4.5 Article

Monophyly, phylogeny and systematic position of the dagger Synechodontiformes (Chondrichthyes, Neoselachii)

期刊

ZOOLOGICA SCRIPTA
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 37-49

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-6409.2009.00399.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [KR 2307/3-1, KR 2307/3-2]
  2. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Klug, S. (2010). Monophyly, phylogeny and systematic position of the dagger Synechodontiformes (Chondrichthyes, Neoselachii). - Zoologica Scripta, 39, 37-49. Identifying the monophyly and systematic position of extinct sharks is one of the major challenges in reconstructing the phylogeny and evolutionary history, of sharks in general. Although great progress has been accomplished in the last few decades with regard to resolving the interrelationships of living sharks, a comprehensive phylogeny identifying the systematic position of Problematic or exclusively fossil taxa is still lacking. Fossil taxa traditionally assigned to synechodontiform sharks are very diverse with a fossil record extending back into the Palaeozoic hut with uncertain inter- and intrarelationships. Here, phylogenetic analyses using robust cladistic principles are presented for the first time to evaluate the monophyly of this group, their intrarelationships and their systematic position within Neoselachii. According to the results of this study, taxa assigned to this group form a monophyletic clade, the dagger Synechodontiformes. This group is sister to all living shirks and displays a suite of neoselachian characters. Consequently, the concept of neoselachian systematics needs to he enlarged to include this completely extinct group, which is considered to represent stein-group neoselachians. The origin of modern sharks can he traced back into the Late Permian (250 Mya) based on the fossil record of dagger Synechodontiformes. The systematic position of batoids remains contradictory, which relates to the use of different data (molecular vs. morphological) in phylogentic analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据