Embedded Files
Phylogenetic Classification of Bony Fishes
Phylogenetic Classification of Bony Fishes
Based mostly on Molecular Data — Version 3
Based mostly on Molecular Data — Version 3
Version Date: 31 July 2014 --- this version has been superseded by version 4 on 26 April 2017
Contributors to this version: Ricardo Betancur-R, Ed Wiley, Nicolas Bailly, Masaki Miya, Guillaume Lecointre, Guillermo Ortí
Citing this classification:
Betancur-R, R., E. Wiley, N. Bailly, M. Miya, G. Lecointre, and G. Ortí. 2014. Phylogenetic Classification of Bony Fishes --Version 3 (http://www.deepfin.org/Classification_v3.htm).
Betancur-R., R., R.E. Broughton, E.O. Wiley, K. Carpenter, J.A. Lopez, C. Li, N.I. Holcroft, D. Arcila, M. Sanciangco, J. Cureton, F. Zhang, T. Buser, M. Campbell, T. Rowley, J.A. Ballesteros, G. Lu, T. Grande, G. Arratia & G. Ortí. 2013. The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLoS Currents Tree of Life. 2013 Apr 18.
Download useful resources:
Go to the bottom of this page to download: Spreadsheet with complete classification scheme; molecular phylogeny used as basis for classification (from version 2, needs to be updated to reflect the current classification scheme); and figures with summary phylogenetic hypothesis displaying all major groups.
This classification is an update of version 1 (18 April 2013) and version 2 (27 Nov 2013), originally published by Betancur-R. et al. (2013a). This version fixes involuntary errors and omissions (thanks to numerous colleagues who provided feedback!) and incorporates new findings from the recent literature. It is based on the same phylogenetic results used for version 2, from analysis of a molecular data set with 1591 taxa (the data set combines evidence published by Betancur-R. et al. (2013a) and Near et al. (2013)). Families in the classification are linked to FishBase family pages (Froese and Pauly, 2013) except for cases where there are discrepancies in the recognition of valid families, noted and justified in each case in the classification.
Version 3 presents new names for series included in subdivision Percomorphaceae, to avoid confusion between this taxon and series Percomorpharia, and hence disambiguate the meaning of "percomorph". Percomorpharia is now referred to as series Eupercaria, and the other series names also have simpler endings (dropping the term "morph" but keeping a consistent ending with "aria"). Under this scheme, the word "percomorph" refers unambiguously to subdivision Percomorphaceae, retaining its original meaning as implied by Wiley and Johnson (2010), following Johnson and Patterson (1993). The common name "eupercarians" now is available for taxa in the clade containing Perciformes, Labriformes, Tetraodontiformes and others (i.e., the "new bush at the top" sensu Betancur-R. et al. (2013a)). Figure 1 below shows the new names.
A complete list of changes from version 2 can be found here.
General comments on the classification are here.
Figure 1. Phylogeny of the nine major percomorph clades included in Subdivision Percomorphaceae. Each major clade is recognized as a series.
Classification for Bony Fishes (version 3)
Megaclass Osteichthyes (=Euteleostomi, =Euosteichthyes)
Superclass Actinopterygii (100%)
Class Cladistia (100%)
Order Polypteriformes
Class Actinopteri (100%)
Subclass Chondrostei, (100%)
Order Acipenseriformes
Subclass Neopterygii (100%)
Infraclass Holostei (100%)
Order Amiiformes
Order Lepisosteiformes (100%)
Infraclass Teleostei (100%)
Megacohort Elopocephalai sensu Arratia (1999) (100%)
Supercohort Elopocephala (100%)
Cohort Elopomorpha (100%)
Order Elopiformes (100%)
Order Albuliformes (100%)
Order Notacanthiformes (100%)
Order Anguilliformes (100%)
Not examined: Chlopsidae, Colocongridae, Cyematidae, Derichthyidae, Heterenchelyidae, Monognathidae, Moringuidae, Myrocongridae, Nettastomatidae, Protanguillidae, Synaphobranchidae.
Comment: Suborders recognized in Wiley and Johnson (2010) based on previous work cited therein are significantly incongruent with the clades obtained in this analysis; thus, no subordinal classification is proposed.
Megacohort Osteoglossocephalai sensu Arratia (1999) (38%)
Supercohort Osteoglossocephala sensu Arratia (1999) (99%)
Cohort Osteoglossomorpha
Order Hiodontiformes (100%)
Order Osteoglossiformes (100%)
Osteoglossidae (includes Arapaima and Heterotis, formerly in Arapaimidae)
Supercohort Clupeocephala sensu Arratia (2010) (100%)
Cohort Otomorpha (= Otocephala, Ostarioclupeomorpha) (100%)
Subcohort Clupei (87%)
Order Clupeiformes
Suborder Denticipitoidei
Suborder Clupeoidei (100%)
Clupeidae (not monophyletic; includes Sundasalanx according to Lavoué et al. (2013), formerly in Sundalangidae)
Not examined: Dussumieriidae.
Comment: family-level groupings may require major revision; Pristigasteridae, Chirocentridae and Engraulidae are supported by other molecular studies, but not Clupeidae (Li and Ortí, 2007; Lavoué et al., 2013); five well-supported lineages identified by Lavoué et al. (2013) could become new families.
Subcohort Alepocephali (100%)
Order Alepocephaliformes
Alepocephalidae (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Leptochilichthyidae.
Comment: the position of alepocephaloids as the sister group to Ostariophyisi also was reported by Lavoué et al. (2008) and by Paulsen et al. (2009).
Subcohort Ostariophysi (100%)
Section Anotophysa (97%)
Order Gonorynchiformes
Suborder Gonorynchoidei
Suborder Chanoidei
Suborder Knerioidei (100%)
Kneriidae (includes the former Phractolaemidae, now a subfamily in Kneriidae, following Davis et al. (2013))
Section Otophysa (100%)
Superorder Cypriniphysae (100%)
Order Cypriniformes
Botiidae (following Chen et al. (2009))
Not examined: Balitoridae, Barbuccidae, Ellopostomatidae, Psilorhynchidae, Serpenticobitidae, Vaillantellidae.
Superorder Characiphysae (100%)
Order Gymnotiformes (100%)
Suborder Gymnotoidei (not monophyletic)
Gymnotidae (not monophyletic here, but see Alves-Gomes (2010) and Nakatani et al. (2011))
Suborder Sternopygoidei (not monophyletic)
Sternopygidae (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Hypopomidae.
Comment: Although not monophyletic here, the monophyly of gymnotiform suborders is corroborated by Albert and Crampton (2005).
Order Characiformes (100%)
Suborder Citharinoidei (not monophyletic)
Suborder Characoidei (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Anostomidae, Curimatidae, Iguanodectidae.
Comment: Although not monophyletic in this analysis, the monophyly of characiform suborders has been corroborated by other molecular studies (Calcagnotto et al., 2005). In other molecular studies, the monophyly of Characiformes was not obtained, since Characoidei was more closely related to Siluriformes than to Citharinoidei (Nakatani et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014a).
Order Siluriformes (100%)
Suborder Loricarioidei (93%)
Not examined: Scoloplacidae
Suborder Diplomystoidei
Suborder Siluroidei (100%)
Bagridae (includes taxa formerly in Olyridae, following Sullivan et al. (2006))
Horabagridae (following Sullivan et al. (2006))
Not examined: Aspredinidae, Austroglanididae, Erethistidae, Lacantuniidae.
Supercohort Clupeocephala (cont.)
Cohort Euteleosteomorpha (100%)
Subcohort Lepidogalaxii
Order Lepidogalaxiiformes
Subcohort Protacanthopterygii sedis mutabilis (37%)
Order Galaxiiformes (100%)
Order Argentiniformes (100%)
Order Salmoniformes (100%)
Order Esociformes (100%)
Subcohort Stomiati (73%)
Order Stomiatiformes (=Stomiiformes) (100%)
Diplophidae (following Nelson (2006); apparently ommited or considerd a junior synonym of Gonostomidae by Eschmeyer and Fong (2014))
Phosichthyidae (not monophyletic)
Order Osmeriformes (100%)
Subcohort Neoteleostei (100%)
Infracohort Ateleopodia (100%)
Order Ateleopodiformes
Infracohort Eurypterygia (96%)
Section Aulopa (100%)
Order Aulopiformes
Suborder Aulopoidei (not monophyletic)
Synodontidae (not monophyletic)
Suborder Paraulopoidei
Suborder Alepisauroidei (not monophyletic)
Alepisauridae (includes taxa previously listed in Omosudidae and Anotopteridae, following Davis (2010))
Chlorophthalmidae (not monophyletic)
Ipnopidae (not monophyletic)
Paralepididae (not monophyletic)
Scopelarchidae (not monophyletic)
Sudidae (following Davis (2010); synonym of Paralepididae according to Eschmeyer (2014))
Not examined: Bathysauroididae, Bathysauropsidae sensu Davis (2010).
Comment: Anotopteridae is not recognized; aulopiform families listed follow Davis (2010). Although not monophyletic herein, the monophyly of aulopiform suborders listed is supported by Davis (2010).
Section Ctenosquamata (97%)
Subsection Myctophata (100%)
Order Myctophiformes
Subsection Acanthomorphata (97%)
Division Lampridacea (100%)
Order Lampridiformes
Not examined: Radiicephalidae, Veliferidae.
Division Paracanthomorphacea sensu Grande et al. (2013) (93%)
Series Percopsaria (100%)
Order Percopsiformes
Series Zeiogadaria (= Zeiogadiformes sensu Li et al. (2009)) (98%)
Subseries Zeariae (100%)
Order Zeiformes
Not examined: Cyttidae, Grammicolepididae, Oreosomatidae.
Subseries Gadariae (100%)
Order Stylephoriformes (sensu Miya et al. (2007))
Order Gadiformes (100%)
Suborder Macrouroidei
Macrouridae (not monophyletic here, but see Roa-Varon and Ortí (2009))
Steindachneriidae (following Roa-Varon and Ortí (2009); synonym of Merluciidae according to Eschmeyer (2014))
Suborder Gadoidei (not monophyletic)
Gaidropsaridae (formerly a subfamily of Lotidae, raised to family level)
Not examined: Bregmacerotidae, Euclichthyidae, Melanonidae.
Suborder Muraenolepidoidei
Comment: The subordinal classification follows Roa-Varón and Ortí (2009): fig. 6.
Division Polymixiacea (100%)
Order Polymixiiformes
Division Euacanthomorphacea sensu Johnson and Patterson (1993) (99%)
Subdivision Berycimorphaceae (87%)
Order Beryciformes (similar to Trachichthyiformes sensu Moore (1993))
Trachichthyidae (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Gibberichthyidae, Hispidoberycidae (expected affinity following Moore (1993)).
Subdivision Holocentrimorphaceae (100%)
Order Holocentriformes
Comment: Moore (1993) and Stiassny and Moore (1992) provide morphological evidence supporting a sister-group relationship between holocentrids and percomorphs, which further guarantees placement of this family in its own order.
Subdivision Percomorphaceae (="Percomorpha" sensu Miya et al. (2003) and Miya et al. (2005)).
Subdivision Percomorphaceae (cont.)
Series Ophidiaria (100%)
Order Ophidiiformes
Suborder Ophidioidei
Ophidiidae (not monophyletic as traditionally recognized, but monophyletic if Carapidae is included)
Suborder Bythitoidei
Bythitidae (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Parabrotulidae
Series Batrachoidaria (100%)
Order Batrachoidiformes
Series Gobiaria (see also Thacker (2009) and Chakrabarty et al. (2012)) (100%)
Order Kurtiformes (98%)
Suborder Kurtoidei
Suborder Apogonoidei
Comment: Johnson (1993) noted that the configuration of dorsal gill-arch elements may be homologous in Kurtus and apogonids.
Order Gobiiformes (100%)
Suborder Odontobutoidei (100%)
Suborder Eleotroidei (97%)
Suborder Gobioidei (100%)
Gobiidae (includes Microdesmus, previously listed in Microdesmidae; see Thacker (2009))
Not examined: Kraemeriidae, Rhyacichthyidae, Schindleriidae, Thalasseleotrididae, Xenisthmidae.
Comment: In addition to the well-supported molecular circumscription of Gobiaria, kurtids, apogonids and gobioids are characterized by the presence of sensory papillae rows on the head and body (Thacker, 2009).
Series Syngnatharia (96%)
Order Syngnathiformes
Suborder-level incertae sedis in Syngnathiformes
Suborder Syngnathoidei (92%)
Not examined: Solenostomidae (assumed affinity with Syngnathidae)
Suborder Dactylopteroidei (100%)
Suborder Callionymoidei (100%)
Not examined: Draconettidae (assumed affinity with Callionymidae).
Suborder Mulloidei (92%)
Series Pelagiaria (= Stromateoidei sensu Li et al. (2009); = Pelagia sensu Miya et al. (2013)) (100%)
Order Scombriformes
Arripidae (not examined, included here following Yagishita et al. (2009) and Miya et al. (2013))
Gempylidae (not monophyletic)
Scombridae (not monophyletic here, but see Miya et al. (2013))
Families not examined: Amarsipidae, Scombropidae (Doiuchi et al. (2004); Miya et al. (2013)), Tetragonuridae (not examined, included here following Miya et al. (2013))
Comment: interfamilial resolution in Scombriformes is tenuous; circumscription of scombriform families into suborders (e.g., Scombroidei, Stromateoidei, Icostoidei) or new orders requires further work.
Series Anabantaria (= Anabantiformes sensu Li et al. (2009)) (99%)
Order Synbranchiformes (100%)
Suborder Mastacembeloidei
Not examined: Chaudhuriidae.
Suborder Indostomoidei
Suborder Synbranchoidei
Order Anabantiformes (= Labyrinthici) (100%)
Suborder Anabantoidei (95%), new circumscription
Suborder Channoidei (100%), new circumscription
Suborder Nandoidei (94%), new anabantiform suborder
Comment: suborders of Anabantiformes now reflect well-supported monophyletic groups, correcting an error in Version 2 and defining a third suborder (Channoidei) for the family Channidae. Affinities of Channidae with other anabantiform families varies among studies (e.g., Near et al. (2013), Betancur-R. et al. (2013a), and our new results). The new scheme with three subroders is robust to this ambiguity.
Series Carangaria (= Carangimorpha sensu Li et al. (2009)) (100%)
Order-level incertae sedis in Carangiaria
Centropomidae (includes taxa formelry listed in Latidae, following Greenwood (1976) and Li et al. (2011))
Not examined: Lactariidae (included in Carangimorphariae according to Campbell et al. (2013))
Order Istiophoriformes (100%)
Order Carangiformes sedis mutabilis (not monophyletic)
Comment: Monophyly of Carangiformes is not significantly rejected by the data (Betancur-R. et al., 2013b).
Order Pleuronectiformes sedis mutabilis (not monophyletic)
Suborder Psettodoidei (100%)
Suborder Pleuronectoidei (100%)
Paralichthyidae (not monophyletic as traditionally recognized, but monophyletic if the Cyclopsetta group is included in its own family; see Betancur-R. et al. (2013b))
Poecilopsettidae (following Chapleau (1993) and Munroe (2005))
Rhombosoleidae (following Chapleau (1993) and Munroe (2005); includes taxa listed in Achiropsettidae according to Betancur-R. et al. (2013b))
Not examined: Paralichthodidae (following Chapleau (1993) and Munroe (2005)).
Comment: Although Psettodidae is not recovered as the sister group of pleuronectoids in the present analysis, the order was resolved as monophyletic by recent studies that address this issue specifically (Betancur-R. et al. (2013b), Betancur-R and Ortí (2014)).
Series Ovalentaria (sensu Smith and Near in Wainwright et al. (2012); = Stiassnyiformes sensu Li et al. (2009)) (100%)
Order-level incertae sedis in Ovalentaria
Congrogadidae sensu Godkin and Winterbottom (1985) and Wainwright et al. (2012), formerly a subfamily of Pseudochromidae
Grammatidae (not monophyletic)
Superorder Cichlomorphae (93%)
Order Cichliformes
Order Pholidichthyiformes
Superoder Atherinomorphae (100%)
Order Atheriniformes (100%)
Not examined: Dentatherinidae, Notocheiridae.
Order Beloniformes (32%)
Suborder Adrianichthyoidei
Suborder Belonoidei (100%) (corrected name, listed as Exocoetoidei in version 2)
Belonidae (including the former Scomberesocidae; see Lovejoy and Collette (2001) and Lovejoy et al. (2004))
Hemiramphidae (not monophyletic)
Zenarchopteridae (not monophyletic here, but see Lovejoy et al. (2004))
Order Cyprinodontiformes (57%)
Suborder Aplocheiloidei
Not examined: Nothobranchiidae, Rivulidae.
Suborder Cyprinodontoidei (100%)
Not examined: Anablepidae, Goodeidae, Profundulidae, Valenciidae.
Superorder Mugilomorphae (100%)
Order Mugiliformes
Superorder Blenniimorphae (80%)
Order Blenniiformes (100%) sensu Li et al. (2009)
Suborder Gobiesocoidei
Suborder Blennioidei (not monophyletic; = Blenniiformes sensu Lin and Hastings (2013))
Labrisomidae (includes Stathmonotus; not monophyletic here, but see Lin and Hastings (2013))
Comment: While blennioids are not monophyletic in our results, we note that preliminary analyses resulted in the reciprocal monophyly of gobiesocoids and blennioids, which is congruent with molecular (Wainwright et al., 2012; Lin and Hastings, 2013) and morphological (Springer and Orrell, 2004) evidence. Monophyly of gobiesocoids and blennioids (as separate orders/suborders) is further supported by both morphological (Wiley and Johnson, 2010) and molecular evidence. Chaenopsidae is monophyletic if Stathmonotus is included in Labrisomidae, following Lin and Hastings (2013).
Series Eupercaria (99%)
Order-level incertae sedis in Eupercaria
Lutjanidae (includes the former Caesionidae, following Johnson (1993), Miller and Cribb (2007), and others)
Not examined: Dinolestidae, Dinopercidae (see Smith and Craig (2007)). Six families traditionally placed in “Perciformes” are also provisionally listed here are: Bathyclupeidae, Dichistiidae, Hapalogenyidae, Parascorpididae, Symphysanodontidae, Trichonotidae; these are not placed in the recently circumscribed Perciformes given the long history of phylogenetic indistinctiveness between Percoidei, Perciformes, and Percomorpha (e.g., Smith and Craig (2007)).
Order Uranoscopiformes (= Paratrachinoidei sensu Li et al. (2009)) (95%)
Possibly included: Centrogenyidae (bootstrap support for Uranoscopiformes plus Centrogenyidae is only 41%, as opposed to 99% for Uranoscopiformes s.s. but placement is congruent with results of Near et al. (2013).
Order Labriformes sensu stricto (100%)
Labridae (includes taxa previoulsy listed in Scaridae; see Price et al. (2010, 2011) and Wainwright et al. (2012))
Order Lobotiformes (100%)
Order Ephippiformes (100%)
Comment: Greenwood et al. (1966) hypothesized a close affinity between Drepane and ephippids.
Order Spariformes sensu Akazaki (1962) and Johnson (1981) (94%)
Possibly included (examined): Nemipteridae
Not examined but assumed affinity (Johnson, 1981): Centracanthidae
Comment: Akazaki (1962) proposed that Lethrinidae, Sparidae, and Nemipteridae were closely related based on specializations of the suspensorium and other features (Johnson (1993)). Johnson (1981) supported the monophyly of Akazaki's spariforms with the addition of Centracanthidae.
Order Chaetodontiformes, new eupercarian order (50%)
Comment: Although support for this clade is weak (50%) in our analysis, it has been consistently obtained by previous studies with higher nodal support (90-99% in Near et al. (2012a) and 70-89% in Near et al. (2013)).
Order Lophiiformes (100%). This order is the sister group of Tetraodontiformes (55% bootstrap); also supported by anatomical evidence (Chanet et al., 2013), larval characters (Baldwin, 2013), and previous molecular studies (e.g. Dettaï and Lecointre, 2008; Miya et al., 2003; Miya et al., 2010).
Suborder Lophioidei (100%)
Suborder Antennarioidei (100%).
Not examined: Brachionichthyidae, Lophichthyidae, Tetrabrachiidae.
Suborder Chaunacoidei (100%)
Suborder Ogcocephaloidei (100%)
Suborder Ceratioidei
Not examined: Caulophrynidae, Centrophrynidae, Diceratiidae, Linophrynidae, Neoceratiidae, Thaumatichthyidae.
Order Tetraodontiformes (100%). This order is the sister group of Lophiiformes (55% bootstrap); also supported by anatomical evidence (Chanet et al., 2013), larval characters (Baldwin, 2013), and previous molecular studies (e.g. Dettaï and Lecointre 2008; Miya et al., 2003; Miya et al., 2010).
Suborder Triacanthodoidei (100%)
Suborder Triacanthoidei
Suborder Tetraodontoidei (100%)
Suborder Moloidei (100%)
Suborder Balistoidei (100%)
Suborder Ostracioidei (100%)
Suborder Triodontoidei
Comment: This subordinal classification differs from that proposed by Santini and Tyler (2003).
Order Acanthuriformes, restricted circumscription (see also Holcroft and Wiley (2008)) (100%)
Order Pempheriformes sedis mutabilis (44%)
Acropomatidae (not monophyletic)
Polyprionidae (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Leptoscopidae (assumed affinity with Creediidae according to Odani and Imamura (2011))
Comment: Tominaga (1986) suggested that features of the cranium and swimbladder may be homologous in Pempheris and Glaucosoma. Although support for Pempheriformes is only 44%, this clade is often recovered in different analyses.
Order Centrarchiformes (77%), new circumscription
Suborder Centrarchoidei (89%)
Sinipercidae (following Li et al. (2010); synonym of Percichthyidae according to Eschmeyer (2014))
Comment: inclusion of Enoploside in this suboorder differs from results obtained by Lavoué et al. (2014).
Suborder Cirrhitioidei (similar to Cirrhithoidea sensu Greenwood (1995) and Burridge and Smolenski (2004); treated as Cirrhitiformes in previous versions of the classification) (81%)
Not examined but expected affinity (Burridge and Smolenski, 2004; Greenwood, 1995): Aplodactylidae, Chironemidae, Latridae.
Suborder Percichthyoidei
Percichthyidae (not monophyletic, a new family for Percalates is necessary; includes Percilia)
Comment: percichthyoids and Percichthyidae sensu Johnson (1984) are not monophyletic: the Australian species Percalates colonorum and Percalates novemaculeata are not closely related to other members of Percichthyidae (Betancur-R. et al. (2013a); Chen et al. (2014b); Lavoué et al. (2014)), so these species are herein placed in their own suborder (Peter Unmack pers. comm.; Lavoué et al. (2014)). Percalates is listed as a junior synonym of Macquaria by Eschmeyer (2014), but the type species of Macquaria (M. australasica) is closely related to other species of Macquaria (M. ambigua) within Percichthyidae sensu stricto, hence both names are valid genera (Peter Unmack et al., pers. comm.; Lavoué et al. (2014)). Percichthyidae sensu stricto includes Percilia (formerly placed in its own family Perciliidae).
Suborder Percalatoidei, new
"Percalatidae" (to be described)
Comment: Formal description of a new family for Percalates is required to comply with the ICZN.
Suborder Terapontoidei (= Clade "h2" of Yagishita et al. (2009); treated as Terapontiformes in previous versions of the classification) (95%)
Girellidae (following Carpenter 2001; listed as a subfamily of Kiphosidae by Eschmeyer (2014))
Comment: Although the family name Cirrithidae Macleay 1841 is older than Centrarchidae Bleeker 1859, we retain the name Centrarchiformes for this order in agreement with previous usage but expand its membership following recent proposals by Near et al. (2013) and Chen et al. (2014b) and Lavoué et al. (2014).
Order Perciformes (= Serraniformes sensu Lautredou et al. (2013); Li et al. (2009) (99%)
Not examined (10 families traditionally placed in Scorpaeniformes): Apistidae, Aploactinidae, Congiopodidae, Eschmeyeridae, Gnathanacanthidae, Neosebastidae, Pataecidae, Perryenidae, Plectrogeniidae, Zanclorhynchidae.
Suborder-level incertae sedis in Perciformes
Bembropidae (following Smith and Craig (2007); synonym of Percophidae according to Eschmeyer (2014))
Suborder Serranoidei sedis mutabilis (49%)
Suborder Percoidei, restricted circumscription (99%)
Niphonidae (following Smith and Craig (2007); synonym of Serranidae according to Eschmeyer (2014))
Not examined: Trachinidae.
Comment: Lautredou et al. (2013) using seven nuclear markers obtained a clade uniting Percidae and Trachinidae with full support.
Suborder Notothenioidei (100%)
Bathydraconidae (not monophyletic)
Nototheniidae (not monophyletic)
Suborder Scorpaenoidei (83%)
Scorpaenidae (not monophyletic)
Suborder Bembroidei (96%)
Suborder Triglioidei sensu Jordan (1923) (100%)
Suborder Cottoidei (= Cottimorpha sensu Li et al. (2009)) (100%)
Comment: We have chosen to recognize clades within this suborder as infraorders, adopting the ending "–ales" for this rank. Gasterosteales and Zoarcales are probably sister-groups (although not in our results); they have been grouped as Zoarciformes by Li et al. (2009).
Infraorder Anoplopomatales (= Anoplopomatoidei in previous classifications)
Infraorder Gasterosteales (= Gasterosteoidei in previous classifications--in part, excluding Indostomidae) (100%)
Infraorder Zoarcales (= Zoarcoidei in previous classifications) (100%)
Bathymasteridae (not monophyletic)
Stichaeidae (not monophyletic)
Not examined: Ptilichthyidae, Scytalinidae.
Infraorder Hexagrammales (100%) (= Hexagrammoidei in previous classifications)
Hexagrammidae (sensu stricto, following Smith and Busby (2014))
Comment: Hexagrammidae as formerly defined is not monophyletic. We now split it into two families (formerly subfamilies): Hexagrammidae (sensu stricto) and Zaniolepidoales following Washington et al. (1984), Shinohara (1994), and Smith and Busby (2014). As in previous cottoid classifications, these families are placed in their own infraorders (note that previous classifications use suborders instead of infraorders).
Infraorder Zaniolepidoales (= Zaniolepidoidei sensu Smith and Busby (2014))
Zaniolepididae (sensu Smith and Busby (2014), formerly a subfamily in Hexagrammidae; not listed by Eschmeyer (2014))
Infraorder Cottales (96%) (= Cottoidei sensu Smith and Busby (2014))
Agonidae (not monophyletic here but see Smith and Busby (2014); includes the former Hemitripteridae)
Cottidae (not monophyletic here but see Smith and Busby (2014); includes the former Abyssocottidae, Comephoridae, and Cottocomephoridae.)
Psychrolutidae (includes the former Bathylutichthyidae)
Scorpaenichthyidae (see Smith and Busby (2014))
Not examined: Jordaniidae (not listed by Eschmeyer (2014); newly defined by Smith and Busby (2014)), Ereuniidae, Normanichthyidae, and Rhamphocottidae.
Comment: Smith and Busby (2014) changed the membership of Cottidae and Psycholutridae to achieve reciprocal monopyhyly of these families. Our phylogenetic results do not resolve a monophyletic Cottidae even under the new circumscription proposed by these authors. We refer the readers to that study for more details.
Superclass Sarcopterygii (96%)
Class Coelacanthimorpha (= Actinistia)
Order Coelacanthiformes
Class Dipnotetrapodomorpha sedis mutabilis (65%)
Subclass Dipnomorpha (100%)
Superorder Ceratodontae
Order Ceratodontiformes
Suborder Ceratodontoidei
Suborder Lepidosirenoidei (100%)
Subclass Tetrapodomorpha (100%)
General comments on the classification
This classification (version 3), as its previous versions, also buids on Wiley and Johnson (2010) and Betancur-R. et al. (2013a), intending to preserve names and taxonomic composition of groups as much as possible. However, adjustments have been made to recognize well-supported molecular clades, many of which also have been obtained by previous molecular studies (several examples discussed below--references are cited when decisions are based on other publications). Order-level or supraordinal taxa have been erected (listed as new) or resurrected on the basis of well-supported clades only (>90% bootstrap values). Current taxon names supported by previous molecular or morphological studies have been retained if congruent with our results, even if bootstrap support is low (e.g., Osteoglossocephalai sensu Arratia (1999) with only 38% bootstrap). In some cases, ordinal or subordinal taxa that were not monophyletic in our analysis are also validated, as long as the incongruence is not supported by strong bootstrap values. Examples include the suborder Blennioidei (not monophyletic here but monophyletic in Wainwright et al., 2012) and the order Pleuronectiformes (not monophyletic here but monophyletic in Betancur-R. et al., 2013b). The classification is presented in phylogenetic order up to the subordinal rank (following the branching order in our results), but families within orders (or suborders) are listed alphabetically.
A total of 67 orders are classified, of which one is new (Chaetodontiformes) and two were sinked (Terapontiformes and Cirrhitiformes) in version 3. Three orders were new in the version 1 (Holocentriformes, Istiophoriformes, and Pempheriformes) and two were new in version 2 (Lobotiformes and Terapontiformes). The ordinal status of several percomorph families examined (as well as many others unexamined) belonging to the Series Carangimorpharia, Ovalentaria, and Percomorpharia remains uncertain (incertae sedis) due to poor phylogenetic resolution. We therefore list these families as incertae sedis within each of these groups (Carangimorpharia, Ovalentaria, and Percomorpharia) awaiting new phylogenetic evidence to clarify their ordinal status.
Family names for bony fishes are based on Eschmeyer and Fong (2014) and van der Laan et al. (2013), with minor modifications, indicted in each case in the classification. Van der Laan et al. (2013) and Eschmeyer (2014) should be consulted for authorship of family names and Wiley and Johnson (2010) for authorship of ordinal and subordinal names. Our list is not intended as a comprehensive revision of valid family names. Instead, it is simply an adaptation of their lists based on published studies that we know validate or synonymize taxa using explicit phylogenetic evidence. In order to minimize the number of non-monophyletic taxa, we have changed the membership of many families traditionally recognized in ichthyology whose validity is strongly challenged by molecular/morphological phylogenetic analyses. For instance, we no longer recognize families such as Scaridae, Caesionidae, and Microdesmidae (lumped with Labridae, Lutjanidae, and Gobiidae, respectively). Accordingly, the number of non-monophyletic families decreased from 41 in version 2 to 30 in this version (indicated in each case).
A total of 496 families of bony fishes are now recognized (excluding tetrapods), of which 394 (79.4%) were examined. For each order/suborder we list all families examined as well as the unexamined families whose taxonomic affinity is expected on the basis of traditional taxonomy or phylogenetic evidence. The list of 102 unexamined families can be easily obtained from this spreadsheet that also contains the complete classification, and is intended as a resource to help fish systematists direct future sequencing efforts.
The new classification scheme presented here (version 3) should be considered work in progress as any other hypothesis. It is likely to include involuntary errors and omissions in addition to the many unexamined, sedis mutabilis, and incertae sedis taxa. Updates should be forthcoming as new evidence becomes available and feedback from experts help refine it. Please send comments or concerns to classification@deepfin.org. For the most updated version always visit DeepFin.
List of all changes from version 2 to version 3
Name changes for Series in Percomorphaceae: new names are Ophidiaria, Batrachoidaria, Gobiaria, Syngnatharia, Pelagiaria, Anabantaria, Carangaria, Ovalentaria, and Eupercaria.
Definition of Centrarchiformes now follows Near et al. (2013), Lavoué et al. (2014), and Chen et al. (2014b) to include the families Centrarchidae, Elassomatidae, Sinipercidae Jordan, Percichthyidae, Enoplosidae, Cirrithidae, Cheilodactylidae, Girellidae, Kuhliidae, Kyphosidae, Oplegnathidae, and Terapontidae. This change sinks the orders Terapontiformes and Cirrhitiformes (recognized in previous versions), since they are now recognized as suborders of Centrarichiformes together with Centrarchoidei and Percichthyoidei. The new ordinal circumscription is relatively well supported (bootstrap value of 77%). Since Percilia is deeply nested within Percichthyidae in our analyses as well as in other studies mentioned above, the family Percilidae is no longer recognized as valid.
Suborders of Anabantiformes now reflect well-supported monophyletic groups, correcting an error in Version 2 and defining a third suborder (Channoidei) for the family Channidae. Affinities of Channidae with other anabantiform families varies among studies (e.g., Near et al. (2013), Betancur-R. et al. (2013a), and our new results). The new scheme with three subroders is robust to this ambiguity.
A new eupercarian order, Chaetodontiformes, is now recognized for the families Chaetodontidae and Leiognathidae. Although support for this clade is weak (50%) in our global analysis, it has been consistently obtained by previous studies with higher nodal support (90-99% in Near et al. (2012a) and 70-89% in Near et al. (2013)).
Family Arapaimidae no longer recognized (now included in Osteoglossidae).
Suborders in Beloniformes: Belonoidei replaces Exocoetoidei.
Notobranchidae, Rivulidae, and Aplocheilidae are removed from “not examined” in Cyprinodontoidei and listed as “not examined” in Aplocheiloidei.
Family Sundasalangidae no longer recognized because Sundasalanx is nested within Clupeidae --following Lavoué et al. (2013)
Family Olyridae no longer recognized. Olyra is included in Bagridae according to Sullivan et al. (2006).
Scoloplacidae is removed from “not examined” in Siluroidei and listed as “not examined” in Loricaroidei.
Stathmonotus is now listed within Labrisomidae, following Lin and Hastings (2013). This change renders Chaenopsidae (sensu Lin and Hastings (2013)) monophyletic.
Microdesmus is now listed within Gobiidae, following Thacker, (2009) so Microdesmidae is no longer recognized.
Family Caesionidae (previously listed as insertae sedis in Eupercaria) no longer recognized as valid. It is now listed as synonym of Lutjanidae based on Johnson (1993), Miller and Cribb (2007), and others.
Family Scaridae is now included in Labridae, rendering Labridae monophyletic (citations???).
Family Achiropsettidae no longer recognized. It is considered a synonym of Rhombosoleidae, based on the results presented by Betancur-R. et al. (2013b), rendering Rhombosoleidae monophyletic.
Congrogadinae (sensu Godkin and Winterbottom 1985 is now recognized as family Congrogadidae. As a consequence, Pseudochromidae is now monophyletic.
Centrogenyidae is removed from order-level incertae sedis in Eupercaria and listed as “possibly included” in Uranoscopiformes. Bootstrap support for Uranoscopiformes plus Centrogenyidae is only 41% (as opposed to 99% for Uranoscopiformes s.s.) but placement is congruent with results reported by Near et al. (2013).
Gaidropsarinae is erected to family, so Lotidae is no longer paraphyletic (but see Roa-Varón and Ortí, 2009).
Cottoidei was recently revised by Smith and Busby (2014) who proposed a revised classification for all families within this suborder except the Aulorhynchidae, Gasterosteidae, and Hypotychidae (infraorder Gasterosteales), that were not examined. We follow these authors to make the following changes in the classification: (1) Hexagrammidae is split it into two families, defined as subfamilies by previous authors (e.g., Washington et al. 1984; Shinohara 1994): Hexagrammidae (sensu stricto) and Zaniolepididae. Both families are now placed in their own infraorders (Zaniolepidoales and Hexagrammales), following previous cottoid classifications. Note that these classifications use suborder instead of infraorders as presented here. (2) We now recognize the cottoid families Jordaniidae (not examined) and Scorpaenichthyidae.
References
Akazaki, M. 1962. Studies on the spariform fishes-anatomy - phylogeny, ecology, and taxonomy. Kosugi Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan.
Albert, J.S., and W. G.R. Crampton. 2005. Diversity and Phylogeny of Neotropical Electric Fishes (Gymnotiformes), p. 360–409. In: Electroreception. C. D. Bullock, A. N. Hopkins, and R. R. Fay (eds.). Springer, New York.
Alves-Gomes, J.A. 2010. The mitochondrial phylogeny of the South American electric fish (Gymnotiformes) and an alternative hypothesis for the Otophysan historical biogeography. In: Gonorynchiformes and Ostariophysan relationships (eds. Grande, T, Potayo-Ariza, FJ & Diogo, R). Science Publishers Enfield.
Arratia, G. 1999. The monophyly of Teleostei and stem-group teleosts. Consensus and disagreements, p. 265-334. In: Mesozoic Fishes 2 – Systematics and Fossil Record. G. Arratia and H. P. Schultze (eds.). Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil, München.
Arratia, G. 2010. The Clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies. Revista de Biologia Marina & Oceanografia. 45:635-657.
Baldwin, C.C. 2013. The phylogenetic significance of colour patterns in marine teleost larvae. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 168:496-563.
Betancur-R., R., R.E. Broughton, E.O. Wiley, K. Carpenter, J.A. Lopez, C. Li, N. I. Holcroft, D. Arcila, M. Sanciangco, J. Cureton, F. Zhang, T. Buser, M. Campbell, T. Rowley, J.A. Ballesteros, G. Lu, T. Grande, G. Arratia, and G. Ortí. 2013a. The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLoS Currents Tree of Life. 2013 Apr 18.
Betancur-R., R., C. Li, T. A. Munroe, J.A. Ballesteros, and G. Ortí. 2013b. Addressing gene-tree discordance and non-stationarity to resolve a multi-locus phylogeny of the flatfishes (Teleostei: Pleuronectiformes). Systematic Biology. 62:763–785.
Betancur-R., R. and G. Ortí. 2014. Molecular evidence for the monophyly of flatfishes (Carangimorpharia: Pleuronectiformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 73 (2014) 18–22.
Burridge, C.P., and A.J. Smolenski. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the Cheilodactylidae and Latridae (Perciformes: Cirrhitoidea) with notes on taxonomy and biogeography. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 30:118-127.
Calcagnotto, D., S.A. Schaefer, and R. DeSalle. 2005. Relationships among characiform fishes inferred from analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 36:135-153.
Campbell, M. A., W. J. Chen, and J. A. Lopez. 2013. Are flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) monophyletic? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 69:664-673.
Carpenter, K. 2001. Girellidae, Scorpididae, Microcanthidae, p. 2791-3379. In: The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fisheries Purposes. Vol. 5. K. Carpenter and V. H. Niem (eds.). FAO, Rome.
Chakrabarty, P., M.P. Davis, and J.S. Sparks. 2012. The First Record of a Trans-Oceanic Sister-Group Relationship between Obligate Vertebrate Troglobites. PLoS ONE.
Chanet, B., Guintard, C., Betti, E., Gallut, C., Dettaï, A. and G. Lecointre. 2013. Evidence for a close phylogenetic Relationship between the teleost orders Tetraodontiformes and Lophiiformes based on an analysis of soft anatomy. Cybium 37:179-198.
Chapleau, F. 1993. Pleuronectiform relationships - A cladistic reassessment. Bulletin of Marine Science. 52:516-540.
Chen, W-.J, S. Lavoue and R.L. Mayden. 2014a. Evolutionary origin and early biogeography of otophysan fishes (Ostariophysi: Teleostei). Evolution 67-8: 2218–2239.
Chen, W-.J, S. Lavoue, L.B. Beheregaray and R.L. Mayden. 2014b. Historical biogeography of a new antitropical clade of temperate freshwater fishes. J. Biogeography 2014 (doi:10.1111/jbi.12333).
Chen, W-. J., V. Lheknim, and R.L. Mayden. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of the Cobitoidea (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) revisited: position of enigmatic loach Ellopostoma resolved with six nuclear genes. Journal of Fish Biology. 75:2197-2208.
Davis, A. M., G. Arratia, and T.M. Kaiser. 2013. The first fossil shellear and its implications for the evolution and divergence of the Kneriidae (Teleostei: Gonorynchiformes), p. 325-362. In: Mesozoic Fishes 5 - Global Diversity and Evolution. G. Arratia, H.-P. Schultze, and M. V. H. Wilson (eds.). Verlag F. Pfeil, Muenchen.
Davis, M.P. 2010. Evolutionary relationships of the Aulopiformes (Euteleostei: Cyclosquamata): a molecular and total evidence approach, p. 317-336. In: Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts. J. S. Nelson, H. P. Schultze, and M. V. H. Wilson (eds.). Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, Germany.
Dettaï, A., G. Lecointre. 2004. New insights into the organization and evolution of vertebrate IRBP genes and utility of IRBP gene sequences for the phylogenetic study of the Acanthomorpha (Actinopterygii : Teleostei). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48:258-269.
Doiuchi, R., T. Sato, and T. Nakabo. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the stromateoid fishes (Perciformes). Ichthyological Research. 51.
Eschmeyer, W.N., and J.D. Fong. 2014. Species of Fishes by family/subfamily. Vol. 2014 (updated 18 June 2014).
Eschmeyer, W.N. 2014. Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References. Electronic Version accessed 16 July 2014.
Froese, R., W.N., and D. Pauly (Editors). 2013. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org [version Dec. 2013.
Godkin C.M., and R. Winterbottom. 1985. Phylogeny of the family Congrodgadidae (Pisces: Perciformes) and its placement as a subfamily of Pseudochromidae. Bulletin of Marine Science, 36(3): 633-671.
Grande, T., W.C. Borden, and W.L. Smith. 2013. Limits and relationships of Paracanthopterygii: A molecular framework for evaluating past morphological hypotheses. In: Mesozoic Fishes 5 - Global Diversity and Evolution. G. Arratia, H.-P. Schultze, and M. V. H. Wilson (eds.). Verlag F. Pfeil, Muenchen.
Greenwood, P.H. 1976. A review of the family Centropomidae (Pisces, Perciformes). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology. 29:1–81.
Greenwood, P.H. 1995. A revised familial classification for certain cirrhitoid genera (Teleostei, Percoidei, Cirrhitoidea), with comments on the groups monophyly and taxonomic ranking. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology. 61:1–10.
Greenwood, P.H., D.E. Rosen, S.H. Weitzman, and G.S. Myers. 1966. Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 131.
Holcroft, N.I., and E. O. Wiley. 2008. Acanthuroid relationships revisited: a new nuclear gene-based analysis that incorporates tetraodontiform representatives. Ichthyological Research. 55:274-283.
Johnson, G.D. 1981. The limits and relationships of the Lutjanidae and associated families. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 24:1-114.
Johnson, G.D. 1984. Percoidei: development and relationships. In: Moser, H.G., Richards, 699 W.J., Cohen, D.M., Fahay, M.P., Kendall, A.W., Richardson, S.L. (Eds.), Ontogeny and 700 systematic of fishes. Special Publication No 1. American Society of Ichthyologists 701 and Herpetologists, Gainesville, pp. 464–498.
Johnson, G.D. 1993. Percomorph phylogeny: progress and problems. Bulletin of Marine Science. 52:3- 28.
Johnson, G.D., and C. Patterson. 1993. Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal. Bulletin of Marine Science. 52:554–626.
Jordan, D.S. 1923. A classification of fishes including families and genera as far as known. Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser. Biol. Sci. 3:77-243.
Lautredou, A.-C., H. Motomura, C. Gallut, C. Ozouf-Costaz, C. Cruaud, G. Lecointre, and A. Dettai. 2013. Multi-scale exploration of the relationships among Serraniformes (Acanthomorpha, Teleostei) using new nuclear markers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 67:140-155.
Lavoue, S., M. Miya, P. Musikasinthorn, W.-J. Chen and M. Nishida. 2013. Mitogenomic evidence for an Indo-West Pacific origin of the Clupeoidei (Teleostei: Clupeiformes). PLoS ONE 8(2): e56485. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056485.
Lavoue, S., M. Miya, Poulsen, P.R. Moller, and M. Nishida. 2008. Monophyly, phylogenetic position and inter-familial relationships of the Alepocephaliformes (Teleostei) based on whole mitogenome sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 47:1111-1121.
Lavoue, S., K. Nakayama, D.R. Jerry, Y. Yamanoue, N. Yagishita, N. Suzuki, M. Nishida, and M. Miya. 2014. Mitogenomic phylogeny of the Percichthyidae and Centrarchiformes (Percomorphaceae): comparison with recent nuclear gene-based studies and simultaneous analysis. Gene (in press).
Li, B., A. Dettai, C. Cruaud, A. Couloux, M. Desoutter-Meniger, and G. Lecointre. 2009. RNF213, a new nuclear marker for acanthomorph phylogeny. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 50:345-363.
Li, C., R. Betancur-R., W.L. Smith, and G. Ortí. 2011. Monophyly and interrelationships of Snook and Barramundi (Centropomidae sensu Greenwood) and five new markers for fish phylogenetics. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 60:463-71.
Li, C. and G. Ortí. 2010. Molecular phylogeny of Clupeiformes (Actinopterygii) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 44:386-398.
Li, C., G. Ortí, and J. Zhao. 2010. The phylogenetic placement of sinipercid fishes ("Perciformes") revealed by 11 nuclear loci. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 56:1096-1104.
Lin, H.-C., and P. A. Hastings. 2013. Phylogeny and biogeography of a shallow water fish clade (Teleostei: Blenniiformes). BMC Evolutionary Biology. 13.
Miller, T.L., and T.H. Cribb. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of some common Indo-Pacific snappers (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences, with comments on the taxonomic position of the Caesioninae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 44, 450-460.
Lovejoy, N.R. and B.B. Collette. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of new world needlefishes (Teleostei: Belonidae) and the biogeography of transitions between marine and freshwater habitats. Copeia, 324-338.
Lovejoy, N.R., M. Iranpour and B.B. Collette. 2004. Phylogeny and Jaw Ontogeny of Beloniform Fishes. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44: 366-377.
Miya, M., M. Friedman, T. P. Satoh, H. Takeshima, T. Sado, W. Iwasaki, Y. Yamanoue, M. Nakatani, K. Mabuchi, J. G. Inoue, J. Y. Poulsen, T. Fukunaga, Y. Sato, and M. Nishida. 2013. Evolutionary origin of the scombridae (tunas and mackerels): members of a paleogene adaptive radiation with 14 other pelagic fish families. PLoS ONE. 8:e73535.
Miya, M., N.I. Holcroft, T.P. Satoh, M. Yamaguchi, M. Nishida, and E.O. Wiley. 2007. Mitochondrial genome and a nuclear gene indicate a novel phylogenetic position of deep-sea tube-eye fish (Stylephoridae). Ichthyological Research. 54.
Miya, M., T. Pietsch, J. Orr, R. Arnold, T. Satoh, A. Shedlock, H.-C. Ho, M. Shimazaki, M. Yabe, and M. Nishida. 2010. Evolutionary history of anglerfishes (Teleostei: Lophiiformes): a mitogenomic perspective. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10:58.
Miya, M., T.P. Satoh and M. Nishida. 2005. The phylogenetic position of toadfishes (order Batrachoidiformes) in the higher ray-finned fish as inferred from partitioned Bayesian analysis of 102 whole mitochondrial genome sequences Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85:289–306.
Miya, M., H. Takeshima, H. Endo, N.B. Ishiguro, J.G. Inoue, T. Mukai, T.P. Satoh, M. Yamaguchi, A. Kawaguchi, K. Mabuchi, S.M.N. Shirai and M. Nishida. 2003. Major patterns of higher teleostean phylogenies: a new perspective based on 100 complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 26:121–138.
Moore, J.A. 1993. Phylogeny of the Trachichthyiformes (Teleostei: Percomorpha). Bulletin of Marine Science. 52:114-136.
Munroe, T.A. 2005. Chapter 3: Distributions and Biogeography, p. 42-67. In: Flatfishes: Biology and Exploitation R. N. Gibson (ed.). Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford.
Nakatani, M., M. Miya, K. Mabuchi, K. Saitoh, and M. Nishida. 2011. Evolutionary history of Otophysi (Teleostei), a major clade of the modern freshwater fishes: Pangaean origin and Mesozoic radiation. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2011, 11:177.
Near, T.J., R.I. Eytan, A. Dornburg, K.L. Kuhn,J.A. Moore, M.P. Davis, et al. 2012a. Resolution of ray-finned fish phylogeny and timing of diversification. PNAS, 109, 13698–13703.
Near, T.J., A. Dornburg, R.I. Eytan, B.P. Keck, W.L. Smith, K.L. Kuhn, J.A. Moore, S.A. Price, F.T. Burbrink, M. Friedman, and P.C. Wainwright. 2013. Phylogeny and tempo of diversification in the superradiation of spiny-rayed fishes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101:12738-21743. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304661110.
Nelson, J.S. 2006. Fishes of the world. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Odani, K., and H. Imamura. 2011. New Phylogenetic Proposal for the Family Leptoscopidae (Perciformes: Trachinoidei). Bulletin of Fisheries Sciences Hokkaido University. 61:49-63.
Paulsen, J.Y., P.R. MØller, S. Lavoue, S.W. Knudsen, M. Nishida, and M. Miya. 2009. Higher and lower-level relationships of the deep-sea fish order Alepocephaliformes (Teleostei: Otocephala) inferred from whole mitogenome sequences. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98: 923-936.
Roa-Varon, A., and G. Ortí. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships among families of Gadiformes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii) based on nuclear and mitochondrial data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 52:688-704.
Price, S.A., R. Holzman, T.J. Near and P.C. Wainwright (2011). Coral reefs promote the evolution of morphological diversity and ecological novelty in labrid fishes. Ecology Letters, 14, 462-469.
Price, S.A., P.C. Wainwright, D.R. Bellwood, E. Kazancioglu, D.C. Collar, and T.J. Near. (2010). Functional Innovations and morphological diversification in parrotfish. Evolution, 64, 3057-3068.
Santini, F., and J.C. Tyler. 2003. A phylogeny of the families of fossil and extant tetraodontiform fishes (Acanthomorpha, Tetraodontiformes), Upper Cretaceous to Recent. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 139: 565-617.
Shinohara, G. 1994. Comparative morphology and phylogeny of the suborder Hexagrammoidei and related taxa (Pisces: Scorpaeniformes). Memoirs of the Faculty of Fisheries Hokkaido University, 4: 1-97.
Smith, W.L., and M.S. Busby. 2014. Phylogeny and taxonomy of sculpins, sandfishes, and snailfishes (Perciformes: Cottoidei) with comments on the phylogenetic significance of their early-life-history specializations. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (accessed online 11 Jul 2014).
Smith, W.L., and M. T. Craig. 2007. Casting the percomorph net widely: The importance of broad taxonomic sampling in the search for the placement of serranid and percid fishes. Copeia. 2007: 35-55.
Springer, V.G., and T.M. Orrell. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of the families of acanthomorph fishes based on dorsal gill-arch muscles and skeleton. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington. 11:237–260.
Stiassny, M.L.J., and J.A. Moore. 1992. A review of the pelvic girdle of atherinomorph fishes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 104:209-242.
Sullivan, J.P., J.G. Lundberg, and M. Hardman. 2006. A phylogenetic analysis of the major groups of catfishes (Teleostei : Siluriformes) using rag1 and rag2 nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 41:636-662.
Thacker, C. 2009. Phylogeny of Gobioidei and Placement within Acanthomorpha, with a New Classification and Investigation of Diversification and Character Evolution. Copeia. 2009:93-104.
Tominaga, Y. 1986. The relationships of the families Glaucosomatidae and Pempherididae, p. 595-599. In: Indo-Pacific fish biology. T. Uyeno, R. Arai, T. Taniuchi, and K. Matsuura (eds.). lchthyological Society of Japan, Tokyo.
van der Laan, R., R. Fricke, and W.N. Eschmeyer. 2013. Family-Group Names (version 11/17/2013). California Academy of Sciences http://research.calacademy.org/ichthyology/catalog/family.
Wainwright, P.C., W.L. Smith, S.A. Price, K.L. Tang, J.S. Sparks, L.A. Ferry, K.L. Kuhn, R.I. Eytan, and T.J. Near. 2012. The evolution of pharyngognathy: a phylogenetic and functional appraisal of the pharyngeal jaw key innovation in labroid fishes and beyond. Systematic Biology. 61:1001-27.
Washington, B.B., W.N Eschmeyer, and K.M. Howe. 1984. Scorpaeniformes: relationships. In: Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes (eds. Moser, HG, Richards, WJ, Cohen, DM, Fahay, MP, Kendell Jr., AW & Richardson, SL). American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication Lawrence, KS, pp. 438-447.
Wiley, E.O., and G.D. Johnson. 2010. A teleost classification based on monophyletic groups, p. 123-182. In: Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts. J. S. Nelson, H. P. Schultze, and M. V. H. Wilson (eds.). Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, Germany.
Yagishita, N., M. Miya, Y. Yamanoue, S.M. Shirai, K. Nakayama, N. Suzuki, T.P. Satoh, K. Mabuchi, M. Nishida, and T. Nakabo. 2009. Mitogenomic evaluation of the unique facial nerve pattern as a phylogenetic marker within the percifom fishes (Teleostei: Percomorpha). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 53:258-66.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse