Are elassoma sunfish?
#2 Guest_Newt_*
Posted 17 February 2010 - 03:44 PM
#3 Guest_Bob_*
Posted 18 February 2010 - 09:09 AM
I have seen no recent (post-2001) papers on the subject. The two competing hypotheses seem to be- sister group to Centrarchidae s.s. and ordinal-level member of the unfortunately-named "Smegmamorpha". Smegmamorpha as proposed includes not only sticklebacks but seahorses and pipefishes, silversides and rainbowfishes, flyingfishes and halfbeaks, spiny and swamp eels, mullets, killifishes and livebearers, etc.
#4 Guest_jase_*
Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:50 AM
Is this implying that those groups all represent one branch of a phylogenetic tree, or just that taxonomists haven't yet figured out where to put them?Smegmamorpha as proposed includes not only sticklebacks but seahorses and pipefishes, silversides and rainbowfishes, flyingfishes and halfbeaks, spiny and swamp eels, mullets, killifishes and livebearers, etc.
Interestingly, the top Google result for Smegmamorpha is http://en.wiktionary...ki/Smegmamorpha, which lists as its source a NANFA page that no longer exists.
This subject prompted me to spend the past 1/2 hour or so browsing Wikipedia to see what's going on in biological taxonomy these days. In some ways it's hard to believe that we won't eventually wind up with a system like PhyloCode that abandons the idea of trying to name each rank of the phylogenetic tree (Kingdom, Phylum, Class...). Then again, actually discussing how two animals fit in the tree without using named ranks seems equally impossible. Debate on how to reconcile these problems certainly isn't new, but as molecular phylogeny continues to explode it's only going to get exponentially more complicated. It'll be really interesting to see how this all develops over the next few decades...
#5 Guest_Newt_*
Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:52 AM
The Smegmamorpha, with over 2,000 species in 37 families, are an unlikely and diverse assemblage comprising spiny and swamp eels, the Synbranchiformes (100 species in 3 families), grey mullets, the Mugiliformes (70 species in 1 family), pygmy sunfishes, the Elassomatiformes (6 species in 1 family), sticklebacks, pipefishes and allies, the Gasterosteiformes (275 species in 11 families), and the speciose silversides, flyingfishes, killifishes, and allies, the Atherinomorpha (1550 species in 21 familes and 3 orders). As recognized by Johnson and Patterson (1993), smegmamorphs are united by a single specialization, a unique attachment of the first epineural at the tip of a prominent transverse process on the first vertebra, but several additional specializations are shared by most of them. To date, smegmamorph monophyly has not been challenged by a comprehensive morphological analysis. Molecular analyses have failed to capture smegmamorph monophyly, although major components of the group have been recovered (e.g., Wiley et al. 2000; Chen et al., 2003; Miya et al., 2000, 2003, 2005).
#6 Guest_Newt_*
Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:54 AM
Chen, W.-J., C., Bonillo, and G. Lecointre. 2003. Repeatability of clades as a criterion of reliability: a case study for molecular phylogeny of Acanthomorpha (Teleostei) with larger number of taxa. Mol. Phylo. Evol. 26(2):262-288.
Johnson, G. D. and C. Patterson. 1993. Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal. Bull. Mar. Sci. 52(1):554-626.
Miya, M. A, A. Kawaguchi, and M. Nishida. 2001. Mitogenomic exploration of higher teleostean phylogenies: a case study of moderate-scale evolutionary genomics with 38 newly determined complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18(11)1993-2009.
Miya, M., H. Takeshima, H. Endo, N. B. Ishiguro, J. G. Inous, T. Mukai, T. P. Satoh, M. Yamagucki, A. Kawaguchi, K. Mabuchi, S. M. Shirai, and M. Nishida. 2003. Major patterns of higher teleost phylogenies: a new perspective based on 100 complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylo. Evol. 26:121-138.
Miya, M., Satoh, T.P., and Nishida. 2005. The phylogenetic position of toadfishes (Order Batrachoidiformes)in the higher ray-finned fishes as inferred from partitioned Bayesian analysis of 102 whole mitochondrial sequences. Biol. Jour. Linn. Soc. 85:289-306
Wiley, E. O., G. D. Johnson, and W. W. Dimmick. 2000. The interrelationships of acanthomorph fishes: a total evidence approach using morphological and molecular data. Biochem. Syst. Evol. 28(2000):319-350.
#7 Guest_bpkeck_*
Posted 19 February 2010 - 10:10 PM
I say that morphology used to determine deep phylogeny is essentially baubles because there is no understanding... nor can there be... of how things influenced those traits in their evolution and that many of the morphological characters used by us systematists are so plastic/variable, so any weight assigned to those traits is only assigned by the person doing the analysis.
#8 Guest_Kanus_*
Posted 19 February 2010 - 10:43 PM
#9 Guest_Newt_*
Posted 02 March 2010 - 05:21 PM
Li et al. 2009
Some highlights in relation to this thread are:
Smegmamorpha is not recovered, with the component parts widely scattered throughout the Acanthomorpha.
Centrarchidae and Elassomatidae are sister taxa, with Moronidae as the sister of Centrarchidae + Elassomatidae. The three together are labeled clade M'' and are one of many branches in a huge unresolved crown-group polytomy. However, the authors don't believe clade M'' is highly reliable:
• Clade M′ (Sciaenidae (croakers) and Haemulidae (grunts)) has not been found by molecular studies because of lack of representatives included for these families. However, Smith and Craig (2007) did sample those two families but they do not appear related to each other in their tree. Also, from partially independent sequence data in Chen et al. (2007), haemulids appear close to lutjanids and sparids while sciaenids are closer to drepanids and chaetodontids.
• The same applies for clade M″ grouping the Centrarchidae (sunfishes), the Moronidae (temperate basses) and the Elassomatidae (pygmy sunfishes). Moreover, that clade contradicts the association of the Moronidae in Dettaï and Lecointre (submitted for publication) with some members of the labroids (i.e. labrids and scarids) and some members of the polyphyletic trachinoids. In Chen et al. (2007), Elassoma is not related to moronids and this family is closer to labrids and scarids. Clade M″ should be evaluated again with more taxa.
Another clade found in some but not all of their trees is what they call extended clade N. This includes the members of clade M'' and a diverse group of mainly marine fishes.
• Extended N: clade N including Monodactylidae (fingerfishes), Lutjanidae (snappers), Leiognathidae (ponyfishes), Cepolidae (bandfishes), Labridae (wrasses), Scaridae (parrotfishes) and Moronidae, Centrarchidae, Elassomatidae, Callanthiidae (groppos), Priacanthiidae (bigeyes), Caesionidae (fusiliers), Scatophagidae (scats), Malacanthidae (tilefishes), Datnioididae (tigerperches), Kyphosidae (sea chubs), Aplodactylidae (marblefishes), Cheilodactylidae (morwongs), Sparidae (porgies), Champsodontidae (crocodile toothfishes), clades X, G, M′ and R.
You may notice that this group includes some labroids (Scaridae and Labridae) but not others (particularly Cichlidae). Apparently the labroids are at least diphyletic and the labroid mouth apparatus has arisen more than once. It is significant (to hobbyists if not to taxonomists) that the sunfish are still found to be only very distantly related to cichlids, despite the similarity of some forms from the two groups.
#12 Guest_Bob_*
Posted 05 March 2010 - 12:20 PM
An interesting new paper on acanthomorph (spiny-rayed fish) phylogeny:
Li et al. 2009
Some highlights in relation to this thread are:
Smegmamorpha is not recovered, with the component parts widely scattered throughout the Acanthomorpha.
Centrarchidae and Elassomatidae are sister taxa, with Moronidae as the sister of Centrarchidae + Elassomatidae. The three together are labeled clade M'' and are one of many branches in a huge unresolved crown-group polytomy. However, the authors don't believe clade M'' is highly reliable:
Another clade found in some but not all of their trees is what they call extended clade N. This includes the members of clade M'' and a diverse group of mainly marine fishes.
You may notice that this group includes some labroids (Scaridae and Labridae) but not others (particularly Cichlidae). Apparently the labroids are at least diphyletic and the labroid mouth apparatus has arisen more than once. It is significant (to hobbyists if not to taxonomists) that the sunfish are still found to be only very distantly related to cichlids, despite the similarity of some forms from the two groups.
#16 Guest_nativeplanter_*
Posted 17 March 2010 - 02:59 PM
Interestingly enough, last year I found out that if the state says elassoma are sunfish then they are indeed sunfish, I found that out in court, lol
Moon,
Without going into the nitty-gritty, is there a take-home message you could give us? No need to expose all, but it sounds like there was some aspects from that experience that many of us could learn from. Would probably require a separate topic, though.
#17 Guest_Moontanman_*
Posted 18 March 2010 - 10:53 AM
Moon,
Without going into the nitty-gritty, is there a take-home message you could give us? No need to expose all, but it sounds like there was some aspects from that experience that many of us could learn from. Would probably require a separate topic, though.
Well what it boils down to is no matter how long you have been collecting in your state (37 years for me in NC)no matter how many times you collected a certain fish or been ignored by wildlife officials, when it comes down to the law if you are violating it, you are, so read the laws and follow them, even if it means certain fish that are impossible to catch any way but nets are still illegal to catch with nets.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users