Etheostoma basilare
#1 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 11 May 2007 - 02:58 PM
#2 Guest_fundulus_*
Posted 11 May 2007 - 08:56 PM
#3 Guest_farmertodd_*
Posted 12 May 2007 - 07:36 AM
OK, that's one you helped to describe in Copeia recently. Now I know what it looks like, for real! It's endemic to Tennessee if I remember correctly?
And which brings on my other question... Why not use Catonotus? Or Ulocentra for the snubs? Are their evolutionary histories less divergent than Nothonotus? Just curious
Todd
#4 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 12 May 2007 - 09:01 AM
However, analyses from nuclear genes tenatively supports a monophyletic Etheostoma (including Nothonotus). Also, our data from 10 nuclear genes indicates that E. cinereum is a snubnose darter!
We have a paper coming out that presents a proposed rank-free, phylogenetic node based nomenclature for darters. There is a great example published by David Hillis for ranid frogs. If you would like a PDF of this paper send me an email.
#5 Guest_fundulus_*
Posted 12 May 2007 - 02:44 PM
#6 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 12 May 2007 - 03:23 PM
There is some data on genome size in NA minnows. Given that many trees are available, one could determine if there is phylogenetic signal in that data, or at least think about the rate that genome size changes.
If someone does know about genome size in percids, I would like to know about it.
#7 Guest_ashtonmj_*
Posted 12 May 2007 - 03:24 PM
I would like a copy of that paper, the 'rank free' idea sounds interesting. Amaznig picture too. I saw quite a few basilare in the Collins over a couple occassions and never a male that looked that splendid.
#8 Guest_fundulus_*
Posted 12 May 2007 - 04:28 PM
#9 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 15 May 2007 - 10:45 AM
Danzmann, R.G., 1979. The karyology of eight species of fish belonging to the family Percidae. Can. J. Zool. 57, 2055-2060.
All darters have 48 chromosomes. There is no heterogametic sex, and in centrarchids chromosome number is uniform with no heterogametic sex.
#10 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 15 May 2007 - 10:46 AM
Indeed, it is endemic to the Caney Fork. One of four or five darter species endemic to this system.OK, that's one you helped to describe in Copeia recently. Now I know what it looks like, for real! It's endemic to Tennessee if I remember correctly?
Do you think people would argue the same vicariant event is responsible for the isolation of all these endemics?
#11 Guest_fundulus_*
Posted 15 May 2007 - 04:33 PM
Indeed, it is endemic to the Caney Fork. One of four or five darter species endemic to this system.
Do you think people would argue the same vicariant event is responsible for the isolation of all these endemics?
Not knowing anything at all about these endemics, I would say yes as the easiest explanation (with kudos to Occam). I know that there's a long, complicated history to river connectivities in the Tennessee/Cumberland/Ohio basin. Darters seem to be a kind of "index species" for these vicariant events.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users