New suprageneric classification of the Neotropical three-barbeled catfishes (Siluriformes: Heptapteridae)

[lfinley58]

Dario R.Faustino-Fuster, Vanessa Meza-Vargasa, Nathan R.Lovejoy & Nathan K.Lujan 2021. Multi-locus phylogeny with dense Guiana Shield sampling supports new suprageneric classification of the Neotropical three-barbeled catfishes (Siluriformes: Heptapteridae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. Available online April 29 2021. Noted to be In press, Journal Pre-proof.
Abstract:
The catfish family Heptapteridae is ubiquitous across a range of freshwater habitats from southern Mexico to northern Argentina and contains 23 genera and 228 valid species. After a century of mostly morphology-based systematic analyses of these fishes, we provide the first molecular phylogenetic hypothesis spanning most valid Heptapteridae genera (16 of 23). We examined eight of 14 valid genera in the Nemuroglanis-subclade (Heptapterini, new tribe), all valid genera in the Brachyglanis-subclade (Brachyglaniini, new tribe) and most valid Brachyglaniini species (11 of 15). Maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses of a 4,156-base alignment of five gene regions (three mitochondrial: COI, Cyt b, and ND2; two nuclear: RAG2, Glyt) yielded thoroughly resolved and statistically robust phylogenies that were largely congruent with each other and with previous morphology-based hypotheses. We propose a revised phylogenetic classification consisting of two subfamilies (Rhamdiinae, Heptapterinae) each with two tribes. Dense taxonomic sampling of Brachyglaniini, including type species of Brachyglanis, Gladioglanis, Leptorhamdia, and Myoglanis, revealed widespread paraphyly. Newly recovered clades within Brachyglanini are closely associated with either the upper Orinoco or the Essequibo suggesting repeated dispersals and/or range expansions/contractions across the western Guiana Shield highlands and from there to the upper Amazon and Brazilian Shield. These biogeographical processes appear to have been an important driver of allopatric diversification in the clade.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

[lfinley58]

Follow-up to original post:
This paper and one posted in this forum earlier today by Eric (Evolutionary history of Heptapteridae) make for an interesting clash (or maybe crash) of science. I have not seen the full version of this paper yet (only the abstract) so any strong comparison is not possible. But it is obvious that the two different groups have taken on the same topic. The earlier today noted paper was stated on the publishers website to have been published one day earlier (April 28) so it should have priority. This second paper is noted to be "In press, Journal Pre-proof" and only "Available online". It is noted on the publishers website to be available on April 29. I would think that it is therefore probably not considered published yet (as far as I understand it) in regards to taxonomic statements. Someone like Silurus, and some others on this site, will certainly be able to more adequately comment on the ramifications of this situation.

Lee

[bekateen]

Here are two figures from the paper:

[lfinley58]

Eric: Thanks for adding in the additional material.

I did get a copy of the paper this morning and am working through it and comparing with the Silva et al. paper that you had covered. Kind of in the same ball park, but some variance between the two. It will be interesting to see how all shakes down.

Update as I write this: In that both papers create a new Tribe Brachyglaniini I had a question in regards to the priority of the name. In answer to the question - I had sent a question to Nathan Lujan (one of the co-authors of the Faustino-Fuster paper) and he noted that the one day earlier published Silva et al. paper should have priority for authorship of the Tribe name.

Another point: On another website (World of Fishes) credit for the new Tribe is given to "Silva et al." This is not the case. In the paper (page 7) the authors are noted to be "Silva & Bockmann."

Lee

[lfinley58]

One follow up clarification on Lujan's comment regarding the priority of the new Tribe name Brachyglaniini: Nathan "...assumed..." that the Silva et al. paper would have it. Sorry if I overstated it in my last post.

Lee