homology. Contrary to Mooi and and Gill (2008, 2010) sounded an alarm regarding what Gill (2010), we cannot ‘‘understand character homology’’ or I they perceive as an impending crisis in systematic justify special pleading for the uniqueness of characters; we ichthyology. This crisis is not impending; we are in the can only hypothesize that two entities are homologous midst of it. At higher levels, systematic ichthyology has been using all available evidence and let the totality of the data in in a stalemate for 35 years for percomorphs and for nearly a the analysis corroborate or refute the hypothesis of synapo- century for the ‘‘percoids’’ or moronoids. The alarm has morphy. To do anything else introduces unnecessary bias been going off for decades, and we are now just beginning to and assumptions. The difference between my view and the move beyond the crisis through the explicit analysis of view expressed by Mooi and Gill (2010) regarding the datasets aimed at resolving long-standing questions in importance of an explicit optimality criterion and character percomorph systematics (Springer and Orrell, 2004; Smith optimization is the core difference between the ‘‘trans- and Craig, 2007; Thacker, 2009). The phylogenetic hypoth- formed’’ and ‘‘numerical’’ phylogenetic schools (sensu eses and resulting changes to the classification recommend- Ebach et al., 2008). This conflict, I believe, exacerbates the ed by these studies are intriguing and have molecular and/or molecular vs. morphological data ‘‘rift’’ in systematic morphological support, but like all hypotheses, they ichthyology that Chakrabarty (2010) and Mooi and Gill demand further study. In the future, I hope that Mooi, Gill, (2010) discuss. Data chauvinism exists for both morpholog- and other researchers will examine the evidence for these ical and molecular systematists, so it would be most phylogenetic proposals or propose new evidence-based productive to focus the debate on the few fundamental relationships for other groups. As it stands, Mooi and Gill’s differences in the treatment, presentation, and analysis of (2010) critique is thoughtful, but it does not provide any data between the two phylogenetic schools rather than the counter-evidence for a single clade, recommendation, or class of data being studied. relationship proposed in the criticized studies; it just I have argued that our field’s lack of progress on higher- protests their existence. The percomorph bush will not level relationships, generally, and within percomorphs, resolve itself, and ichthyology will only make progress by specifically, is due to (1) our reliance on inexplicit analyses, incorporating new data and by performing explicit analyses. (2) dogmatic thinking about characters and relationships, The days of defending a 100-year-old taxonomic status quo and (3) analyzing insufficient data (as discussed in Smith that lacks evidence for its decisions are, thankfully, and Craig, 2007). In that study, we proposed novel numbered. relationships and a revised classification for the Percoidei, Mooi and Gill’s (2010) claim that the cause for the Epinephelidae, and Serranidae. These revisions were based impending crisis is ‘‘that the movement from synapomor- on a synapomorphy-rich parsimony hypothesis, which phy-based topologies to those based on statistical measures required a substantive break from the traditional percoid has removed the opportunity for rational discussion based classification handed down nearly 100 years ago from the on homology.’’ I agree with Mooi and Gill that homology likes of Regan (1913) and Jordan (1923). Mooi and Gill and synapomorphies are critical to phylogenetics, which is (2010) criticized our results (in non-specific terms) and the why every phylogeny that I have ever published is based conclusions of this and several other recent analyses that implicitly on synapomorphies; they are present for every have changed acanthomorph classification. Instead of recovered node. Further, I have always provided diagnostic discussing the three arguments put forward by Smith and features for every named clade (note that Moronoidei’s Craig (2007), Mooi and Gill (2010) focused their critique on stated usage was as a temporary grade, not a clade). Despite (1) ‘‘the clear trend in systematics towards a completely our agreement on the value of synapomorphy, Mooi and statistical and tree-based cladistics away from an evidence Gill’s (2010) assertion that ‘‘systematics is in danger of and character-based approach,’’ (2) ‘‘the apparent confusion making itself irrelevant to the remainder of biology because between homology, homoplasy, and the meaning of meaningful dialogue or assessment of synapomorphies has evidence,’’ and (3) ‘‘the impact of methods of analysis that become impossible’’ is hyperbole. The rise of comparative are, for all intents and purposes, phenetic.’’ Concerns 1 and methods (e.g., models of character evolution, diversification 3 are effectively redundant because a study that is phenetic analyses, biogeography) that have been developed via the would definitionally not be discretely character based, and if statistical framework of model-based analyses has only a study were phenetic, it would not make the distinction strengthened the influence of phylogenetics in biology. between homology and homoplasy (concern 2). In a sense, While I do agree with Mooi and Gill (2010) that researchers these concerns are a single criticism against numerical should take homology assessment seriously and make use of phylogenetics and character optimization: Mooi and Gill 1 The Field Museum, Department of Zoology, Fishes, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605; E-mail: [email protected]. Submitted: 26 April 2010. Accepted: 24 May 2010. F 2010 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists DOI: 10.1643/OT-10-087c Comments 521 believe these methods are phenetic. The criticized studies state across all these groups in the primary homology use techniques that are not phenetic for several reasons. assessment stage. Even with this additional testing, it is First, phenetics relies on the analysis of a table of pairwise irresponsible for any systematist to assume that they can distances (a distance matrix) rather than the raw character fully ‘‘understand’’ a character system and bypass the test of matrix. Because of the reduction of the discrete character character congruence. matrix to pairwise distances, individual character changes Mooi and Gill (2010) never discuss character congruence (e.g., synapomorphies) cannot be optimized on the resulting as a test of homology except when they dismissively state, phenogram. In contrast, maximum likelihood, Bayesian, ‘‘optimization procedures are being relied upon to ‘solve’ and parsimony analyses are based on the analysis of the raw issues of homology rather than relying on biology.’’ As molecular sequence (character and character-state) data; this noted above, character congruence has always had an use of the discrete character data allows for the optimiza- important role in homology assessment (Patterson, 1982; tion/mapping/tracing of hypothesized transformations Rieppel and Kearney, 2007), and it is, after all, the final through ancestral states reconstruction (i.e., the identifica- arbiter of what character states are synapomorphies in a tion of synapomorphies). Second, likelihood, Bayesian, and given study. To suggest that relying on character congru- parsimony analyses use an explicit root to polarize all ence, or what is effectively the preponderance of the data or hypothesized transformations; this outgroup rooting results the weight of the evidence, is equivalent to ignoring in phylogenies that are informed solely by synapomorphy, homology goes against logic and the scientific method. not similarity. These methods are simply not phenetic. Mooi and Gill (2010) suggest, ‘‘a change in topology with Beyond this criticism, Mooi and Gill make additional claims the addition of taxa is an indication that there is no that demand address. Several of these issues will be discussed understanding of character homology.’’ This suggests that a below with the goal of promoting this discussion further, so systematist can know the Truth regarding all questions of that ichthyologists can once again focus on resolving the homology, homoplasy, convergence, and relationships prior phylogeny and taxonomy of fishes. to an analysis. Minimally, these types of assumptions about homology and monophyly (see Outgroup analysis below) Character congruence and molecular homology.—Mooi and will introduce bias into the analysis for all but the simplest Gill (2010) implore systematists to ‘‘return to homology,’’ of datasets. It is not possible to assess synapomorphy vs. and they suggest that ‘‘molecular data are really not convergence without explicit analyses, and all ichthyolo- substantively different from morphological data and should gists agree that homoplasy is rampant within Percomorpha.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phylogeny of the Plesiopidae (Pisces: Perciformes) with Evidence for the Inclusion of the Acanthoclinidae
    BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 52(1): 284-326,1993 PHYLOGENY OF THE PLESIOPIDAE (PISCES: PERCIFORMES) WITH EVIDENCE FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE ACANTHOCLINIDAE Randall D. Mooi ABSTRACT Cladistic methods are used to investigate phylogenetic relationships of the Indo-Pacific marine fish family Plesiopidae. Using multiple outgroups, osteological and myological char- acters indicate that plesiopids are monophyletic only with the inclusion of the Acanthoclinidae as the sister group to the genus Plesiops. A new classification lowers the Acanthoclinidae to subfamilial rank, and other monophyletic units are recognized at this same rank to produce the following phylogenctically sequenced classification (included genera in parentheses): Tra- chinopinae (Trachinops), Assessorinae (Assessor), Paraplesiopinae (Paraplesiops, Callople- siops, Steeneichthys), Fraudellinae (Fraudella), Plesiopinae (Plesiops), Acanthoclininae (Acan- thaclinus. Belaneplerygian. Behaps, Acanthoplesiops). This phylogeny suggests that egg mass guarding is plesiomorphic for the family, and that oral incubation in Assessor is autapo- morphic. A diagnosis for the newly defined family is provided. The family Plesiopidae, commonly called longfins, prettyfins, devilfishes, or roundheads, comprises a morphologically diverse group of percoid fishes found in the Indo-Pacific region. There are about 30 species in the family as currently recognized. Adult size ranges from 30 to 300 mm in standard length, and body form varies from narrow and elongate to bulky and heavy bodied. The species also vary considerably in behavior, from diurnal schooling to nocturnal solitary habits. Most are found in relatively shallow water (to 30 m) on coral or rocky reefs. The group is unusual among marine percoids in having demersal eggs with adhesive filaments, characteristic of only four other percoid families: Acantho- clinidae, Grammatidae, Opistognathidae, Pseudochromidae.
    [Show full text]
  • Wainwright-Et-Al.-2012.Pdf
    Copyedited by: ES MANUSCRIPT CATEGORY: Article Syst. Biol. 61(6):1001–1027, 2012 © The Author(s) 2012. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] DOI:10.1093/sysbio/sys060 Advance Access publication on June 27, 2012 The Evolution of Pharyngognathy: A Phylogenetic and Functional Appraisal of the Pharyngeal Jaw Key Innovation in Labroid Fishes and Beyond ,∗ PETER C. WAINWRIGHT1 ,W.LEO SMITH2,SAMANTHA A. PRICE1,KEVIN L. TANG3,JOHN S. SPARKS4,LARA A. FERRY5, , KRISTEN L. KUHN6 7,RON I. EYTAN6, AND THOMAS J. NEAR6 1Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616; 2Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605; 3Department of Biology, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502; 4Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024; 5Division of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85069; 6Department of Ecology and Evolution, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; and 7USDA-ARS, Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Unit, 501 South Chapel Street, Newark, DE 19713, USA; ∗ Correspondence to be sent to: Department of Evolution & Ecology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA; E-mail: [email protected]. Received 22 September 2011; reviews returned 30 November 2011; accepted 22 June 2012 Associate Editor: Luke Harmon Abstract.—The perciform group Labroidei includes approximately 2600 species and comprises some of the most diverse and successful lineages of teleost fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • FAMILY Plesiopidae Günther, 1861 - Roundheads, Longfins
    FAMILY Plesiopidae Günther, 1861 - roundheads, longfins SUBFAMILY Acanthoclininae Günther, 1861 - spiny basslets GENUS Acanthoclinus Jenyns, 1841 - spiny basslets [=Acanthoclinus Jenyns [L.], 1841:91, Taumakoides (subgenus of Acanthoclinus) Whitley [G. P.], 1955:111] Notes: [The zoology of the voyage of H. M. S. Beagle; ref. 2344] Masc. Acanthoclinus fuscus Jenyns, 1842. Type by original designation. Mooi 1993 [ref. 21801] places the Acanthoclinidae as a subfamily of the Plesiopidae. Type by original designation (also monotypic, second species questionably included). •Valid as Acanthoclinus Jenyns, 1841 -- (Hardy 1985:360 [ref. 5184], Smith-Vaniz & Johnson 1990:223 [ref. 16561], Mooi 1993:322 [ref. 21801], Yerman & Leis 2011:79 [ref. 31400], Stewart 2015:1208 [ref. 34196]). Current status: Valid as Acanthoclinus Jenyns, 1841. Plesiopidae: Acanthoclininae. (Taumakoides) [Australian Zoologist v. 12 (pt 2); ref. 4722] Masc. Acanthoclinus trilineatus Griffin, 1933. Type by original designation (also monotypic). •Valid as Taumakoides Whitley, 1955 -- (Hardy 1985:364 [ref. 5184]). •Synonym of Acanthoclinus Jenyns, 1841 -- (Smith-Vaniz & Johnson 1990:223 [ref. 16561]). Current status: Synonym of Acanthoclinus Jenyns, 1841. Plesiopidae: Acanthoclininae. Species Acanthoclinus fuscus Jenyns, 1841 - olive rockfish [=Acanthoclinus fuscus Jenyns [L.], 1841:92, Pl. 18 (fig. 2), Acanthoclinus taumaka Clarke [F. E.], 1879:293, Pl. 15 (upper right)] Notes: [The zoology of the voyage of H. M. S. Beagle; ref. 2344] Bay of Islands, New Zealand. Current status: Valid as Acanthoclinus fuscus Jenyns, 1841. Plesiopidae: Acanthoclininae. Distribution: New Zealand. Habitat: marine. (taumaka) [Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute v. 11 (art. 25) (for 1878); ref. 18006] Jackson's Bay, New Zealand. Current status: Synonym of Acanthoclinus fuscus Jenyns, 1841.
    [Show full text]
  • Training Manual Series No.15/2018
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CMFRI Digital Repository DBTR-H D Indian Council of Agricultural Research Ministry of Science and Technology Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Department of Biotechnology CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual This is a limited edition of the CMFRI Training Manual provided to participants of the “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals” organized by the Marine Biotechnology Division of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), from 2nd February 2015 - 31st March 2018. Principal Investigator Dr. P. Vijayagopal Compiled & Edited by Dr. P. Vijayagopal Dr. Reynold Peter Assisted by Aditya Prabhakar Swetha Dhamodharan P V ISBN 978-93-82263-24-1 CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Published by Dr A Gopalakrishnan Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR-CMFRI) Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute PB.No:1603, Ernakulam North P.O, Kochi-682018, India. 2 Foreword Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Kochi along with CIFE, Mumbai and CIFA, Bhubaneswar within the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Department of Biotechnology of Government of India organized a series of training programs entitled “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals”.
    [Show full text]
  • PLESIOPIDAE Remarks: Two of the Listed Species (Acanthoplesiops
    click for previous page 2578 Bony Fishes PLESIOPIDAE Roundheads (prettyfins, longfins) by R.D. Mooi iagnostic characters: Small to medium-sized fishes (3 to 30 cm total length); body elongate to oblong. DSnout short. Preopercular sensory canal open (except in Beliops and Acanthoplesiops), giving the preopercle a “double-bordered” appearance (not always obvious externally). No opercular spines. Notch in the posterolateral margin of branchiostegal membranes just dorsal to third branchiostegal ray (not obvious in Calloplesiops). A single dorsal fin with IX to XXVI spines and 2 to 11 segmented rays, some species with deeply incised fin membranes between the spines (not in Assessor or Callople- siops); anal fin with III to XVI spines and 2 to 11 segmented rays; caudal fin usually rounded, sometimes elongate to lanceolate or forked; pelvic fins with I spine and 2 or 4 segmented rays, the first ray bifurcate, often elongate and sometimes considerably thickened;pectoralfinswith14to30rays; Branchiostegal rays 6. Scales often cycloid anteriorly and ctenoid posteriorly; scales in lateral series 23 to more than 100; lateral line disjunct and in 2 or more parts, with a more anterior dorsal lateral line running near dorsal-fin base, a posterior lateral line running midlaterally onto caudal peduncle, and occasionally a ventral lateral line as well (except Steeneichthys with a single pored lateral-line scale and the remainder almost wholly replaced by scales with sensory papillae, and Acanthoplesiops with a single dorsal lateral line). Parasphenoid keel
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Plesiopidae (Pisces: Perciformes) with Evidence for the Inclusion of the Acanthoclinidae
    BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 52(1): 284-326,1993 PHYLOGENY OF THE PLESIOPIDAE (PISCES: PERCIFORMES) WITH EVIDENCE FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE ACANTHOCLINIDAE Randall D. Mooi ABSTRACT Cladistic methods are used to investigate phylogenetic relationships of the Indo-Pacific marine fish family Plesiopidae. Using multiple outgroups, osteological and myological char- acters indicate that plesiopids are monophyletic only with the inclusion of the Acanthoclinidae as the sister group to the genus Plesiops. A new classification lowers the Acanthoclinidae to subfamilial rank, and other monophyletic units are recognized at this same rank to produce the following phylogenctically sequenced classification (included genera in parentheses): Tra- chinopinae (Trachinops), Assessorinae (Assessor), Paraplesiopinae (Paraplesiops, Callople- siops, Steeneichthys), Fraudellinae (Fraudella), Plesiopinae (Plesiops), Acanthoclininae (Acan- thaclinus. Belaneplerygian. Behaps, Acanthoplesiops). This phylogeny suggests that egg mass guarding is plesiomorphic for the family, and that oral incubation in Assessor is autapo- morphic. A diagnosis for the newly defined family is provided. The family Plesiopidae, commonly called longfins, prettyfins, devilfishes, or roundheads, comprises a morphologically diverse group of percoid fishes found in the Indo-Pacific region. There are about 30 species in the family as currently recognized. Adult size ranges from 30 to 300 mm in standard length, and body form varies from narrow and elongate to bulky and heavy bodied. The species also vary considerably in behavior, from diurnal schooling to nocturnal solitary habits. Most are found in relatively shallow water (to 30 m) on coral or rocky reefs. The group is unusual among marine percoids in having demersal eggs with adhesive filaments, characteristic of only four other percoid families: Acantho- clinidae, Grammatidae, Opistognathidae, Pseudochromidae.
    [Show full text]
  • Academy of Natural Sciences
    Academy of Natural Sciences Two New Species of Acanthoclininae (Pisces: Plesiopidae) with a Synopsis and Phylogeny of the Subfamily Author(s): William F. Smith-Vaniz and G. David Johnson Source: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. 142 (1990), pp. 211-260 Published by: Academy of Natural Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4064977 Accessed: 02/06/2010 12:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www .jstor.org/action/showPublisher ?publisherCode=ans. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Academy of Natural Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Checklist of Fishes of Amami-Oshima Island, the Ryukyu Islands, Japan
    国立科博専報，(52), pp. 205–361 , 2018 年 3 月 28 日 Mem. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci., Tokyo, (52), pp. 205–361, March 28, 2018 An Annotated Checklist of Fishes of Amami-oshima Island, the Ryukyu Islands, Japan Masanori Nakae1*, Hiroyuki Motomura2, Kiyoshi Hagiwara3, Hiroshi Senou4, Keita Koeda5, Tomohiro Yoshida67, Satokuni Tashiro6, Byeol Jeong6, Harutaka Hata6, Yoshino Fukui6, Kyoji Fujiwara8, Takeshi Yama kawa9, Masahiro Aizawa10, Gento Shino hara1 and Keiichi Matsuura1 1 Department of Zoology, National Museum of Nature and Science, 4–1–1 Amakubo Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305–0005, Japan *E-mail: [email protected] 2 The Kagoshima University Museum, 1–21–30 Korimoto, Kagoshima 890–0065, Japan 3 Yokosuka City Museum, 95 Fukada-dai, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 238–0016, Japan 4 Kanagawa Prefectural Museum of Natural History, 499 Iryuda, Odawara, Kanagawa 250–0031, Japan 5 National Museum of Marine Biology & Aquarium, 2 Houwan Road, Checheng, Pingtung, 94450, Taiwan 6 The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Kagoshima University, 1–21–24 Korimoto, Kagoshima 890–0065, Japan 7Seikai National Fisheries Research Institute, 1551–8 Taira-machi, Nagasaki 851–2213, Japan 8 Graduate School of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, 4–50–20 Shimoarata, Kagoshima 890–0056, Japan 9 955–7 Fukui, Kochi 780–0965, Japan 10 Imperial Household Agency, 1–1 Chiyoda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100–8111, Japan Abstract. A comprehensive list of fishes from Amami-oshima Island, the Ryukyu Islands, Japan, is reported for the first time on the basis of collected specimens and literature surveys. A total of 1615 species (618 genera, 175 families and 35 orders) are recorded with specimen registration numbers (if present), localities and literature references.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Symbolic Codes for Institutional Resource Collections in Herpetology and Ichthyology Version 6.5 Compiled by Mark Henry Sabaj, 16 August 2016
    Standard Symbolic Codes for Institutional Resource Collections in Herpetology and Ichthyology Version 6.5 Compiled by Mark Henry Sabaj, 16 August 2016 Citation: Sabaj M.H. 2016. Standard symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology: an Online Reference. Version 6.5 (16 August 2016). Electronically accessible at http://www.asih.org/, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Washington, DC. Primary sources (all cross-checked): Leviton et al. 1985, Leviton & Gibbs 1988, http://www.asih.org/codons.pdf (originating with John Bruner), Poss & Collette 1995 and Fricke & Eschmeyer 2010 (on-line v. 15 Jan) Additional on-line resources for Biological Collections (cross-check: token) ZEFOD: information system to botanical and zoological http://zefod.genres.de/ research collections in Germany http://www.fishwise.co.za/ Fishwise: Universal Fish Catalog http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Holotype Wikispecies, Holotype, directory List of natural history museums, From Wikipedia, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_history_museums free encyclopedia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/IEB/ToolBox/C_DOC/lxr/source/data/institution_codes.txt National Center for Biotechnology Information List of museum abbreviations compiled by Darrel R. http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/?action=page&page=museum_abbreviations Frost. 2010. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. BCI: Biological Collections Index (to be key component http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/static/index.html
    [Show full text]
  • With Comments on Biogeography, Diet and Morphological Convergence with Congrogadinae (Teleostei: Pseudochromidae)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKZOJZoological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4082The Lin- nean Society of London, 2004? 2004 141? 179205 Original Article R. D. MOOI and A. C. GILLPHYLOGENETIC POSITION OF NOTOGRAPTIDAE Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 141, 179–205. With 14 figures Notograptidae, sister to Acanthoplesiops Regan (Teleostei: Plesiopidae: Acanthoclininae), with comments on biogeography, diet and morphological convergence with Congrogadinae (Teleostei: Pseudochromidae) RANDALL D. MOOI1* and ANTHONY C. GILL2† 1Milwaukee Public Museum, 800 West Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233–1478, USA 2Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK Received February 2003; accepted for publication January 2004 The Notograptidae contains one genus, Notograptus Günther, and five nominal species from northern Australia and southern New Guinea. Morphological evidence places Notograptus among acanthoclinine plesiopids (continuous free margin of lower lip; head naked; dorsal and anal fins with many spines and few segmented rays; no extensor pro- prius; reduced number of caudal-fin rays) and supports a sister relationship with Acanthoplesiops (symphyseal flap on lower lip; reduced hypural 5; reduced hypurapophysis). This hypothesis resolves the relationships within Acan- thoplesiops, clarifying the polarity of autogenous middle radials of dorsal- and anal-fin pterygiophores. The proposed relationships among acanthoclinines are: Acanthoclinus (Belonepterygion (Beliops (Notograptus (Acanthoplesiops
    [Show full text]
  • Red List Status of Marine Endemic Teleosts (Bony Fishes) of the Philippines
    Copyright © 2009 by First Philippine Conservation Incorporated All rights reserved. No part of this book covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced and/or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic or mechanical – without the written permission of the editors. The editors can not be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of this publication. ISBN 971-94655-0-8 Published by the: First Philippine Conservation Incorporated (FPCI), 4/F Benpres Building, Meralco Avenue cor. Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, 1600 Philippines. Tel. #: (+632) 638-7670 / (+632) 449-6085. Fax. # (+632) 631-4089. Global Marine Species Assessment for the Coral Triangle (GMSA-CT) Recommended Entry: Alava, M.N.R., K.E. Carpenter, M.J.S. Palomar, R.F.N. Quicho, and B. Polidoro. (Editors). 2009. Red List Status of Marine Endemic Teleosts (Bony Fishes) of the Philippines. Global Marine Species Assessment for the Coral Triangle - First Philippine Conservation Incorporated. 108 pp. Suggested Citation for Species Red List Assessments:: [Assessors]. 2009. [Species name], pp. xx-xx. In: (Insert recommended entry above). Lay-out Artist: M.V. Encomienda. Front cover design: M. Silvosa, M.V. Encomienda, and M.J.S. Palomar. Fish illustrations: M.K.M. Rodriguez. Photo, p. 42: B. Stockwell. Maps: M.J.S. Palomar. Red List Status of Marine Endemic Teleosts (Bony Fishes) of the Philippines Global Marine Species Assessment for the Coral Triangle First Philippine Conservation Incorporated Red List Status of Marine Endemic Teleosts (Bony Fishes) of the Philippines COORDINATORS Alava, Moonyeen Nida R., MSc, Senior Red List Officer, Global Marine Species Assessment for the Coral Triangle (GMSA-CT), First Philippine Conservation Incorporated, 4/F Benpres Building, Meralco Avenue cor.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleostei: Plesiopidae)
    Zootaxa 3750 (3): 216–222 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2013 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3750.3.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CE95F27E-AE24-4A0F-B79F-82ABAC90AF42 Acanthoplesiops cappuccino, a new species of acanthoclinine fish from the Red Sea (Teleostei: Plesiopidae) ANTHONY C. GILL1,2, SERGEY V. BOGORODSKY3 & AHMAD O. MAL4 1Macleay Museum and School of Biological Sciences, A12 – Macleay Building, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] 2Ichthyology, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia 3Station of Naturalists, Omsk, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 4Marine Biology Department, Faculty of Marine Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Acanthoplesiops cappuccino is described from the 16.4 mm SL holotype collected from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Red Sea. The following combination of characters distinguishes it from congeners: dorsal-fin rays XVIII,4; anal-fin rays VII,4; pec- toral-fin rays 18; caudal fin not connected to last rays of dorsal and anal fins by membrane; and caudal peduncle with a pale yellowish brown bar, which extends broadly on to caudal fin. An underwater photo of the anaesthetised holotype is provided, as well as one of the freshly dead holotype and only known specimen of the similar species A. naka. Tables sum- marizing diagnostic characters of the six known species of Acanthoplesiops are included. Key words: ichthyology, systematics, morphology, Acanthoclininae Introduction The Plesiopidae is an Indo-Pacific family of small, tropical and subtropical reef-associated fishes.
    [Show full text]