Philippine Journal of Systematic Biology

ABSTRACT The bony-tongue fishes, Osteoglossomorpha, have been the focus of a great deal of morphological, systematic, and evolutionary study, due in part to their basal position among extant teleostean fishes. This group includes the mooneyes (Hiodontidae), knifefishes (Notopteridae), the abu (Gymnarchidae), elephantfishes (Mormyridae), arawanas and pirarucu (Osteoglossidae), and the African butterfly fish (Pantodontidae). This morphologically heterogeneous group also has a long and diverse fossil record, including taxa from all continents and both freshwater and marine deposits. The phylogenetic relationships among most extant osteoglossomorph families are widely agreed upon. However, there is still much to discover about the systematic biology of these fishes, particularly with regard to the phylogenetic affinities of several fossil taxa, within Mormyridae, and the position of Pantodon. In this paper we review the state of knowledge for osteoglossomorph fishes. We first provide an overview of the diversity of Osteoglossomorpha, and then discuss studies of the phylogeny of Osteoglossomorpha from both morphological and molecular perspectives, as well as biogeographic analyses of the group. Finally, we offer our perspectives on future needs for research on the systematic biology of Osteoglossomorpha.

Download Full-text

Systematic Biology Volume 66, Number 6 November 2017 - Back Cover

Systematic Biology ◽

10.1093/sysbio/syx022 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 66 (6) ◽

pp. i4-i4

Keyword(s):

Back Cover ◽

Systematic Biology

Download Full-text

Críticas ao "Tree Thinking": elucidando o significado das relações filogenéticas

Pesquisa e Ensino em Ciências Exatas e da Natureza ◽

10.29215/pecen.v1i2.450 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 115

Author(s):

Rafael Gomes De Souza

Keyword(s):

Key Words ◽

Phylogenetic Relationships ◽

Causal Explanations ◽

Tree Thinking ◽

Philosophical Basis ◽

Systematic Biology

O "Tree Thinking" é tido como a metodologia dominante na Biologia Sistemática atual. Todavia, críticas aos procedimentos executados pela mesma são diversas. Neste trabalho serão apresentadas e defendidas aquelas feitas por Fitzhugh no que tange a sua base filosófica e as consequências de tais modificações. Assim, o presente trabalho tem como objetivo demonstrar que o "Tree Thinking" é incompleto, por não reconhecer que as relações filogenéticas são do tipo causal, i.e., são hipóteses explanatórias, sumarizadas de forma prévia em um esquete explanatório (cladograma). Além disso, para embasar tal argumentação, será apresentada uma discussão sobre a definição e os objetivos da Biologia Sistemática e do "Tree Thinking". Como resultado, será possível observar uma confusão entre classificar e sistematizar o conhecimento por aqueles que seguem o "Tree Thinking". Ademais, o "Tree Thinking" falha na aquisição de explicações causais quanto à origem e fixação das características estudadas. Desta forma, o "Tree Thinking" pode ser considerado como uma prática incompleta dentro da Biologia Sistemática e, portanto, recomenda-se a aplicação das propostas de Fitzhugh.Palavras chave: Biologia Sistemática, Cladística, Fitzhugh, Hennig, Sistemática Filogenética, Zimmerman."Tree Thinking" Criticism: elucidating the meaning of phylogenetic relationshipsAbstract: The "Tree Thinking" is regarded as the dominant methodology in current Systematic Biology. However, criticisms of the procedures carried out by it are diverse. Here the criticisms made by Fitzhugh regarding its philosophical basis and the consequences of such modifications are presented and defended. Thus, the present work aims to demonstrate that "Tree Thinking", as it has been used, is incomplete because it does not recognize that phylogenetic relationships are of the causal type previously summarized in an explanatory sketch (cladogram). In addition, to support such an argument, a discussion on the definition and objectives of Systematic Biology and "Tree Thinking" is provided. As a result, it is possible to observe confusion between classifying and systematizing the knowledge by those who follow "Tree Thinking". In addition, "Tree Thinking" fails to provide causal explanations regarding the origin and fixation of the characteristics studied. In this way, "Tree Thinking" can be considered an incomplete practice within Systematic Biology and, therefore, the application of the proposals of Fitzhugh are recommended.Key words: Systematic Biology, Cladistics, Fitzhugh, Hennig, Systematic Phylogenetics, Zimmerman.

Download Full-text