CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 857

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

Betancur-R, Ricardo, Wiley, Edward O., Arratia, Gloria, Acero, Arturo, Bailly, Nicolas, Miya, Masaki, Lecointre, Guillaume, Ortí, Guillermo·2017·BMC Evolutionary Biology
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3PMC PMC5501477
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 343

  1. Darwin CR. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street; 1859. · DOI
  2. Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L. Molecules as documents of evolutionary history. J Theor Biol. 1965;8:357–66. · DOI
  3. Nelson G. Origin and diversification of teleostean fishes. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1969;167:18–30. · DOI
  4. Greenwood PH, Rosen DE, Weitzman SH, Myers GS. Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1966;131(4):339–456.
  5. Berg LS: Classification of fishes, both recent and fossil, vol. 5 (part 2): Trudy Zoologiceskogo Instituta, Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moskva, Leningrad; 1940.
  6. Betancur-R R, Broughton RE, Wiley EO, Carpenter K, Lopez JA, Li C, et al. The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLoS Currents Tree of Life. 2013; Edition 1 · DOI
  7. Broughton RE, Betancur-R R, Li C, Arratia G, Orti G. Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis reveals the pattern and tempo of bony fish evolution. PLOS Currents Tree of Life. 2013; Edition 1 · DOI
  8. Near TJ, Eytan RI, Dornburg A, Kuhn KL, Moore JA, Davis MP, et al. Resolution of ray-finned fish phylogeny and timing of diversification. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(34):13698–703. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Near TJ, Dornburg A, Eytan RI, Keck BP, Smith WL, Kuhn KL, et al. Phylogeny and tempo of diversification in the superradiation of spiny-rayed fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(31):12738–43. · DOI
  10. Parham JF, Donoghue PC, Bell CJ, Calway TD, Head JJ, Holroyd PA, et al. Best practices for justifying fossil calibrations. Syst Biol. 2012;61(2):346–59. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Inoue JG, Miya M, Venkatesh B, Nishida M. The mitochondrial genome of Indonesian coelacanth Latimeria menadoensis (Sarcopterygii : Coelacanthiformes) and divergence time estimation between the two coelacanths. Gene. 2005;349:227–35. · DOI
  12. Matsuura K, Nishida M. The mitochondrial genome spotted green pufferfish Tetraodon nigroviris (Teleostei: Tetraodontiformes) and divergence time estimation among model organisms in fishes. Gene Genet Syst. 2006;81:29–39. · DOI
  13. Gauthier J, Kluge AG, Rowe T. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics. 1988;4:105–209. · DOI
  14. Grande L, Bemis WE. A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy. An empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (Memoir 4, supplement). 1998;18(1):690.
  15. Arratia G. The monophyly of Teleostei and stem-group teleosts. Consensus and disagreements. In: Arratia G, Schultze HP, editors. Mesozoic Fishes 2 – Systematics and Fossil Record. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 1999. p. 265–334.
  16. Otero O. Anatomy, systematics and phylogeny of both Recent and fossil latid fishes (Teleostei, Perciformes, Latidae). Zool J Linnean Soc. 2004;141(1):81–133. · DOI
  17. Tyler JC, Santini F. A phylogeny of the fossil and extant zeiform-like fishes, Upper Cretaceous to recent, with comments on the putative zeomorph clade (Acanthomorpha). Zool Scr. 2005;34(2):157–75. · DOI
  18. Friedman M. The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature. 2008;454(7201):209–12. · DOI
  19. Davis MP, Arratia G, Kaiser TM. The first fossil shellear and its implications for the evolution and divergence of the Kneriidae (Teleostei: Gonorynchiformes). In: Arratia G, Schultze H-P, MVH W, editors. Mesozoic Fishes 5 - Global Diversity and Evolution. Muenchen: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2013. p. 325–62.
  20. Grande T, Poyato-Ariza FJ, Diogo R: Gonorynchiformes and ostariophysan relationships: Science Publishers; 2010. · DOI
  21. Arcila D, Pyron R, Tyler C, Ortí G, Betancur-R R. An evaluation of fossil tip-dating versus node-age calibrations in tetraodontiform fishes (Teleostei: Percomorphaceae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015;82:131–45. · DOI
  22. Davesne D, Gallut C, Barriel V, Janvier P, Lecointre G, Otero O. The phylogenetic intrarelationships of spiny-rayed fishes (Acanthomorpha, Teleostei, Actinopterygii): fossil taxa increase the congruence of morphology with molecular data. Front Ecol Evol. 2016;4:129. · DOI
  23. Arratia G. Phylogenetic relationships of Teleostei: past and present. Estud Oceanol. 2000;19:19–51.
  24. Albert JS, Johnson DM, Knouft JH. Fossils provide better estimates of ancestral body size than do extant taxa in fishes. Acta Zool. 2009;90:357–84. · DOI
  25. Betancur-R R, Orti G, Pyron AR. Fossil-based comparative analyses reveal ancient marine ancestry erased by extinction in ray-finned fishes. Ecol Lett. 2015;18:441–50. · DOI
  26. Hunt G, Slater G. Integrating paleontological and phylogenetic approaches to macroevolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2016;47(1):null. · DOI
  27. Clarke JT, Lloyd GT, Friedman M. Little evidence for enhanced phenotypic evolution in early teleosts relative to their living fossil sister group. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(41):11531–6. · DOI
  28. Dornburg A, Friedman M, Near TJ. Phylogenetic analysis of molecular and morphological data highlights uncertainty in the relationships of fossil and living species of Elopomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015;89:205–18. · DOI
  29. Säve-Söderbergh G. Some points of view concerning the evolution of the vertebrates and the classification of this group. Ark Zool. 1934;26:1–20.
  30. Mayr E. Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1953.
  31. Greenwood P, Miles R, Patterson C. Interrelationships of fishes. London: Academic Press; 1973.
  32. Smith WL. Promoting resolution of the percomorph bush: a reply to Mooi and Gill. Copeia. 2010;3:520–4. · DOI
  33. Rosen DE. An essay on euteleostean classification. Am Mus Novit. 1985;2827:1–57.
  34. Lauder GV, Liem KF. The evolution and interrelationships of the actinopterygian fishes. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 1983;150(95–197):103.
  35. Stiassny M, Parenti L, Johnson G. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996.
  36. Nelson JS. Fishes of the world, First edition edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 1976.
  37. Nelson JS. Fishes of the world, Second edition edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  38. Nelson JS. Fishes of the world. 3rd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
  39. Nelson JS. Fishes of the world. 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
  40. Nelson JS, Grande T, Wilson MVH. 5th ed. Fishes of the World. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. · DOI
  41. Rosen DE. Interrelationships of higher euteleostean fishes. In: Greenwood PH, Miles RS, Patterson C, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. London: Academic Press; 1973. p. 397–513.
  42. Patterson C. The contribution of paleontology to teleostean phylogeny. In: Hecht MK, Goody PC, Hecht BM, editors. Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. New York; 1977. p. 579–643. · DOI
  43. Arratia G. Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny. Palaeo Ichthyologica. 1997;7:1–168.
  44. Arratia G. Complexities of early Teleostei and the evolution of particular morphological structures through time. Copeia. 2015;103(4):999–1025. · DOI
  45. Patterson C, Rosen DE. Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1977;158:83–172.
  46. Arratia G. The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies. Revista de Biologia Marina & Oceanografia. 2010;45(Special issue):635–57. · DOI
  47. Johnson GD, Patterson C. Relationships of lower euteleostean fishes. In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 251–332. · DOI
  48. Johnson GD. Percomorph phylogeny: progress and problems. Bull Mar Sci. 1993;52(1):3–28.
  49. Johnson GD, Patterson C. Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal. Bull Mar Sci. 1993;52(1):554–626.
  50. Stiassny MLJ, Moore JA. A review of the pelvic girdle of atherinomorph fishes. Zool J Linnean Soc. 1992;104:209–42. · DOI
  51. Moore JA. Phylogeny of the Trachichthyiformes (Teleostei: Percomorpha). Bull Mar Sci. 1993;52(1):114–36.
  52. Nelson G. Phylogeny of major fish groups. In: Fernholm B, Bremer K, Brundin L, Jörnvall H, Rutberg L, Wanntorp HE, editors. The Hierarchy of Life. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1989. p. 325–36.
  53. Chakrabarty P. The Transitioning state of systematic ichthyology. Copeia. 2010;2010(3):513–5. · DOI
  54. Wiley EO, Chakrabarty P, Craig MT, Davis MP, Holcroft NI, Mayden RL, et al. Will the real phylogeneticists please stand up? Zootaxa. 2011;2946:7–16. · DOI
  55. Wiley EO, Johnson GD. A teleost classification based on monophyletic groups. In: Nelson JS, Schultze HP, MVH W, editors. Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2010. p. 123–82.
  56. Smith WL, Craig MT. Casting the percomorph net widely: The importance of broad taxonomic sampling in the search for the placement of serranid and percid fishes. Copeia. 2007;2007(1):35–55. · DOI
  57. Johnson GD. Percoidei: development and relationships. In: Moser H, Richards W, Cohen D, Fahay M, Kendell Jr A, Richardson S, editors. Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes. Lawrence: American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication; 1984. p. 438–47.
  58. Eschmeyer WN. Catalog of Fishes, vol. 1-3: California Academy of Sciences; 1998.
  59. Van Der Laan R, Eschmeyer WN, Fricke R. Family-group names of Recent fishes. Zootaxa. 2014;3882(1):230. · DOI
  60. Parenti L. Book review: Fishes of the World, third edition. Copeia. 1995;1:262–4. · DOI
  61. Lé HLV, Lecointre G, Perasso R. A 28S rRNA-based phylogeny of the gnathostomes: first steps in the analysis of conflict and congruence with morphologically based cladograms. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1993;2:31–51. · DOI
  62. Lecointre G, Nelson G. Clupeomorpha, sister-group of Ostariophysi. In: Stiassny M, Parenti L, Johnson G, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 193–207. · DOI
  63. Arratia G. Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of Jurassic teleosts and their implications in teleostean phylogeny. In: Arratia G, Viohl G, editors. Mesozoic Fishes —Systematics and Paleoecology. Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil: München; 1996.
  64. Miya M, Nishida M. Organization of the mitochondrial genome of a deep-sea fish, Gonostoma gracile (Teleostei: Stomiiformes): first example of transfer RNA gene rearrangements in bony fishes. Marine biotechnology (New York, NY). 1999;1(5):416–0426. · DOI
  65. Miya M, Takeshima H, Endo H, Ishiguro N, Inoue J, Mukai T, et al. Major patterns of higher teleostean phylogenies: a new perspective based on 100 complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003;26(1):121–38. · DOI
  66. Miya M, Satoh T, Nishida M. The phylogenetic position of toadfishes (order Batrachoidiformes) in the higher ray-finned fish as inferred from partitioned Bayesian analysis of 102 whole mitochondrial genome sequences. Biol J Linn Soc. 2005;85:289–306. · DOI
  67. Miya M, Holcroft NI, Satoh TP, Yamaguchi M, Nishida M, Wiley EO. Mitochondrial genome and a nuclear gene indicate a novel phylogenetic position of deep-sea tube-eye fish (Stylephoridae). Ichthyol Res. 2007;54(4):323–32. · DOI
  68. Yamanoue Y, Miya M, Matsuura K, Katoh M, Sakai H, Nishida M. A new perspective on phylogeny and evolution of tetraodontiform fishes (Pisces: Acanthopterygii) based on whole mitochondrial genome sequences: basal ecological diversification? BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8(1):212. · DOI
  69. Nakatani M, Miya M, Mabuchi K, Saitoh K, Nishida M. Evolutionary history of Otophysi (Teleostei), a major clade of the modern freshwater fishes: Pangaean origin and Mesozoic radiation. BMC Evol Biol. 2011;11:177. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Miya M, Nishida M. The mitogenomic contributions to molecular phylogenetics and evolution of fishes: a 15-year retrospect. Ichthyol Res. 2015:29–71. · DOI
  71. Li C, Orti G, Zhang G, Lu G. A practical approach to phylogenomics: the phylogeny of ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii) as a case study. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7(1):44. · DOI
  72. Chen W, Bonillo C, Lecointre G. Repeatability of clades as a criterion of reliability: a case study for molecular phylogeny of Acanthomorpha (Teleostei) with larger number of taxa. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003;26:262–88. · DOI
  73. López JA, Chen WJ, Orti G. Esociform phylogeny. Copeia. 2004;2004(3):449–64. · DOI
  74. Lundberg JG, Sullivan JP, Rodiles-Hernández R, Hendrickson DA. Discovery of African roots for the Mesoamerican Chiapas catfish, Lacantunia enigmatica, requires an ancient intercontinental passage. Proc Acad Natl Sci Phila. 2007;156:39–53. · DOI
  75. Li C, Lu G, Orti G. Optimal data partitioning and a test case for ray-finned fishes (actinopterygii) based on ten nuclear Loci. Syst Biol. 2008;57(4):519–39. · DOI
  76. Dettai A, Lecointre G. New insights into the organization and evolution of vertebrate IRBP genes and utility of IRBP gene sequences for the phylogenetic study of the Acanthomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2008;48(1):258–69. · DOI
  77. Li B, Dettai A, Cruaud C, Couloux A, Desoutter-Meniger M, Lecointre G. RNF213, a new nuclear marker for acanthomorph phylogeny. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009;50(2):345–63. · DOI
  78. Mayden RL, Chen WJ. The world's smallest vertebrate species of the genus Paedocypris: a new family of freshwater fishes and the sister group to the world's most diverse clade of freshwater fishes (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010;57(1):152–75. · DOI
  79. Li C, Betancur-R R, Smith WL, Orti G. Monophyly and interrelationships of snook and barramundi (Centropomidae sensu Greenwood) and five new markers for fish phylogenetics. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2011;60(3):463–71. · DOI
  80. Oliveira C, Avelino GS, Abe KT, Mariguela TC, Benine RC, Orti G, et al. Phylogenetic relationships within the speciose family Characidae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on multilocus analysis and extensive ingroup sampling. BMC Evol Biol. 2011;11:275. · DOI
  81. Near TJ, Bossu CM, Bradburd GS, Carlson RL, Harrington RC, Hollingsworth PR Jr, et al. Phylogeny and temporal diversification of darters (Percidae: Etheostomatinae). Syst Biol. 2011;60(5):565–95. · DOI
  82. Ishiguro NB, Miya M, Nishida M. Basal euteleostean relationships: a mitogenomic perspective on the phylogenetic reality of the "Protacanthopterygii". Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003;27(3):476–88. · DOI
  83. Saitoh K, Miya M, Inoue JG, Ishiguro NB, Nishida M. Mitochondrial genomics of ostariophysan fishes: perspectives on phylogeny and biogeography. J Mol Evol. 2003;56(4):464–72. · DOI
  84. Saitoh K, Sado T, Mayden RL, Hanzawa N, Nakamura K, Nishida M, et al. Mitogenomic evolution and interrelationships of the cypriniformes (Actinopterygii : Ostariophysi): The first evidence toward resolution of higher-level relationships of the world's largest freshwater fish clade based on 59 whole mitogenome sequences. J Mol Evol. 2006;63(6):826–41. · DOI
  85. Mirande JM. Combined phylogeny of ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) and the use of morphological characters in large-scale analyses. Cladistics. 2016; · DOI
  86. Rabosky DL, Santini F, Eastman J, Smith SA, Sidlauskas B, Chang J, et al. Rates of speciation and morphological evolution are correlated across the largest vertebrate radiation. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1958. · DOI
  87. Sanciangco MD, Carpenter KE, Betancur-R. R: Phylogenetic placement of enigmatic percomorph families (Teleostei: Percomorphaceae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 2015, 94:565–576. · DOI
  88. Faircloth BC, McCormack JE, Crawford NG, Harvey MG, Brumfield RT, Glenn TC. Ultraconserved elements anchor thousands of genetic markers spanning multiple evolutionary timescales. Syst Biol. 2012;61(5):717–26. · DOI
  89. Lemmon AR, Emme SA, Lemmon EM. 2012. Anchored hybrid enrichment for massively high-throughput phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 2012,61:727-744. · DOI
  90. Li C, Hofreiter M, Straube N, Corrigan S, Naylor GJ. Capturing protein-coding genes across highly divergent species. BioTechniques. 2013;54(6):321–6. · DOI
  91. Faircloth BC, Sorenson L, Santini F, Alfaro ME. A phylogenomic perspective on the radiation of ray-finned fishes based upon targeted sequencing of ultraconserved elements (UCEs). PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65923. · DOI
  92. Gilbert PS, Chang J, Pan C, Sobel EM, Sinsheimer JS, Faircloth BC, et al. Genome-wide ultraconserved elements exhibit higher phylogenetic informativeness than traditional gene markers in percomorph fishes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015;92:140–6. · DOI
  93. Eytan RI, Evans BR, Dornburg A, Lemmon AR, Lemmon EM, Wainwright PC, et al. Are 100 enough? Inferring acanthomorph teleost phylogeny using Anchored Hybrid Enrichment. BMC Evol Biol. 2015;15:113. · DOI
  94. McGee MD, Faircloth BC, Borstein SR, Zheng J, Darrin Hulsey C, Wainwright PC, et al. Replicated divergence in cichlid radiations mirrors a major vertebrate innovation. Proc Biol Sci. 2016;283:1822. · DOI
  95. Harrington RC, Faircloth BC, Eytan RI, Smith WL, Near TJ, Alfaro ME, et al. Phylogenomic analysis of carangimorph fishes reveals flatfish asymmetry arose in a blink of the evolutionary eye. BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):224. · DOI
  96. Stout CC, Tan M, Lemmon AR, Lemmon EM, Armbruster JW. Resolving Cypriniformes relationships using an anchored enrichment approach. BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):244. · DOI · Paper page
  97. Longo SJ, Faircloth BC, Meyer A, Westneat MW, Alfaro ME, Wainwright PC: Phylogenomic analysis of a rapid radiation of misfit fishes (Syngnathiformes) using ultraconserved elements Mol Phylogenet Evol; 113:33–48. · DOI
  98. Bernardi G, Wiley EO, Mansour H, Miller MR, Orti G, Haussler D, et al. The fishes of Genome 10K. Mar Genomics. 2012;7:3–6. · DOI
  99. Braasch I, Peterson SM, Desvignes T, McCluskey BM, Batzel P, Postlethwait JH. A new model army: emerging fish models to study the genomics of vertebrate Evo-Devo. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2015;324(4):316–41. · DOI · Paper page
  100. Malmstrøm M, Matschiner M, Tørresen OK, Star B, Snipen LG, Hansen TF, et al. Evolution of the immune system influences speciation rates in teleost fishes. Nat Genet. 2016;48:1204–10. · DOI
  101. Sun Y, Huang Y, Li X, Baldwin CC, Zhou Z, Yan Z, et al. Fish-T1K (Transcriptomes of 1,000 Fishes) Project: large-scale transcriptome data for fish evolution studies. Gigascience. 2016;5:18. · DOI
  102. Pasquier J, Cabau C, Nguyen T, Jouanno E, Severac D, Braasch I, et al. Gene evolution and gene expression after whole genome duplication in fish: the PhyloFish database. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:368. · DOI
  103. Ruggiero MA, Gordon DP, Orrell TM, Bailly N, Bourgoin T, Brusca RC, et al. A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0119248. · DOI
  104. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:289–90. · DOI · Paper page
  105. Revell LJ. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3(2):217–23. · DOI
  106. Arratia G, Schultze HP. Palatoquadrate and its ossifications: development and homology within osteichthyans. J Morphol. 1991;208:1–81. · DOI
  107. Janvier P. Early vertebrates. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. · DOI · Paper page
  108. Ahlberg P. Major Events in Early Vertebrate Evolution: Paleontology, Phylogeny, Genetics, and Development. London: Taylor and Francis; 2001. · DOI
  109. Zhu M, Yu X, Janvier P. A primitive fossil fish sheds light on the origin of bony fishes. Nature. 1999;397(6720):607–10. · DOI
  110. Patterson C. Morphology and interrelationships of primitive actinopterygians. Am Zool. 1982;22:241–59. · DOI
  111. Coates MI. Actinopterygians the namurian of bearsden, scotland, with comments on early actinopterygian neurocrania. Zool J Linnean Soc. 1998;122:27–59. · DOI
  112. Schultze H-P, Cumbaa SL. Dialipina and the characters of basal actinopterygians. In: Ahlberg PE, editor. Major events in Early Vertebrate Evolution, Paleontology, Phylogeny, Genetics and Development. London and New York: Systematic Association Special Volume - Taylor & Francis; 2001. p. 315–32.
  113. Cloutier R, Arratia G. Early diversification of actinopterygians. In: Arratia G, MVH W, Cloutier R, editors. Recent Advances in the Origin and Early Radiation of Vertebrates. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil; 2004. p. 217–70.
  114. Mickle K. The lower actinopterygian fauna from the Lower Carboniferous Albert shale formation of New Brunswick, Canada – A review of previously described taxa and a description of a new genus and species. Fossil Record. 2017;20:47–67. · DOI
  115. Jarvik E. Basic Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates. New York: Academic Press; 1996.
  116. Britz R, Bartsch P. The myth of dorsal ribs in gnathostome vertebrates. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2003;270:1–4. · DOI
  117. Ward AB, Kley NJ. Effects of precaudal elongation on visceral topography in a basal clade of ray-finned fishes. Anat Rec Adv Integr Anat Evol Biol. 2012;295(2):289–97. · DOI
  118. Bartsch P, Britz R. A single micropyle in the eggs of the most basal living actinopterygian Polypterus (Actinopterygii, Polypteriformes). J Zool. 1997;241:589–92. · DOI
  119. Lund R, Poplin C. Cladistic analysis of the relationships of the terrasiids (Lower Carboniferous, Actinopterygians). J Vertebr Paleontol. 2002;22(3):480–6. · DOI
  120. Xu G-H, Gao K-Q, Finarelli JA. A revision of the Middle Triassic scanilepiform fish Fukonichthys longidorsalis from Xinjiang, China, with comments on the phylogeny of the Actinoptery. J Vertebr Paleontol. 2014;34(4):747–59. · DOI
  121. Grande L, Bemis WE. Interrelationships of Acipenseriformes with comments on "Chondrostei". In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. London: Academic Press; 1996. p. 85–115. · DOI
  122. Bemis WE, Findeis EK, Grande L. An overview of Acipenseriformes. Environ Biol Fish. 1997;48:25–71. · DOI
  123. Jamieson BG. Fish Evolution and Systematics: Evidence from Spermatozoa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
  124. López-Arbarello A. Phylogenetic interrelationships of ginglymodian fishes (Actinopterygii: Neopterygii). PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e39370. · DOI
  125. Hurley IA, Mueller RL, Dunn KA, Schmidt EJ, Friedman M, Ho RK, et al. A new time-scale for ray-finned fish evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 2007;274(1609):489–98. · DOI
  126. Arratia G. Morphology, taxonomy, and phylogeny of Triassic pholidophorid fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei). J Vertebr Paleontol. 2013;33(sup1):1–138. · DOI
  127. Arratia G. New remarkable Late Jurassic teleosts from southern Germany: Ascaloboidae n. fam., its content, morphology, and phylogenetic relationships. Fossil Record. 2016;19:31–59. · DOI
  128. Wiley EO. The phylogeny and biogeography of fossil and recent gars (Actinopterygii: Lepisosteidae). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publications. 1976;64:1–111.
  129. de MCC P. Teleostean monophyly. In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of Fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 147–62. · DOI
  130. Britz R. Book review: Fishes of the World. Fifth edition. by J. S. Nelson, T. C. Grande & M. V. W. Wilson. J Fish Biol. 2017;2017(90):451–9. · DOI
  131. Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M. A mitogenomic perspective on the basal teleostean phylogeny: resolving higher-level relationships with longer DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001;20(2):275–85. · DOI
  132. Lavoué S, Miya M, Arnegard ME, Sullivan JP, Hopkins CD, Nishida M. Comparable ages for the independent origins of electrogenesis in African and South American weakly electric fishes. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36287. · DOI
  133. Austin CM, Tan MH, Croft LJ, Hammer MP, Gan HM. Whole genome sequencing of the Asian arowana (Scleropages formosus) provides insights into the evolution of ray-finned fishes. Genome Biol Evol. 2015;7(10):2885–95. · DOI
  134. Arratia G. The caudal skeleton of Jurassic teleosts: A phylogenetic analysis. In: Chang MM, Liu YH, Zhang GR, editors. Early Vertebrates and Related Problems in Evolutionary Biology. Beijing: Science Press; 1991. p. 249–340.
  135. Arratia G. Remarkable teleostean fishes from the Late Jurassic of southern Germany and their phylogenetic relationships. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe. 2000;3:137–79.
  136. Arratia G. New teleostean fishes from southern Germany and the systematic problems concerning the 'pholidophoriforms'. Paläontol Z. 2000;74:113–43. · DOI
  137. Arratia G. Critical analysis of the impact of fossils on teleostean phylogenies, especially that of basal teleosts. In: Elliott DK, Maisey JG, Yu X, Miao DS, editors. Morphology, Phylogeny and Paleobiogeography of Fossil Fishes. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2010. p. 247–74.
  138. Shen M. Fossil “osteoglossomorphs” in East Asia and their implications in teleostean phylogeny. In: Arratia G, Viohl G, editors. Mesozoic Fishes – Systematics and Paleoecology. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 1996. p. 261–72.
  139. Zhang YJ. Morphology and phylogenetic relationships of Kuntulunia Ma 1980 (Teleostei: Osteoglossomorpha). J Vertebr Paleontol. 1998;18:280–300. · DOI
  140. Li G-Q, MVH W. Early divergence of Hiodontiformes sensu stricto in East Asia and phylogeny of some Late Mesozoic teleosts from China. In: Arratia G, Schultze H-P, editors. Mesozoic Fishes 2 – Systematics and Fossil Record. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 1999. p. 369–84.
  141. Li G-Q. New osteoglossomorphs (Teleostei) from the Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary of North America and their phylogenetic significance. Edmonton: University of Alberta; 1995.
  142. Li G-Q. A new species of Late Cretaceous osteoglossid (Teleostei) from the Oldman formation of Alberta, Canada, and its phylogenetic relationships. In: Arratia G, Viohl G, editors. Mesozoic Fishes —Systematics and Paleoecology. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil; 1996. p. 285–98.
  143. Santini F, Harmon L, Carnevale G, Alfaro M. Did genome duplication drive the origin of teleosts? A comparative study of diversification in ray-finned fishes. BMC Evol Biol. 2009;9(1):194. · DOI
  144. Near TJ, Dornburg A, Kuhn KL, Eastman JT, Pennington JN, Patarnello T, et al. Ancient climate change, antifreeze, and the evolutionary diversification of Antarctic fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(9):3434–9. · DOI
  145. Bian C, Hu Y, Ravi V, Kuznetsova IS, Shen X, Mu X, et al. The Asian arowana (Scleropages formosus) genome provides new insights into the evolution of an early lineage of teleosts. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24501. · DOI · Paper page
  146. Forey PL. Interrelationships of elopomorph fishes. In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 175–91. · DOI
  147. Johnson GD, Britz R. Occipito-vertebral fusion in actinopterygians: conjecture, myth and reality. Part 2: Teleosts. In: Nelson JS, Schultze HP, MVH W, editors. Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2010. p. 95–110.
  148. Johnson GD, Ida H, Sakaue J, Sado T, Asahida T, Miya M. A 'living fossil' eel (Anguilliformes: Protanguillidae, fam. nov.) from an undersea cave in Palau. Proc Biol Sci B. 2012;279(1730):934–43. · DOI
  149. Hilton EJ. Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha). Zool J Linnean Soc. 2003;137:1–100. · DOI
  150. Zhang J-Y. Phylogeny of Osteoglossomorpha. Vert Pal Asiat. 2006;44(1):43–59.
  151. Wilson MVH, Murray AM. Osteoglossomorpha: phylogeny, biogeography, and fossil record and the significance of key African and Chinese fossil taxa. Geol Soc Lond, Spec Publ. 2008;295(1):185–219. · DOI
  152. Mattox SMT, Britz R, Toledo-Piza M. Skeletal development and ossification sequence of the characiform Salminus brasiliensis (Ostariophysi: Characidae). Ichthyol Explor Freshwaters. 2014;25(2):103–58.
  153. Bird NC, Mabee PM. Developmental morphology of the axial skeleton of the zebrafish, Danio rerio (Ostariophysi: Cyprinidae). Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists. 2003;228(3):337–57. · DOI
  154. Bensimon-Brito A, Cancela ML, Huysseune A, Witten PE. Vestiges, rudiments and fusion events: the zebrafish caudal fin endoskeleton in an evo-devo perspective. Evolution & development. 2012;14(1):116–27. · DOI
  155. Wiley EO, Fuiten AM, Doosey MH, Lohman BK, Merkes C, Azuma M. The caudal skeleton of the zebrafish, Danio rerio, from a phylogenetic perspective: a polyural interpretation of homologous structures. Copeia. 2015;103(4):740–50. · DOI
  156. Schultze HP, Arratia G. The caudal skeleton of basal teleosts, its conventions, and some of its major evolutionary novelties in a temporal dimension. In: Arratia G, Schultze H-P, MVH W, editors. Mesozoic Fishes 5 - Global Diversity and Evolution. Muenchen: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2013. p. 187–246.
  157. Grande L. Recent and fossil clupeomorph fishes with material for revision of the subgroups of clupeoids. Bull Amer Mus Natur Hist.1985;181:231–372.
  158. Di Dario F, de Pinna MCC. The supratemporal system and the pattern ofamification of cephalic sensory canals in Denticeps clupeoides (Denticipitidae, Teleostei): additional evidence for monophyly of Clupeiformes and Clupeoidei. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia. 2006;46(10):107–23. · DOI
  159. de Pinna MCC, Di Dario F. The branchial arches of the primitive clupeomorph fish, Denticeps clupeoides, and their phylogenetic implication (Clupeiformes, Denticipitidae). In: Nelson JS, Schultze HP, MVH W, editors. Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2010. p. 251–68.
  160. Li C, Orti G. Molecular phylogeny of Clupeiformes (Actinopterygii) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007;44(1):386–98. · DOI
  161. Lavoué S, Miya M, Musikasinthorn P, Chen WJ, Nishida M. Mitogenomic evidence for an Indo-West Pacific origin of the Clupeoidei (Teleostei: Clupeiformes). PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56485. · DOI
  162. Siebert DJ. Notes on the anatomy and relationships of Sundasalanx Roberts (Teleostei, Clupeidae), with descriptions of four new species from Borneo. Bulletin of The Natural History Museum Zoology Series. 1997;63:13–26.
  163. Poulsen JY, Møller PR, Lavoué S, Knudsen SW, Nishida M, Miya M. Higher and lower-level relationships of the deep-sea fish order Alepocephaliformes (Teleostei: Otocephala) inferred from whole mitogenome sequences. Biol J Linn Soc. 2009;98(4):923–36. · DOI
  164. Lavoué S, Miya M, Poulsen JY, Møller PR, Nishida M. Monophyly, phylogenetic position and inter-familial relationships of the Alepocephaliformes (Teleostei) based on whole mitogenome sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2008;47(3):1111–21. · DOI
  165. Fink SV, Fink WL. Interrelationships of the Ostariophysan Fishes (Teleostei). Zool J Linnean Soc. 1981;72(4):297–353. · DOI · Paper page
  166. Fink SV, Fink WL. Interrelationships of ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei). In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 209–49. · DOI
  167. Poyato-Ariza FJ, Grande T, Diogo R. Gonorynchiform interrelationships: Historic Overview, Analysis, and Revised Systematics of the Group. In: Grande T, Poyato-Ariza FJ, Diogo R, editors. Gonorynchiformes and Ostariophysan Relationships. 338: Science Publishers; 2010. p. 227. · DOI
  168. Grande T, Poyato-Ariza FJ. Phylogenetic relationships of fossil and recent gonorynchiform fishes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi). Zool J Linnean Soc. 1999;125(2):197–238. · DOI
  169. Chen WJ, Lavoué S, Mayden RL. Evolutionary origin and early biogeography of otophysan fishes (Ostariophysi: Teleostei). Evolution. 2013;67(8):2218–39. · DOI
  170. Mabee PM, Grey EA, Arratia G, Bogutskaya N, Boron A, Coburn MM, et al. Gill arch and hyoid arch diversity and cypriniform phylogeny: Distributed integration of morphology and web-based tools. Zootaxa. 2012;2877:1–40. · DOI
  171. Conway KW. Osteology of the South Asian Genus Psilorhynchus McClelland, 1839 (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Psilorhynchidae), with investigation of its phylogenetic relationships within the order Cypriniformes. Zool J Linnean Soc. 2011(163):50–154. · DOI
  172. Chen WJ, Mayden RL. Molecular systematics of the Cyprinoidea (Teleostei: Cypriniformes), the world's largest clade of freshwater fishes: further evidence from six nuclear genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009;52(2):544–9. · DOI
  173. Britz R, Conway K, Ruber L. Miniatures, morphology and molecules: Paedocypris and its phylogenetic position (Teleostei, Cypriniformes). Zool J Linnean Soc. 2014; · DOI
  174. Chen WJ, Lheknim V, Mayden RL. Molecular phylogeny of the Cobitoidea (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) revisited: position of enigmatic loach Ellopostoma resolved with six nuclear genes. J Fish Biol. 2009;75(9):2197–208. · DOI
  175. Kottelat M. Conspectus Cobitidum: an inventory of the loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidei). Raffles Bull Zool. 2012;26:1–199.
  176. Yang L, Sado T, Vincent Hirt M, Pasco-Viel E, Arunachalam M, Li J, Wang X, Freyhof J, Saitoh K, Simons AM et al: Phylogeny and polyploidy: resolving the classification of cyprinine fishes (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015;85:97–116. · DOI
  177. Vari RP. Higher level phylogenetic concepts within Characiformes (Ostariophysi), a historical review. In: Malabarba LR, Reis RE, Vari RP, ZMS L, CAS L, editors. Phylogeny and Classification of Neotropical Fishes. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS; 1998. p. 111–22.
  178. Chakrabarty P, Faircloth BC, Alda F, Ludt WB, McMahan CD, Near TJ, et al. Phylogenomic systematics of ostariophysan fishes: ultraconserved elements support the surprising non-monophyly of characiformes. Syst Biol. 2017; In press · DOI · Paper page
  179. Vari RP. Anatomy, relationships and classification of the families Citharinidae and Distichodontidae (Pisces: Characoidei). Bull Brit Mus (Natur Hist), Zool. 1979;36:261–344. · DOI
  180. Tagliacollo VA, Bernt MJ, Craig JM, Oliveira C, Albert JS. Model-based total evidence phylogeny of Neotropical electric knifefishes (Teleostei, Gymnotiformes). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015;95:20–33. · DOI
  181. Mo T. Anatomy, relationships and systematics of the Bagridae (Teleostei: Siluroidei) with a hypothesis of siluroid phylogeny. Theses Zoologicae. 1991;17:1–216.
  182. Arratia G. Development and variation of the suspensorium of primitive catfishes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi) and their phylogenetic relationships. Bonner Zoologische Monographien. 1992;32:1–149.
  183. de MCC P. Higher-Level Phylogeny of the Siluriformes, with a New Classification of the Order, Ph.D. thesis. New York: City University of New York; 1993.
  184. de Pinna MCC. Phylogenetic relationships of Neotropical Siluriformes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi): historical overview and synthesis of hypotheses. In: Malabarba LR, Reis RE, Vari RP, ZMS L, CAS L, editors. Phylogeny and Classification of Neotropical Fishes. EDIPUCRS: Porto Alegre; 1998.
  185. Diogo R. Phylogeny, origin and biogeography of catfishes: support for a Pangean origin of 'modern teleosts' and reexamination of some Mesozoic Pangean connections between the Gondwanan and Laurasian supercontinents. Anim Biol. 2004;54(4):331–51. · DOI
  186. Sullivan JP, Lundberg JG, Hardman M. A phylogenetic analysis of the major groups of catfishes (Teleostei : Siluriformes) using rag1 and rag2 nuclear gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006;41(3):636–62. · DOI
  187. Britz R, Kakkassery F, Raghavan R. Osteology of Kryptoglanis shajii, a stygobitic catfish (Teleostei: Siluriformes) from peninsular India, with diagnosis of a new family Kryptoglanidae. Ichthyol Explor Freshwaters. 2014;24(3):193–207.
  188. Arratia G, Quezada-Romegialli C. Understanding morphological variability in a taxonomic context in Chilean diplomystids (Teleostei: Siluriformes), including the description of a new species. PeerJ. 2017;5:e2991. · DOI
  189. Li J, Xia R, McDowall RM, Lopez JA, Lei G, Fu C. Phylogenetic position of the enigmatic Lepidogalaxias salamandroides with comment on the orders of lower euteleostean fishes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010;57(2):932–6. · DOI
  190. Rosen DE. Phylogeny and zoogeography of salmoniform fishes and relationships of Lepidogalaxias salamandroides. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1974;153:265–326.
  191. Burridge CP, McDowall RM, Craw D, Wilson MVH, Waters JM. Marine dispersal as a pre-requisite for Gondwanan vicariance among elements of the galaxiid fish fauna. J Biogeogr. 2012;39(2):306–21. · DOI
  192. Wilson MVH, Williams RG. Salmoniform fishes: key fossils, supertree, and possible morphological synapomorphies. In: Nelson JS, Schultze HP, MVH W, editors. Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts. München: Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil; 2010. p. 379–402.
  193. Sanford CJ. The phylogenetic relationships of salmonoid fishes. Bull Brit Mus Natur Hist, Zool. 1990;56:145–53.
  194. Sanford CJ. Salmonid Fish Osteology and Phylogeny (Teleostei: Salmonoidei). Ruggell: Lichtenstein; 2000.
  195. Fink WL, Weitzman SH. Relationships of the stomiiform fishes (Teleostei), with a redescription of Diplophos. Bull Mus Comp Zool. 1982;150:31–93.
  196. Harold AS, Weitzman SH. Interrelationships of stomiiform fishes. In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 333–53. · DOI
  197. Harold AS. Phylogenetic relationships of the Gonostomatidae (Teleostei: Stomiiformes). Bull Mar Sci. 1998;62(3):715–41.
  198. Johnson GD. Monophyly of the euteleostean clades Neoteleostei, Eurypterygii and Ctenosquamata. Copeia. 1992;8:8–25. · DOI
  199. Olney JE, Johnson DG, Baldwin CC. Phylogeny of lampridiform fishes. Bull Mar Sci. 1993;52(1):137–69.
  200. MLJ S. Basal ctenosquamate relationships and the interrelationships of the myctophiform (scopelomorph) fishes. In: MLJ S, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors. Interrelationships of fishes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 405–26.

200 of 343 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 857

Metadata

Authors
Betancur-R, R., Wiley, E. O., Arratia, G., Acero, A., Bailly, N., Miya, M., Lecointre, G., & Ortí, G.
Venue
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-07-06
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-2148
DOI
10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3
PMC
PMC5501477
Cited by
857
References
1
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEB-147184, DEB-1541491, NSF DEB-0732819, DEB-1457426, DEB-1541554)
  • JSPS/MEXT JSPS KAKENHI (22370035, 26291083)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review