The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies

espanolSe revisan los caracteres que soportan la monofilia de la cohorte Clupeocephala -el clado mas grande de Teleostei-. La re-evaluacion de estos caracteres demuestra que: 1) varios de ellos no son unicos, contradiciendo interpretaciones previas, sino que son homoplasias que se presentan tambien en grupos ajenos a clupeocefalos (e.g., �crossognatidos y osteoglosomorfos), 2) otros estan ausentes en clupeocefalos basales, 3) algunos son variables en clupeocefalos, 4) otros son, aparentemente, caracteres errados y 5) algunos de esos caracteres, en la forma en que fueron descritos, no son homologos. El presente estudio muestra que la monofilia de Clupeocephala esta soportada por varios caracteres que no son ambiguos. Tres de ellos son aparentemente caracteres derivados unicos (osificacion temprana del autopalatino, arteria hioidea perforando el hipohial ventral, placa dentaria del ultimo faringobranquial o cartilaginoso faringobranquial 4 resultan del crecimiento de una placa y no de la fusion de varias de ellas) y siete son homoplasticos pero son interpretados como adquiridos independientemente en cada uno de los linajes en que se presentan (e.g., presencia de anguloarticular, retroarticular excluido de la faceta articular para el cuadrado, ausencia de placas dentarias en faringobranquial 1 y presencia de seis o menos hipurales). Un caracter previamente interpretado como una sinapomorfia de clupeocefalos es propuesto como una posible sinapomorfia de euteleosteos (arco neural del centro ural 1 [terminologia poliural] atrofiado o ausente). Ademas, los resultados obtenidos revelan la necesidad de mas estudios morfologicos, ontogeneticos y filogeneticos que incluyan numerosas especies de elopomorfos, osteoglosomorfos y clupeocefalos, tanto primitivos como avanzados, para entender el significado y distribucion de los caracteres homoplasticos y testar aquellos que se consideran como unicos en la evolucion de ciertos grupos de teleosteos. EnglishThe characters supporting the monophyly of Clupeocephala are revised. The re-evaluation of these characters demonstrates that: 1) several characters as previously interpreted, are not unique, but homoplastic occurring elsewhere in non clupeocephalans (e.g., �crossognathiforms and osteoglossomorphs); 2) other characters are absent in most basal clupeocephalans; 3) some are variably present in basal clupeocephalans; 4) other characters seem to be wrong; and 5) several characters as previously defined, represent ambiguous homologies. Nevertheless, the present study reveals that the monophyly of Clupeocephala is supported by several unambiguous characters. Three of them are, apparently, uniquely derived novelties (early ossification of autopalatine; hyoidean artery piercing ventral hypohyal; toothplate of last pharyngobranchial or pharyngobranchial cartilage 4 corresponds to growth of only one toothplate), and seven are homoplastic, but are interpreted here as independently acquired in the different teleostean subgroups where they occur (e.g., anguloarticular present; retroarticular excluded from articular facet for quadrate; toothplates on pharyngobranchial 1 absent; six or fewer hypurals present). One character previously interpreted as a clupeocephalan synapomorphy (neural arch of ural centrum 1 [polyural terminology] reduced or lost) is proposed as a euteleostean synapomorphy. Additionally, the results reveal the need for further developmental, morphological, ontogenetic and phylogenetic studies, including many basal and advanced elopomorph, osteoglossomorph, and clupeocephalan species, to understand the meaning and distribution of the homoplastic characters and to test those interpreted as unique novelties of teleostean subgroups.

[1]  G. Arratia,et al.  The first record of Late Jurassic crossognathiform fishes from Europe and their phylogenetic importance for teleostean phylogeny , 2010 .

[2]  T. Bagarinao,et al.  Early ossification and development of the cranium and paired girdles of Chanos chanos (Teleostei, Gonorynchiformes) , 2010 .

[3]  G. Arratia Identifying patterns of diversity of the actinopterygian fulcra , 2009 .

[4]  Paula M. Mabee,et al.  Development of the pharyngeal arch skeleton in Catostomus commersonii (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) , 2009, Journal of morphology.

[5]  Guoqing Lu,et al.  Optimal data partitioning and a test case for ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) based on ten nuclear loci. , 2008, Systematic biology.

[6]  G. Arratia The varasichthyid and other crossognathiform fishes, and the Break-up of Pangaea , 2008 .

[7]  L. Cavin,et al.  Fishes and the Break-up of Pangaea , 2008 .

[8]  L. Cavin,et al.  Fishes and the Break-up of Pangaea: an introduction , 2008 .

[9]  H. Kohno,et al.  Osteological development of the feeding apparatus in early stage larvae of the seabass,Lates calcarifer , 1996, Ichthyological Research.

[10]  Shunping He,et al.  Mitochondrial molecular clocks and the origin of the major Otocephalan clades (Pisces: Teleostei): A new insight. , 2006, Gene.

[11]  D. Grigorescu,et al.  A new Crossognathus (Actinopterygii, Teleostei) from the Lower Cretaceous of Romania with comments on Crossognathidae relationships , 2005 .

[12]  E. Hilton A contribution to the comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony -tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha) , 2002 .

[13]  E. Hilton Osteology of the extant North American fishes of the genus Hiodon Lesueur, 1818 (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha: Hiodontiformes) / Eric J. Hilton. , 2002 .

[14]  G. Arratia THE SISTER-GROUP OF TELEOSTEI: CONSENSUS AND DISAGREEMENTS , 2001 .

[15]  J. Inoue,et al.  A mitogenomic perspective on the basal teleostean phylogeny: resolving higher-level relationships with longer DNA sequences. , 2001, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[16]  D. Power,et al.  Osteologic development of the viscerocranial skeleton in sea bream: alternative ossification strategies in teleost fish , 2001 .

[17]  L. Cavin Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of the teleost Goulmimichthys arambourgi Cavin, 1995, from the Upper Cretaceous of Goulmima, Morocco , 2001 .

[18]  G. Arratia New teleostean fishes from the Jurassic of southern Germany and the systematic problems concerning the ‘pholidophoriforms’ , 2000 .

[19]  M. Kentouri,et al.  Development of the skull in Dentex dentex (Osteichthyes: Sparidae) , 2000 .

[20]  G. Arratia Phylogenetic relationships of Teleostei. Past and present , 2000 .

[21]  G. Arratia Remarkable teleostean fishes from the Late Jurassic of southern Germany and their phylogenetic relationships , 2000 .

[22]  G. Arratia Basal Teleosts and Teleostean Phylogeny: Response to C. Patterson , 1998 .

[23]  L. Grande,et al.  A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy : an empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history , 1998 .

[24]  G. Arratia Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny , 1997 .

[25]  Paula M. Mabee,et al.  Development of the cranium and paired fins in the zebrafish Danio rerio (Ostariophysi, Cyprinidae) , 1996, Journal of morphology.

[26]  G. D. Johnson,et al.  Chapter 12 – Relationships of Lower Euteleostean Fishes , 1996 .

[27]  G. Arratia,et al.  Reevaluation of the caudal skeleton of certain actinopterygian fishes: III. Salmonidae. Homologization of caudal skeletal structures , 1992, Journal of morphology.

[28]  M. Chardon,et al.  Early development of the cephalic skeleton of Barbus barbus (Teleostei, Cyprinidae) , 1992 .

[29]  D. McAllister,et al.  The Caudal Skeleton of Teleostean Fishes , 1991 .

[30]  G. Arratia,et al.  Palatoquadrate and its ossifications: Development and homology within osteichthyans , 1991, Journal of morphology.

[31]  G. Arratia,et al.  The urohyal: Development and homology within osteichthyans , 1990, Journal of morphology.

[32]  G. Arratia,et al.  Reevaluation of the caudal skeleton of some actinopterygian fishes: II. Hiodon, Elops, and Albula , 1988, Journal of morphology.

[33]  B. Hall,et al.  Development of the head skeleton of the Japanese medaka, Oryzias latipes (Teleostei) , 1987, Journal of morphology.

[34]  George V. Lauder,et al.  The evolution and interrelationships of the actinopterygian fishes , 1983 .

[35]  D. Rosen,et al.  Teleostean Interrelationships, Morphological Function and Evolutionary Inference , 1982 .

[36]  W. Fink,et al.  Interrelationships of the ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei) , 1981 .

[37]  O. Nybelin The Polyural Skeleton of Lepisosteus and Certain Other Actinopterygians , 1978 .

[38]  D. Rosen,et al.  Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes, and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 158, article 2 , 1977 .

[39]  M. Jollie Development of the head skeleton and pectoral girdle in Esox , 1975, Journal of morphology.

[40]  L. Taverne,et al.  Ostéologie, phylogenèse et systématique des téléostéens fossiles et actuels du super-ordre des ostéoglossomorphes , 1975 .

[41]  D. Rosen Phylogeny and zoogeography of salmoniform fishes and relationships of Lepidogalaxias salamandroides. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 153, article 2 , 1974 .

[42]  G. Nelson Notes on the structure and relationships of certain Cretaceous and Eocene teleostean fishes. American Museum novitates ; no. 2524 , 1973 .

[43]  G. Nelson Gill arches and the phylogeny of fishes : with notes on the classification of vertebrates. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 141, article 4 , 1969 .

[44]  H. A. Toombs,et al.  The Use of Acids in the Preparation of Vertebrate Fossils , 1959 .

[45]  W. G. Ridewood On the Cranial Osteology of the Fishes of the Families Osteoglossidæ, Pantodontidæ, and Phractolæmidæ. , 1905 .