@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.}
}
Trees for Study 10229
Citation title:
"Phylogenetic relationships within the lophophorate lineages (Ectoprocta, Brachiopoda and Phoronida).".
This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S2585
(Status: Published).
Trees
Go to search
Citation
Taxa
Matrices
Trees
Analyses
