Osteoglossomorpha: phylogeny, biogeography, and fossil record and the significance of key African and Chinese fossil taxa
Osteoglossomorpha: phylogeny, biogeography, and fossil record and the significance of key African and Chinese fossil taxa
复制标题
DOI：
10.1144/sp295.12
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Mark Wilson;Alison M. Murray
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mark Wilson;Alison M. Murray
骨舌形目是原始硬骨鱼类的一个分支，现代代表分布于五个地理区，化石代表分布于六大洲。现代生物多样性的中心在非洲，而化石多样性的中心在东亚。主要化石分类群包括：[2]北美的Phareodus、Joffrichthys和Ostariostoma;东亚的Lycoptera、Paralycoptera和Huashia;欧洲的Brychaetus和可能的Thaumaturus;非洲的Palaeonotopterus、Singida和Chauliopareion;印度的Tavernichthys;以及东南亚的Musperia。迄今为止，形态学系统发育在三个主要点上存在分歧：石松目、泛齿兽、假羊齿目和鱼亚目的关系。分子遗传学在后两点上也有类似的分歧。在这项研究中，一组组合的形态学数据从以前的研究中产生，包括三个最近描述或重新描述的分类群（非洲的<$Singida和<$Chauliopareion和中国的<$Xixiaichthys）的数据和最大简约性被用来产生一个修订的假设的关系。我们的分析恢复了<$Lycoptera，<$Paralycoptera +<$Tanolepis和<$Xixiaichthys作为茎组骨舌形动物，<$Singida是骨舌科中Pantodon的姐妹，<$Chauliopareion是茎骨舌类，<$ostariostoma是茎骨舌形动物，Notopteridae是Mormyroidea和<$Palaeonotopterus的姐妹。这些结果并不容易解释的骨舌形骨的分布，涉及从一个中心的起源或广泛分布的祖先的vicariant分裂。最近提出的骨舌形动物起源于古代（古生代）的说法是错误的。相反，这些证据与中生代的起源是一致的，地理学的解释涉及到过去发生的大陆分支的广泛灭绝。
Abstract The Osteoglossomorpha are a clade of primitive teleostean fishes with modern representatives in five biogeogeographic regions and fossil representatives on six continents. The centre of modern diversity is in Africa but the centre of fossil diversity is in E Asia. Key fossil taxa include: †Phareodus, †Joffrichthys, and †Ostariostoma in N America; †Lycoptera, †Paralycoptera, and †Huashia among others in E Asia; †Brychaetus and possibly †Thaumaturus in Europe; †Palaeonotopterus, †Singida, and †Chauliopareion in Africa; †Tavernichthys in India; and †Musperia in SE Asia. Morphological phylogenies to date have disagreed on three main points: the relationships of †Lycoptera, of Pantodon, and of Notopterids and Mormyrids. Molecular phylogenies have similarly differed on the last two points. In this study a combined set of morphological data was generated from previous studies, including data from three recently described or redescribed taxa (the African †Singida and †Chauliopareion and the Chinese †Xixiaichthys) and maximum parsimony was used to generate a revised hypothesis of relationships. Our analysis recovered †Lycoptera, †Paralycoptera+ †Tanolepis, and †Xixiaichthys as stem-group osteoglossomorphs, †Singida as sister to Pantodon within Osteoglossidae, †Chauliopareion as a stem osteoglossid, †Ostariostoma as a stem osteoglossiform, and Notopteridae as sister to Mormyroidea and †Palaeonotopterus. These results do not lend themselves to easy explanations of osteoglossomorph biogeography involving either dispersal from a centre of origin or vicariant division of a widely distributed ancestor. Recent suggestions of an ancient (Palaeozoic) origin for osteoglossomorphs are flawed. The evidence, instead, is consistent with an origin within the Mesozoic and the biogeographic explanation involves extensive extinction of clades from continents where they occurred in the past.