PlanetCatfish.com

Cramer, CA., Bonatto, SL. and Reis, RE. 2011. Molecular Phylogeny of the Neoplecostominae and Hypoptopomatinae (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) using Multiple Genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.01.002

Abstract
A phylogenetic analysis is provided for representatives of more than one hundred species of the catfish family Loricariidae, including nearly all genera of the subfamilies Neoplecostominae and Hypoptopomatinae. This analysis is based on fragments of the subunit 1 of the cytochrome c oxidase gene (COI), the recombination activating genes 1 (RAG1) & 2 (RAG2), and the F-reticulon 4 gene. We obtained an alignment of 4678 contiguous nucleotides for 136 species of 50 loricariid genera from five loricariid subfamilies, and ten outgroup species from five loricarioid families. Our results from Maximum Parsimony, Maximum Likelihood, and Bayesian analyses show the following set of interrelationships ((((Hypoptopomatinae, Neoplecostominae) Hypostominae), Loricariinae) Delturinae). However, neither Hypoptopomatinae nor Neoplecostominae were recovered as monophyletic groups. A previously hypothesized monophyly of Hypoptopomatini and Otothyrini was refuted. Furthermore, the genera Pareiorhaphis, Pareiorhina, Hisonotus and Parotocinclus were recovered as polyphyletic.

Link to abstract? I'm not finding this on their page.

Doh.

Here it is.

I notice that they refer to Panaqolus, Scobinancistrus and Ancistomus, and in the analyses, Panaque is not coming out together with these!

Interesting.

Anyone fancy sending me a copy?

--
Mats

I too would be interested in a copy.

MatsP wrote:Anyone fancy sending me a copy?

Mike_Noren wrote:I too would be interested in a copy.

Copies are in the mail.

As an accepted manuscript, it is not that easy to read.

I will try to remember to send out copies when it is published with full journal formatting.

I haven't read this paper completely, but scanning it, it doesn't look like there are (m)any new hypotheses that Cramer hasn't made before, just more data. The relationships hypothesized in Cramer's earlier work of Neoplecostominae and Hypoptominae are further supported, as is his hypothesis of a non-monophyletic Panaque sensu Armbruster. He does discuss, and I don't see any reason to disagree, that he needs more taxon sampling to make any determinations about Hypostominae.

EDIT: The difference one contraction makes...

Suckermouth wrote:He does discuss, and I don't see any reason to disagree, that he needs more taxon sampling to make any determinations about Hypostominae.

Absolutely. As this wasn't the aim of the study, it is unwise to draw any conclusions. Just a tantalising glimpse really.

What was the earlier study, by the way? [EDIT, found it.]

I have a question about the "tree" diagram. Is the ordering between different groups a "strict" formation, or just an arbitrary choice. What I'm getting at is that the document shows Panaqolus and Scobinancistrus at the top of one grouping, and Panaque at the top of the next group. Now, if you turn the first group upside down, Panaqolus and Scobinancistrus are close to Panaque.

But I don't know if it shows that Liposarcus is closer to Panaque than Panaqolus, or it's just that the branch in the ancestry is further back, but the actual relative distance to the nearest common ancestor is about the same.

Also interesting is the Hemiancistrus being scattered here and there with other genera inbetween [unless I'm reading it wrong]. This sort of resembles the comments from descriptions of recent Hemiancistrus (and larger Peckoltia/Ancistomus, pehaps).


So, perhaps someone used to reading these diagrams can help me to some edumacation...

And yes, I'd like to see the earlier study & new study with more Hypostominae - heck, there's just a single Ancistrus in there for example.

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:I have a question about the "tree" diagram. Is the ordering between different groups a "strict" formation, or just an arbitrary choice.

The order is arbitrary, and is usually chosen to make the diagram look as pleasing/balanced as possible to the eye.

Even if the Panaqolus et al. clade was flipped, it would still make a polyphyletic Panaque (sensu lato).

This might be helpful to explain.

Right, I didn't say they were Monophyletic, just that I wanted to see them "closer" in the diagram - and from what you say, the order in the diagram is pretty arbitrary.

--
Mats

The print version is out.