@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref18719, author = {Bernhard Hausdorf and Martin Helmkampf and Maximilian P. Nesnidal and Iris Bruchhaus}, title = {Phylogenetic relationships within the lophophorate lineages (Ectoprocta, Brachiopoda and Phoronida).}, year = {2010}, keywords = {Phylogenomics; Lophophorata; Bryozoa; Ectoprocta; Brachiopoda; Phoronida; Brachiozoa}, doi = {10.1016/j.ympev.2009.12.022}, url = {}, pmid = {}, journal = {Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution}, volume = {}, number = {}, pages = {}, abstract = {We produced two new EST data sets of so far uncovered clades of ectoprocts to investigate the relationships within the lophophorate lineages, Ectoprocta, Brachiopoda and Phoronida. Maximum-likelihood analyses based on 78 ribosomal proteins of 62 metazoan taxa support the monophyly of Ectoprocta and a sister group relationship of Phylactolaemata living in freshwater and the mainly marine Gymnolaemata. Hypotheses suggesting that Ectoprocta is diphyletic with phylactolaemates forming a clade with phoronids or paraphyletic with respect to Entoprocta could be rejected by topology tests. The hypotheses that Stenolaemata are the sister group of all other ectoprocts, that Stenolaemata constitutes a monophyletic group with Cheilostomata, and that Phylactolaemata have been derived from Ctenostomata could also be rejected. However, the hypothesis that Phylactolaemata and Stenolaemata constitute a monophyletic group could not be rejected. Brachiopoda and Phoronida constitute a monophylum, Brachiozoa. The hypotheses that phoronids are the sister group of articulate or inarticulate brachiopods could be rejected by topology tests, thus confirming the monophyly of Brachiopoda.} }

• Go to search
• Citation
• Taxa
• Matrices
• Trees
• Analyses
• 

CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea