Published August 11, 2017
| Version v1
Journal article
Restricted
A new family of neotropical freshwater fishes from deep fossorial Amazonian habitat, with a reappraisal of morphological characiform phylogeny (Teleostei: Ostariophysi)
Authors/Creators
Description
Pinna, Mário De, Zuanon, Jansen, Py-Daniel, Lucia Rapp, Petry, Paulo (2018): A new family of neotropical freshwater fishes from deep fossorial Amazonian habitat, with a reappraisal of morphological characiform phylogeny (Teleostei: Ostariophysi). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 182: 76-106, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx028
Files
Restricted
The record is publicly accessible, but files are restricted to users with access.
Linked records
Additional details
Identifiers
- URN
- urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6D3A2334-44D3-4ADA-AAC6-1130F3D7FD22
- LSID
- urn:lsid:plazi.org:pub:FFB9FF94FFBDFFBAFFC0FFBFAE48C77A
References
- 5. Mesethmoid-vomer joint. 0, simple synchondral joint across midline of oral cavity; 1, formed by osseous interdigitations along midline of oral cavity. Fusion between vomer and mesethmoid in Hepsetus (cf. Buckup, 1998: 128) renders the character unobservable in that taxon, which is therefore coded (?) herein.
- 27. Suprapreopercular bone. 0, absent or represented by simple tube surrounding preopercular canal; 1, plate like, very large. Mispelled 'supraopercular' in Buckup (1998: 128).
- 40. Branchial arches. This character summarizes an array of specializations in the branchial apparatus of Curimatidae and Prochilodontidae, in a total of 12 synapomorphies exclusive to that assemblage (Vari, 1989: 51-52; see Buckup, 1998: 130). Such subdivision was considered irrelevant for the analysis of Buckup, but here the character is assigned a weight of 12 to reflect the evidential support previously proposed in Vari (1989).
- 44. Ventral process of vertebra 2. 0, pair of ossified processes extending from ventral surface of centrum 2, forming part of connective sheath surrounding dorsal aorta; 1, corresponding to synapomorphies 10 and 11 in Vari (1989: 51-52) exclusive to Curimatidae and Prochilodontidae. The processes in Tarumania are very small but present.
- 45. Spine of third neural arch. 0, absent or restricted to lateral surface of neural arch; 1, extending anterodorsally and contacting lateral surface of large supraneural in Weberian apparatus. State (1) was reported as present in Hoplias by Buckup (1998), but in all specimens examined of the genus (and of other Erythrinidae), it was absent or very small, so it was corrected to (0).
- 47. Supraneural preceding neural spine of vertebra 4. 0, present; 1, absent. Coding for this character is inverted relative to that in Buckup (1998) in order to maintain State (0) as the putatively plesiomorphic one (also entered for the outgroup). Chilodus was coded as having the supraneural in Buckup (1998), but as the opposite condition here because in the material examined the first supraneural posterior to the supraneural complex is anterior to the neural spine of the fifth vertebra, and the one preceding the fourth spine is absent. Xenocharax, originally coded as (?) was changed to (0) because a small supraneural in the correct position is definitely present in the specimen examined. All species of Nannostomus have been reported as lacking the supraneural anterior to the fourth neural spine by Netto- Ferreira (2006) and the genus is therefore coded accordingly in this study, and not as (?) as in Buckup's matrix.
- 58. Postcleithrum 2. 0, present (either autogenous or fused with postcleithrum 3); 1, absent. Coded as (?) in Boulengerella because B. lateristriga and B. maculata have state (1) while all other species in the genus have state (0) (Vari, 1995: 27). The single postcleithrum in Hepsetus is considered as postcleithrum 1, as per interpretations in Vari (1995: 26, 27; also expressed in matrix coding on p. 7) and Buckup (1998: 131) and contrary to Vari, (1983: 36).
- 67. Caudal bony stays. 0, absent; 1, small, delicately ossified; 2, large, laminar and thickly ossified. The presence of bony stays was considered as a synapomorphy for Ctenoluciidae in Vari (1995) and Buckup (1998), the latter author apparently restricting the definition of such structures to the extreme morphology seen in that family. Vari (1995: 32), however, reported that bony stays, albeit in less developed form, are also present in many members of Alestidae (first noticed in Hydrolicus by Roberts, 1969). Murray & Stewart (2002) later even proposed the presence of caudal bony stays as a synapomorphy for the Alestidae. Zanata & Vari (2005) mapped in detail the occurrence of caudal-fin bony stays in Alestidae, noting their presence in most members of the family except Chalceus and a clade including some of the smaller species in the family. It is clear that the pronounced condition in ctenoluciids is exclusive to that family, but also that there is no morphological reason to refute a hypothesis of primary homology with the less extreme situation in alestids. Therefore, the character is recoded herein in three states: (2) exclusive for ctenoluciids, (1) for Alestes and (0) for all remaining taxa. Xenocharax was assigned (?) in Buckup (1998) but is herein changed to (0), as also done in Zanata & Vari (2005: 141). Finally, we note also that there is a coding mistake in Vari (1995), with the state assignment in table 1 (p. 8) not matching the correct one in the Matrix (p. 7) and text (p. 32).
- 70. Number of uroneurals. State 0: two pairs, State 1: one pair, State 2: no free uroneurals. Originally coded in Buckup (1998) as two states only: 1 (one pair) and 2 (two pairs), with outgroup coded as '?'. State zero was not assigned to any terminal. This character was recoded with an additional state to account for taxa without free uroneurals, as an ordered multistate.
- 76. Buccopharyngeal apparatus. 0, absent; 1, present. This characters summarizes a set of 15 buccopharyngeal synapomorphies exclusive to Anostomidae and Chilodontidae in Vari, (1989: 50, characters 44-58). Buckup (1998) considered such subdivision irrelevant for the resolution of the focus of his study (relationships of Characidiinae). Here a single character is maintained but assigned a weight of 15 to reflect original evidential support in Vari, (1989).
- 77. Adductor mandibulae muscle. 0, internal division (= stegalis of Datovo & Vari, 2013) of adductor mandibulae without a separate medial portion originating from the mesopterygoid and metapterygoid; 1, internal division of adductor mandibulae with a separate medial portion that arises from the lateral surface of the mesopterygoid and metapterygoid and attaches laterally to the tendinous band located along the medial surface of the remaining portion of the internal division of the adductor mandibulae.
- 78. Dilatator operculi muscle. 0, origin bounded anteriorly by the vertically oriented sphenotic spine; 1, origin in orbital roof on ventral surface of frontal, reaching opercle through tunnel or trough located between frontal and sphenotic spine (which is horizontally oriented). We agree with the considerations regarding the primary homology of the condition in Erythrinidae and Ctenoluciidae with those in Acestrorhynchus and Lebiasininae (of Lebiasinidae) m a d e b y B u c k u p ( 1 9 9 8: 1 3 3). R e g a r d i n g t h e Lebiasininae, there was apparently a coding error in the matrix of Vari (1995: 7). The text (Vari, 1995: 330) clearly states that the conditions are morphologically equivalent, but parsimony considerations reveal that they are convergent. Despite that, representatives of Lebianininae were coded as (0), thus implying non-homology a priori. Herein, representatives of Lebiasininae (Lebiasina and Piabucina), Acestrorhynchus, all Erythrinidae and Ctenoluciidae are coded as sharing state (1).