Molecular phylogeny of Pholadoidea Lamarck, 1809 supports a single origin for xylotrophy (wood feeding) and xylotrophic bacterial endosymbiosis in Bivalvia

2011 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Distel ◽  
Mehwish Amin ◽  
Adam Burgoyne ◽  
Eric Linton ◽  
Gustaf Mamangkey ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A. Ellis ◽  
Jessica A. Goodheart ◽  
Nicholai M. Hensley ◽  
Vanessa L. González ◽  
Nicholas J. Reda ◽  
...  

AbstractBioluminescence evolved many times independently, leading to dramatic effects on ecosystems by influencing communication both within and between species. One origin of bioluminescence is within cypridinid ostracods. Bioluminescent cypridinids probably all use light as an anti-predator display, while a subset that diversified in the Caribbean also use light for courtship signaling. Despite their importance for understanding the evolution of bioluminescence, very little molecular phylogenetic data are available for cypridinids and the timing of evolutionary transitions of luminous traits is poorly understood. Here, we estimate the first transcriptome-based molecular phylogeny and divergence times of Cypridinidae. Our results strongly support previous hypotheses of a single origin of bioluminescent courtship signaling, nested within a single origin of bioluminescence, and the secondary loss of courtship signaling in Vargula tsujii. We propose the name Luminini for the Tribe of bioluminescent cypridinids and Luxorina for the Sub-tribe of cypridinids with courtship signaling. Our relaxed-clock estimates of divergence times coupled with stochastic character mapping show luminous courtship evolved at least 151 Million Years Ago (MYA) and cypridinid bioluminescence originated at least 197 MYA, making it one of the oldest documented origins of bioluminescence. The molecular phylogeny of cypridinids will serve as a foundation for integrative and comparative studies on the biochemistry, molecular evolution, courtship, diversification, and ecology of cypridinid bioluminescence.


2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Faille ◽  
I. Ribera ◽  
L. Deharveng ◽  
C. Bourdeau ◽  
L. Garnery ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 1151-1166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Smith ◽  
Ross A. Sadlier ◽  
Aaron M. Bauer ◽  
Christopher C. Austin ◽  
Todd Jackman

2020 ◽  
pp. 207-214
Author(s):  
Akbar Fattahi

The Iranian species of the phyllodactylid geckos of the genus Asaccus are found only in the valleys of the Zagros Mountains, a region which represents an important area of endemism in western Iran. Recently, many relict species have been described from the central and southern parts of the Zagros Mountains, which were previously known as A. elisae. The recent descriptions of species within this complex suggest that diversity within the genus may be higher than expected and that its taxonomy and systematics should be revised. In the present study, phylogenetic relationships within the genus Asaccus were evaluated using two mitochondrial and one nuclear gene. Genetically, the genus shows high levels of variability. The molecular phylogeny of the genus suggests the presence of three main clades along the Zagros Mountains with the southern population (from the Hormozgan province) and one clade (A. sp8 and A. sp9) being sister taxon to A. montanus from UAE. The remaining samples are separated into two reciprocally monophyletic groups: the northern (Kurdistan, Kermanshah and Ilam provinces) and the central (Lorestan, Khuzestan, Kohgilouye-Bouyer Ahmad and Fars provinces) Zagros groups. The results of the present study suggest that populations attributed to A. elisae in Iran correspond to distinct lineages with high genetic distances. In brief, our results suggest that the genus needs a major taxonomical revision The Arabian origin of the genus has not been confirmed, because two populations from Zagros were located within the A. montanus, A. gallagheri and A. platyrhynchus clade. Further morphological analyses are needed to systematically define each genetic lineage as a new taxon.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document