Reconstructing labroid evolution.

[Don Hiatt]

I have yet to read this paper, but it looks to be a big one!!
labroids not a natural group? Wow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

[Juan Artigas]

Thank you Don, thisis quite interesting indeed.

[Willem Heijns]

mind you guys, it was published in 1997

[Juan Artigas]

Willem,

Nw I think I vaguely remember having read something about it. Could you tell us more about the paper findings?

[Don Hiatt]

I don't know what to make of it until I have seen the paper for myself. It does kind of turn much of what I have learned over the years upside down. I wonder how this former group has been split and does this leave all of the former Labroids out in the cold?? Are the Cichlids by themselves or do they still have any "sister taxa" such as the Wrasse and Damsels?

Next thing you know, they are going to split the Cichlidae up and Juan with have to rename this site.

The Etroplid, Pseudocrenilabrid and Cichlasomid Room Companion just doesn't sound right..... Just kidding.

[Juan Artigas]

Don't worry Don, if so I will keep treating all the species involved in the page and I promise you I will look for a cool name for it, involving all.

[Willem Heijns]

there's nothing to worry about

Streelman & Karl dispute the use of the PJA as a character uniting all Labroids. and they might be right. the PJA as a taxonomic basis for this suborder is rather weak.

but then they present an analysis on the basis of only one locus in nuclear DNA (Tmo-4C4). and that yields different results, challenging the monophyly of the suborder.
in my opinion, looking at only one locus is just as doubtful as looking at just one morphological character. scientists have since then based their analyses on more (molecular as well as morphological) characters.

but.... putting all that aside, in all of their phylogenetic trees the Cichlidae appear as a monophyletic group.

Semper Cichlidae!!

[Don Hiatt]

I am suprised I haven't read anything about this subject until now. Willem did make a good point about the age of the paper.