Evolutionary history of the cichlid tribe Lamprologini

[Bojan Dolenc]

Sturmbauer, Christian & Walter Salzburger, Nina Duftner, Robert Schelly & Stephan Koblmüller; 2010; "Evolutionary history of the Lake Tanganyika cichlid tribe Lamprologini (Teleostei: Perciformes) derived from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data "; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution; Articles in Press DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.06.018
Abstract
Lake Tanganyika comprises a cichlid species flock with substrate-breeding and mouthbrooding lineages. While sexual selection via mate choice on male mating color is thought to boost speciation rates in mouthbrooding cichlids, this is not the case in substrate-breeding lamprologines, which mostly form stable pairs and lack sexual dichromatism. We present a comprehensive reconstruction of the evolution of the cichlid tribe Lamprologini, based upon mtDNA sequences and multi-locus nuclear DNA (AFLP) markers. Twelve mtDNA clades were identified, seven of which were corroborated by the AFLP tree. The radiation is likely to have started about 5.3 MYA, contemporarily with that of the mouthbrooding C-lineage, and probably triggered by the onset of deepwater conditions in Lake Tanganyika. Neither the Congo- nor the Malagarazi River species form the most ancestral branch. Several conflicts in the mtDNA phylogeny with taxonomic assignments based upon color, eco-morphology and behavior could be resolved and complemented by the AFLP-analysis. Introgressive hybridizaiton upon secondary contact seems to be the most likely cause for paraphyly of taxa due to mtDNA capture in species involving brood-care helpers, while accidental hybridization best explains the para- or polyphyly of several gastropod shell breeders. Taxonomic error or paraphyly due to the survival of ancestral lineages appear responsible for inconsistencies in the genera Lamprologus and Neolamprologus.

[Philippe Burnel]

Do you have the pdf file ?

Philippe

[Bojan Dolenc]

Do you have the pdf file ?

Philippe

Yes, but if You want it, please type your mail (you may do that also by PM) to save my time, please

[Rico Morgenstern]

Another Lamprologini phylogeny!?

As with Central American cichlids, the question arises, how many of them are yet to be published before any sort of tangible result is achieved? And why in the world are such papers usually published first as half-finished 'accepted manuscript' versions? Those are not really a pleasure of reading, and it is awkward to jump from the text to the figures and tables and their captions at the end of the document and back. More important, however, is, that I am not aware of any considerable improvements of contents of papers of which I have seen both the manuscript and the final, 'officially' published versions. Therefore I see no advantage in the practise of pre-publication. Furthermore, it is a bad annoyance that this also often occurs in papers where new taxa are established. Thereby, new names get into circulation before they are taxonomically available!

Unfortunately, the 'taxonomic implications' section of the present work contains not only the big shortcomings of many molecular phylogenies, namely the but poorly researched (and often inadmissibly generalized) characters allegedly supporting the recovered clades, but also a flagrant mistake: It is suggested to restrict the genus Julidochromis to J. malieri and J. regani, and to move J. ornatus and J. dickfeldi to Chalinochromis! Remember that J. ornatus is the type species of Julidochromis!

RM

[cichla]

Dear Rico, Dear all,
well, thats very true. The authors are careless about proper use of the nomenclature rules in the sense of the ICZN. Although it seems that they like to treat some clade names in sense of the PhyloCode, I think it is not a good idea to write the unavailable group name ''Stiassnia'' in italic.

Concerning the ''flagrant mistake'' about Julidochromis. Since, the type species of Julidochromis and of Chalinochromis are very close related (even sister taxa in Fig 2 and Fig 3) the correct taxonomic conclusion is that both genera are synonyms. Thus, the valid group name for that cluster is Julidochromis.

Another Lamprologini phylogeny!?
As with Central American cichlids, the question arises, how many of them are yet to be published before any sort of tangible result is achieved? And why in the world are such papers usually published first as half-finished 'accepted manuscript' versions?

Without any doubt, it will not be the last ''phylogenetic'' analysis for this kinds of cichlids.

INGO