TreeBASE Search-Trees for study 12880

@INCOLLECTION{TreeBASE2Ref20845, author = {Ted M. Cavender and Miles M. Coburn}, title = {Phylogenetic relationships of North American Cyprinidae}, year = {1992}, keywords = {}, doi = {}, url = {http://}, pmid = {}, booktitle = {Phylogenetics of Cyprinidae}, isbn = {}, publisher = {Stanford University Press}, address = {Stranford}, editor = {Richard L Mayden}, pages = {293--327}, abstract = {In this study we examine the relationships of North American cyprinids to other members of the family Cyprinidae. North American cyprinids have usually been classified along with the Eurasian genera Leuciscus, Rutilus, Abramis, etc., in the subfamily Leuciscinae, which is one of as many as a dozen nominal subfamilies currently in use. The major criteria for assignment of cyprinid taxa to this group are the lack of barbels and the pharyngeal arch bearing no more than two rows of teeth. While these character states are useful, they are not sufficient in themselves to define a phylogenetic group and have led to a polyphyletic classification. For example, reduction in the number of pharyngeal tooth rows has occurred independently several times within the family. Furthermore, barbels occur in representatives of almost half of the North American genera (22 of about 46) and thus, American minnows would be difficult to define as non-barbelled cyprinids. To date there have been few attempts at a phylogenetic analysis of the family Cyprinidae utilizing cladistic methods. Chen et al. (1984) published a phyletic classification of subgroups within the family that was an important contribution and one that we have drawn from in our work. In agreement with Chen et al. (1984) and Howes (1987) we have found characters to support the division of the Cyprinidae into two major lineages. To simplify the current confusion surrounding subfamilial classification, we propose to use the subfamily names Leuciscinae and Cyprininae for these two divisions. Howes (1981) suggested a diphyletic arrangement of the Cyprinidae based on the presence or absence of the anterior maxillary barbel with accompanying maxillary foramen. Later, Howes (1987) listed a set of characters for each of his two subfamilies. One problem that Chen and his colleagues faced, and one that we also recognize, is insufficient study material representing all the generic groups within the family. While we had access to virtually all North American taxa, for Old World cyprinids we studied osteological preparations belonging to representatives of less than one half of the known genera. Thus, conclusions reached are tentative and require further testing through examination of additional material. In this paper we have also attempted to answer the question: Are American cyprinids monophyletic? In general, our findings suggest that Nclrth American minnows, with the exception of Notemigonus, belong to one phylelic group here termed phoxinins that is sister to the Eurasian leuciscins. Notemigonus b a member of the latter group. Phoxinus is the only American genus also distributed'in the Old World but there are several phoxinin genera now living in East Asian .waters such as Tribolodon and Rhynchocypn's.} }