Multilocus phylogeny in Neotropical cichlid fishes

[Bojan Dolenc]

López-Fernández, H, KO Winemiller & RL Honeycutt, 2010. Multilocus phylogeny and rapid radiations in Neotropical cichlid fishes (Perciformes: Cichlidae: Cichlinae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.

Abstract

Neotropical cichlid fishes comprise approximately 60 genera and at least 600 species, but despite this diversity, their phylogeny is only partially understood, which limits taxonomic, ecological and evolutionary research. We report the largest molecular phylogeny of Neotropical cichlids produced to date, combining data from three mitochondrial and two nuclear markers for 57 named genera and 154 species from South and Central America. Neotropical cichlids (subfamily Cichlinae) were strongly monophyletic and were grouped into two main clades in which the genera Retroculus (Tribe Retroculini) and Cichla (Cichlini) were sister to a monophyletic group containing all other lineages. This group included the tribes Chaetobranchini, Astronotini, Geophagini, Cichlasomatini and Heroini. Topological comparisons with previously published hypotheses indicated that our results are congruent with recent analyses of the tribe Cichlasomatini, but significantly more likely than published hypotheses for Geophagini, Heroini and the entire Cichlinae. Improved resolution and support are attributed to increased taxon sampling and to the addition of taxa never before included in phylogenetic analyses. Geophagini included two major subclades congruent with our own previous findings but more strongly supported; we also found a new and strongly supported sister-group relationship between Guianacara and Mazarunia. Cichlasomatini relationships were similar to recently proposed topologies, but contrastingly, we found a monophyletic Cichlasoma and support for a monophyletic grouping of the Aequidens diadema and A. tetramerus groups. Three basal South American Heroini lineages were recovered: (Hypselecara + Hoplarchus), Pterophyllum, and a grouping we refer to as mesonautines. Three other South American clades, caquetaines, Australoheros and the ‘Cichlasoma’ festae group, were nested within Central American clades. Most Heroini diversity was divided into two relatively well-supported large groups: the Southern Central American Clade, including clades herein referred to as nandopsines, caquetaines and amphilophines, and the Northern Central American Clade, including astatheroines, tomocichlines and herichthyines. Some of these groups have been previously identified, but often with different taxonomic compositions. Further resolution of Neotropical cichlid relationships, especially within the large amphilophine clade of Heroini, will require additional phylogenetic analysis. Nevertheless, the topology from this study provides a robust phylogenetic framework for studying evolutionary diversification in Neotropical cichlids. Significantly-short branches at the base of Geophagini and Heroini are compatible with early bursts of divergence that are characteristic of adaptive radiations. This pattern suggests diversification of Neotropical cichlid genera occurred rapidly, with subsequent convergent, adaptive ecomorphological diversification among and within South and Central American clades.

[Bojan Dolenc]

I have the paper if someone is interested

[Milan Petrovic]

Hi Bojan.
Can you send to my paper on my e mail
milspetic@yahoo.com
Thanks...
Milan Petrović

[Mack Emmons]

Wouldn't mind it myself aswell.

mack@gymnogeophagus.com

Thanks.

[Rico Morgenstern]

There are some rather surprising results, i. e. Guianacara not closely related to Acaraichthys. I find it strange or at least interesting, that Vieja (and Paratheraps) is included Paraneetroplus, whereas Teleocichla, although clearly nested within Crenicichla, is retained. The arguments for doing so would certainly also apply to the former. The Central American cichlids can certainly be considered a rapidly evolving clade, too, and the taxon sampling is limited in both cases: I know for instance of no molecular or morpological study, in which the two (or three if you accept P. omonti) other Paraneetroplus species are included.

Other interesting results are the inclusion of Rocio octofasciata in Astatheros, the unresolved relationships of what we usually call Cryptoheros and the species composition of Theraps, especially the position of T. lentiginosus in relation to other included species.

If Herotilapia multispinosa is generically distinct from (and unrelated to) Archocentrus centrarchus, where would the species spinosissimus be placed if it was included in that or any other studies?

RM

[Philippe Burnel]

Can I get it too?
pepoint1@club-internet.fr

[mummymonkey]

I'd like a copy please.

graham@faircityaquaristsociety.co.uk

[cichla]

Dear all,
well, it is an interesting paper. But be aware it is based on molecular data only. These data sets usually treated as more reliable than morphological ones. However, the most fruitful approach to the study of systematic problems in fishes is a multifaceted one, and not one confined to a restricted set of characters or driven mainly by particular methodologies (Greenwood 1992).
I am already 'tired' to read every six month a new phylogenetic analysis with new combinations of genus and species names. Hope that there will be a ''final result'' with a stable and robust taxonomy soon. But the case Teleocichla (as it is described by Rico) is an example that (unfortunately) not only objective criteria are used to obtain the names of the genera.
Greetings, Ingo