FIRST molecular phylogeny of Polypteridae published - interesting new relationships

[E_americanus]

Not sure if the bichir people have already seen this, but the journal article is available online for free. it's quite interesting in my opinion as it is the first published molecular phylogeny of the Polypteridae...it also reveals some very interesting relationships in that P. delhezi is more closely related to P. palmas polli than P. palmas buettikoferi and so forth.

there is also strong evidence for the endlicheri complex to be broken up into two species (P. endlicheri and P. congicus) due to paraphyletic relationships. guess schaeffer was on to something, although his methods for getting to that conclusion were in error as they don't hold up against the molecular data in other species.

here's the link:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/21/

enjoy!--

--solomon

 

[King-eL]

Thanks for sharing! Very interesting.... Too bad they were unable to get tissue sample of p. palmas palmas. Also They mentioned p. bichir katangae and p. senegalus meridionalis. Not sure if Schaeffer's still thinks that they are just synonyms to other congi and sene or they do exist as subspecies.

 

[jschall]

This is irrelevant, since the flying spaghetti monster created the world, along with us with all our memories intact less than a second ago. Stay away from my kids.

 

[Stump]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I just looked through a few parts of it.. I'll take a better look later tonight.

 

[E_americanus]

Thanks for sharing! Very interesting.... Too bad they were unable to get tissue sample of p. palmas palmas. Also They mentioned p. bichir katangae and p. senegalus meridionalis. Not sure if Schaeffer's still thinks that they are just synonyms to other congi and sene or they do exist as subspecies.

i don't think schaeffer has much to do with this in terms of what he thinks related to their carrying out the study, although the results support some of his conclusions (not by the same means) and find others differently.

one of the limitations is that they only looked at two genes, another is that their initial cladogram of fishes is incorrect compared to what is generally accepted today (not the bichir cladogram, btu the first one in the paper).

either way, interesting to see most of the species represented here, and some of the morphometrics back up the molecular data. would be interesting to see where palmas palmas fits, but the most surprising thing to me is the delhezi position in the tree--
--solomon

 

[Gr8KarmaSF]

Wow, interesting...

Thanks for sharing!

 

[King-eL]

i don't think schaeffer has much to do with this in terms of what he thinks related to their carrying out the study, although the results support some of his conclusions (not by the same means) and find others differently.

one of the limitations is that they only looked at two genes, another is that their initial cladogram of fishes is incorrect compared to what is generally accepted today (not the bichir cladogram, btu the first one in the paper).

either way, interesting to see most of the species represented here, and some of the morphometrics back up the molecular data. would be interesting to see where palmas palmas fits, but the most surprising thing to me is the delhezi position in the tree--
--solomon

That delhezi surprised me as well and the moke too.