Show simple item record

THE PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG REQUIEM AND HAMMERHEAD SHARKS: INFERRING PHYLOGENY WHEN THOUSANDS OF EQUALLY MOST PARSIMONIOUS TREES RESULT

dc.contributor.authorNaylor, Gavin J. P.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:57:33Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:57:33Z
dc.date.issued1992-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationNaylor, Gavin J.P. (1992). "THE PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG REQUIEM AND HAMMERHEAD SHARKS: INFERRING PHYLOGENY WHEN THOUSANDS OF EQUALLY MOST PARSIMONIOUS TREES RESULT." Cladistics 8(4): 295-318. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73088>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0748-3007en_US
dc.identifier.issn1096-0031en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73088
dc.description.abstractProtein variation among 37 species of carcharhiniform sharks was examined at 17 presumed loci. Evolutionary trees were inferred from these data using both cladistic character and a distance Wagner analysis. Initial cladistic character analysis resulted in more than 30 000 equally parsimonious tree arrangements. Randomization tests designed to evaluate the phylogenetic information content of the data suggest the data are highly significantly different from random in spite of the large number of parsimonious trees produced. Different starting seed trees were found to influence the kind of tree topologies discovered by the heuristic branch swapping algorithm used. The trees generated during the early phases of branch swapping on a single seed tree were found to be topologically similar to those generated throughout the course of branch swapping. Successive weighting increased the frequency and the consistency with which certain clades were found during the course of branch swapping, causing the semi-strict consensus to be more resolved. Successive weighting also appeared resilient to the bias associated with the choice of initial seed tree causing analyses seeded with different trees to converge on identical final character weights and the same semi-strict consensus tree. The summary cladistic character analysis and the distance Wagner analysis both support the monophyly of two major clades, the genus Rhizoprionodon and the genus Sphyrna. . The distance Wagner analysis also supports the monophyly of the genus Carcharhinus . However, the cladistic analysis suggests that Carcharhinus is a paraphyletic group that includes the blue shark Prionace glauca .en_US
dc.format.extent1584388 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1992 The Willi Hennig Societyen_US
dc.titleTHE PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG REQUIEM AND HAMMERHEAD SHARKS: INFERRING PHYLOGENY WHEN THOUSANDS OF EQUALLY MOST PARSIMONIOUS TREES RESULTen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Biology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048, USAen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73088/1/j.1096-0031.1992.tb00073.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1096-0031.1992.tb00073.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceCladisticsen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArambourg C.. 1952. Les vertebres fossiles des gisements de phosphates (Maroc-Algerie-Tunisie). Serv. Geol. Maroc, Notes et Mem. 92: 1 – 372.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArchie J.W.. 1989. A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data. Syst. Zool. 38: 239 – 252.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaranes A. and O. Shahrabany-Baranes. 1986. A numerical taxonomic study of the northern Red Sea carcharhinids. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Indo-Pacific Fishes. 246 – 255.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBigelow H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1948. Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. Part I. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Connecticut.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCapetta H.. 1981. Additions a la faune de selaciens fossiles du Maroc. 1: sur la presence des genres Heptranchias, Alopias et Odontorhytis dans L'Ypresien des Ouled Abdoun. Geobios 14: 563 – 575.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCapetta H.. 1987. Chondrichthes II. Handbook of Paleoichthyology. Mesozoic and Cenzoic Elasmobranchii. Vol. 3b. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, West Germany.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarpenter J.M.. 1988. Choosing among multiple equally parsimonious cladograms. Cladistics 4: 291 – 296.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCavalli-Sforza L.L. and W.F. Edwards. 1967. Phylogenetic analysis: Models and estimation procedures. Evolution 21: 550 – 570.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCompagno L.J.V.. 1984. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2. Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. 125: 251 – 655.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCompagno L.J.V., 1988. Sharks of the Order Carcharhiniformes. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarris J.S.. 1969. A successive approximation approach to character weighting. Syst. Zool. 18: 256 – 268.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarris J.S.. 1972. Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Am. Nat. 106: 645 – 668.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarris J.S.. 1989. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics 5: 417 – 419.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarrick J.A.F.. 1982. Sharks of the genus Carcharhinus. NOAA. Tech. Rep., NMFS. Circ. 445.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarrick J.A.F.. 1985. Additions to a revision of the shark genus Carcharhinus: Synonymy of Aprionodon and Hypoprion, and description of a new species of Carcharhinus. NOAA Tech. Rep., NMFS. Circ. 34.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGill T.. 1862. Analytical synopsis of the order of squali: and revision of the nomenclature of the genera. Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist. 7: 367 – 408.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarris H. and D.A. Hopkinson, 1976. Handbook of Enzyme Electrophoresis in Human Genetics. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHedges S.B.. 1986. An electrophoretic analysis of holarctic hylid frog evolution. Syst. Zool. 35: 1 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLandini W.. 1977. Revizione degli ittiodontoliti pliocenici della collezione Lawley. Palaeontographia Italica 70: 92 – 134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLavery S.. 1992. Electrophoretic analysis of phylogenetic relationships among australian carcharhinid sharks. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43: 97 – 108.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaddison D.R.P.. 1991. The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. Syst. Zool. 40: 315 – 328.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaisey J.G.. 1984. Higher elasmobranch phylogeny and biostratigraphy. Zool. J. Soc. 82: 33 – 54.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMargush T. and F.R. McMorris. 1981. Consensus n-trees. Bull. Math. Biol. 43: 239 – 244.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNaylor G.J.P.. 1992. Plotting frequency distibutions of Phylogenetic groupings found among sets of most parsimonious trees. Cladistics 8: 161 – 164.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry 1978 eds. Enzyme Nomenclature. Academic Press, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOwen Sir Richard, 1853. Descriptive Catalogue of the Osteological Series Contained in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Vol. 1. Taylor and Francis, London.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePenny D. and M.D. Hendy. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34: 75 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrager E.M. and A.C. Wilson. 1976. Congruency of phylogenies derived from different proteins. A molecular analysis of the phylogenetic position of cracid birds. J. Mol. Evol. 9: 45 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichardson B.J., P.R. Baverstock and M. Adams, 1986. Allozyme Electrophoresis. A Handbook for Animal Systematics and Population Studies. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSelander R.K., M.H. Smith, S.Y. Yang, W.E. Johnson and J.B. Gentry. 1971. Biochemical polymorphism and systematics in the genus Peromyscus. I. Variation in the old-field mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ). Stud. Genet. VI. Univ. Texas Publ. 7103: 49 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaw C.R. and R. Prasad. 1970. Starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes—a compilation of recipes. Biochem. Genet. 4: 297 – 320.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSiciliano M.J. and C.R. Shaw. 1976. Separation and visualization of enzymes on gels, Fourth edn. In Smith I., ( eds. ). Chromatographic and Electrophoretic Techniques. Vol. 2. Heinemann, London. 185 – 209.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpringer S.. 1950. A revision of North American sharks allied to the genus Carcharhinus. Amer. Mus. Nov. 1451: 1 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpringer S.. 1951. Correction for “A revision of North American sharks allied to the genus Carcharhinus ”. Copeia. 3: 244.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStromer E.. 1905. Die fischreste des mittleren und oberen eocans von Agypten. Beitr. Pal. Oesterr. 18: 37 – 58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStromer E.. 1905. Die fischreste des mittleren und oberen eocans von Agypten. Beitr. Pal. Oesterr. 18: 163 – 192.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwofford D.L., 1990. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (PAUP) version 3.0k. Computer software. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhite E.I.. 1955. On Lyamna eurybathrodon. Blake. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 8: 191 – 193.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitley G.P.. 1934. Notes on some Australian sharks. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 10: 180 – 200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitley G.P.. 1939. Taxonomic notes on sharks and rays. Aust. J. Zool. 9: 227 – 262.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitley G.P.. 1943. Ichthyological descriptions and notes. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. Sydney.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.