identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03B787D7376B1153FF1AF999E311AB79.text	03B787D7376B1153FF1AF999E311AB79.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gephyrocharax intermedius Meek & Hildebrand 1916	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> +  G. intermedius +  G. major +  G. melanocheir</p>
            <p> +  G. sinuensis +  G. torresi +  G. valencia +  G. venezuelae</p>
            <p> 1. Humeral spot (394: 0&gt; 1): present (s = 2, ci = 0.5, ri = 0.8). Reversed in  Gephyrocharax caucanus , </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B787D7376B1153FF1AF999E311AB79	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vanegas-Ríos, James A	Vanegas-Ríos, James A (2018): Phylogeny of the Neotropical genus Gephyrocharax (Characiformes: Characidae: Stevardiinae), with remarks on the tribe Stevardiini. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 182 (4): 808-829, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx045, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/182/4/808/4080366
03B787D73777114DFCFDF959E562AA7E.text	03B787D73777114DFCFDF959E562AA7E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chrysobrycon AND	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> MONOPHYLY OF  CHRYSOBRYCON AND PTEROBRYCON</p>
            <p> This is the first phylogenetic study proposing the monophyly of these genera, with  Chrysobrycon being the sister group of the remaining stevardiins. The monophyly of  Chrysobrycon was supported by eight synapomorphies, most of which are associated with caudal-fin squamation of adult males. The majority of these synapomorphies present reversals and/or convergences with other stevardiines, especially with genera that have a hypertrophied caudal-fin squamation in the lower lobe of adult males (e.g.  Acrobrycon ,  Gephyrocharax and  Pterobrycon ). The synapomorphies of  Chrysobrycon involving the pouch scale of adult males (state 1 of the characters 502 and 525) were not observed in any other examined stevardiine.  Chrysobrycon mojicai Vanegas-Ríos &amp; Urbano-Bonilla (2017) was recently described from the Amazon Basin in Colombia. In that study, the presence of an extensive contact between the frontals (rarely the parietals) along the midline was identified as a diagnostic characteristic of the genus. Based on the results found here, this characteristic, which was coded in two characters (26 and 40), supports the monophyly of  Chrysobrycon . The phylogenetic placement of  C. mojicai , which could not be analyzed here, will be tested in a later study. </p>
            <p> Thomaz et al. (2015) found that an unidentified species of  Gephyrocharax was more related to  C. myersi (the single species of  Chrysobrycon included) than to the  Gephyrocharax clade. In the results, conversely, both  Chrysobrycon and Gephyrocharax were resolved as monophyletic groups in the consensus topologies, independent of the weighting scheme used (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the support measures obtained for the  Chrysobrycon clade were relatively high (&gt;50) in the final consensus topology. The findings of the taxonomic revision of  Gephyrocharax (Vanegas-Ríos, 2016) suggest that the unidentified species of  Gephyrocharax from the southwestern Amazon (Thomaz et al., 2015) might correspond to  G. major . Further examination of the specimens used by Thomaz et al. (2015) and molecular data for all  Chrysobrycon species are needed to better understand the incongruences between both hypotheses. The two known species of  Pterobrycon were resolved as a sister clade to  Corynopoma and  Gephyrocharax . This result differs from the traditional phylogenetic concept under which  Pterobrycon and  Corynopoma have been considered sister genera (Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998). The  Pterobrycon clade was supported by four synapomorphies related to anal and pelvic fins and body squamation of adult males. Additionally, only two of these synapomorphies were optimised without homoplasy on the most parsimonious trees used to calculate the final consensus topology (characters 422, state 1: the middle pelvic-fin rays are longer than the remaining rays; character 494, state 1: the presence of one or two paddleshaped scales on the body in adult males). Even though the monophyly of  Pterobrycon is not an unexpected result, it is indispensable for endorsing its current taxonomy (Bussing, 1974). </p>
            <p> COMMENTS ON THE MONOPHYLY AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF  STEVARDIINI</p>
            <p> Weitzman &amp; Menezes (1998) carried out the first phylogenetic study that supported the monophyly of  Stevardiini (=Corynopomini) consisting of the genera  Corynopoma ,  Gephyrocharax and  Pterobrycon . In subsequent morphology-based phylogenetic studies, including at least one stevardiin species, that definition of the tribe remained unchanged (Castro et al., 2003; Weitzman et al., 2005; Ferreira et al., 2011). Mirande (2010) did not analyze any stevardiin species in his phylogenetic study of  Characidae , but he tentatively assigned them to several nodes of his phylogenetic hypothesis (nodes 235–244 and 244) based on the placement of  Stevardiini within the ‘clade A’ (sensu Malabarba &amp; Weitzman, 2003) and the phylogenetic hypothesis of  Glandulocaudinae (sensu Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998). In my results, those nodes were not recovered with the same composition supposed by Mirande (2010) (Figs 1, 2). </p>
            <p> Although  Hysteronotus megalostomus Eigenmann and  Pseudocorynopoma heterandria Eigenmann could not be coded in this work, the number of analyzed stevardiins is greater (20 species and 5 genera vs. 11 species and 4 genera) than that included in the most recent phylogenetic study of  Stevardiinae (Thomaz et al., 2015). The stevardiins are recovered as a monophyletic group in the final consensus topology [Fig. 2: (  Chrysobrycon (  Pseudocorynopoma (  Pterobrycon (  Gephyrocharax ,  Corynopoma ))))]. Such congruence between morphological and molecular data reinforces the monophyly of the tribe as currently defined. The monotypic genus  Hysteronotus is a putative member of  Stevardiini (Thomaz et al., 2015). Weitzman &amp; Menezes (1998) and Ferreira et al. (2011) obtained a sister-group relationship between  Hysteronotus and  Pseudocorynopoma , a hypothesis also pointed out by Thomaz et al. (2015). In the results obtained here,  Stevardiini was supported by ten synapomorphies, three of which can be observed in  H. megalostomus (Menezes, Weitzman &amp; Teixeira, 2016) : the middle dorsal-fin rays are longer than the anterior and posterior dorsal-fin rays, the anterior tip of the premaxilla is horizontally aligned with the upper half of the orbit, and the presence of well-developed grooves with neuromasts along the dorsal surface of the head. Although none of the synapomorphies defining  Stevardiini were optimised without homoplasy on the final phylogenetic hypothesis, the majority of these had relatively high values in the retention indices (ranging from 0.6 to 1). </p>
            <p> In the final consensus,  Acrobrycon was obtained as the sister group of  Stevardiini , which disagrees with the traditional phylogenetic position of the genus as part of the Diapomini (Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998; Arcila et al., 2013). In a phylogenetic study using morphological, reproductive and spermatic characters, Ferreira et al. (2011) found  Acrobrycon sister to a clade consisting of  Gephyrocharax plus other xenurobryconin and hysterotonin genera (sensu Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998). However, more recently,  Acrobrycon has been considered to be the sister group of  Hemibrycon (Thomaz et al., 2015) . </p>
            <p> Another stevardiine genus with a contentious position between the tribes allied to  Stevardiini is  Argopleura , which was obtained as the sister group of a clade including  Scopaeocharax ,  Tyttocharax and  Xenurobrycon . These genera have been grouped together in Xenurobryconini, a tribe related to the  Stevardiini (Weitzman &amp; Fink, 1985; Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998). In the DNA-based phylogenetic study by Thomaz et al. (2015),  Argopleura was resolved as the sister group of Glandulocaudini in most of their phylogenetic results, but in their ML tree it was obtained as the sister group of Glandulocaudini and  Stevardiini . Based on these results, Thomaz et al. (2015) placed  Argopleura as incertae sedis in  Stevardiinae . The phylogenetic position obtained for  Argopleura in the final consensus topology agrees more with that found by Weitzman &amp; Fink (1985) and Weitzman &amp; Menezes (1998) than with that found by Thomaz et al. (2015). Despite this disagreement between the molecular and morphological data, which should be investigated further,  Argopleura is tentatively considered the sister genus of Xenurobryconini based on the results of the present study. </p>
            <p> COMMENTS ON THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITHIN  STEVARDIINAE</p>
            <p> Based on the type of cells constituting part of the glandular pocket (mucous vs. club), Weitzman et al. (2005) defined the stevardiines as a group consisting of the six tribes (  Stevardiini = Corynopomini, Diapomini, Hysteronotini, Landonini, Phenacobryconini and Xenurobryconini) that had been previously placed in  Glandulocaudinae by Weitzman &amp; Menezes (1998). Later, Mirande (2010) expanded the phylogenetic concept of the subfamily to include the species of ‘clade A’ of Malabarba &amp; Weitzman (2003). Since then, the monophyly of  Stevardiinae has been widely supported based on molecular data (Javonillo et al., 2010; Oliveira et al., 2011; Thomaz et al., 2015). In the final tree topology (Figs 1, 2), the monophyly of  Stevardiinae was resolved with 26 of the 44 genera recognised in this subfamily by Mirande (2010), Mirande et al. (2013) and Thomaz et al. (2015). In total, 73 stevardiine species were analyzed in the data matrix, whereas Mirande (2010) and Mirande et al. (2013) analyzed 27 and 41 stevardiines, respectively (excluding  Creagrutus species added in their extended matrix). After comparing the results with those presented by Mirande (2010) and Mirande et al. (2013), most of the differences found among the final topologies are associated with the placement of the species of  Bryconamericus ,  Diapoma and  Knodus , which in all cases did not constitute monophyletic groups. Additionally, the final tree topology (Fig. 1) recovered the monophyly of a group consisting of  Carlastyanax ,  Creagrutus and  Piabina , which was proposed by Mirande et al. (2013). </p>
            <p> Markiana was obtained within the  Astyanax Baird &amp; Girard clade instead of the stevardiine clade (Supporting Information, Appendix S6), which disagrees with recent molecular phylogenetic studies that placed the genus within  Stevardiinae (Oliveira et al., 2011; Thomaz et al., 2015). According to Baicere-Silva et al. (2011), the genus should be considered a putative member of  Stevardiinae since the spermatozoa of its type species [  M. nigripinnis (Perugia) ] share the characteristics of the non-inseminating members of the subfamily. </p>
            <p> In respect to other stevardiines, the  Eretmobrycon species were found within the  Stevardiinae clade, which is consistent with the phylogenetic result proposed by Thomaz et al. (2015). This finding was not obtained in previous morphology-based phylogenetic studies (Mirande, 2009; Mirande et al., 2011; Mirande et al., 2013). Other genera such as  Phenacobrycon and  Landonia were resolved as sister groups within the subfamily and, remarkably, they were not found to be closely related to the genera with which they have been traditionally placed in  Glandulocaudinae (sensu Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998), in the  Stevardiinae (sensu Weitzman et al. 2005), or in the node 237 (similar to  Glandulocaudinae in Weitzman &amp; Menezes, 1998) by Mirande (2010). </p>
            <p> Although the purpose of the present work may be considered as a reappraisal of the phylogenetic study of  Stevardiinae by Mirande (2010) and Mirande et al. (2013), the primary object was the study of the phylogeny of  Gephyrocharax and other stevardiins based on a large data matrix. The effect of adding  Stevardiini (and other terminal taxa) to the data matrices of Mirande (2010) and Mirande et al. (2013) can be considered as a secondary result of the cladistic analysis presented herein, which represents an advance in the phylogenetic knowledge of the subfamily. It is evident that our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships of many stevardiines has improved in recent years (Malabarba &amp; Weitzman, 2003; Mirande, 2010; Mirande et al., 2013; Thomaz et al., 2015), but further research is still needed to achieve a more consensual view of the internal classification of this subfamily. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B787D73777114DFCFDF959E562AA7E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Vanegas-Ríos, James A	Vanegas-Ríos, James A (2018): Phylogeny of the Neotropical genus Gephyrocharax (Characiformes: Characidae: Stevardiinae), with remarks on the tribe Stevardiini. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 182 (4): 808-829, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx045, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/182/4/808/4080366
