Characidae, , Lucena, 1998

Mirande, Juan Marcos, 2010, Phylogeny of the family Characidae (Teleostei: Characiformes): from characters to taxonomy, Neotropical Ichthyology 8 (3), pp. 385-568 : 476-477

Node 178: Characidae (100 / 100 / 44 / 17)

Subfamilies Acestrorhynchinae , Agoniatinae , Aphyocharacinae , Aphyoditeinae , Bryconinae , Characinae , Cheirodontinae , Cynodontinae , Gymnocharacinae , Heterocharacinae , Iguanodectinae , Rhoadsiinae , Salmininae , Stevardiinae , and Tetragonopterinae ; Astyanax clade, Astyanax paris clade, Bramocharax clade, Bryconamericus scleroparius clade, Bryconops clade, Hyphessobrycon anisitsi clade, and Pseudochalceus clade.

The composition and diagnosis of the Characidae are among the most problematic issues in the phylogeny of the Characiformes , and no explicit diagnosis based on synapomorphic features was proposed under previous phylogenetic studies of the family ( Uj, 1990; Lucena, 1993; Buckup, 1998). This node is not completely congruent with some clade from previous phylogenies, but it is the one that requires the fewest nomenclatural changes relative to previous definitions of the family ( e. g. Géry, 1977).The present definition of the Characidae is largely compatible with the hypothesis of Uj (1990) and Buckup (1998), but the node H of the hypothesis of Uj (1990) also includes the Serrasalmidae , while the node 14 of Buckup (1998) excludes Acestrorhynchus from the Characidae . This hypothesis is relatively less congruent with that of Lucena (1993), in which the node most similar to the Characidae of this study excludes Acestrorhynchus , Cynodon , and Rhaphiodon , and includes the Alestidae and Serrasalmidae . Results of molecular analyses are also rather different from the the results of the present hypothesis. The node of Ortí & Meyer (1997) most similar to the Characidae of this paper excludes the Cynodontinae and includes the Alestidae and Ctenoluciidae , while the node referred to as “Neotropical characids” by Calcagnotto et al. (2005) excludes the Cynodontinae but includes the genus Chalceus , in the Alestidae of this study. It is notable that both molecular phylogenies agree in the exclusion of the Cynodontinae from the Characidae , and in the nonmonophyly of Alestidae , with Chalceus separated from the African alestids. Both the monophyly of a clade composed of theAcestrorhynchinae and Cynodontinae , and the sister-group relationship between Chalceus and the African Alestidae are supported by morphological phylogenies ( Lucena & Menezes, 1998; Zanata & Vari, 2005), and are corroborated herein. In the present analysis the monophyly of the Characidae is supported by one additional unambiguous character (ch. 92) relative to the analysis of Mirande (2009).

Synapomorphies:

1. Form of orbitosphenoid (37): (1> 0) slender,relatively small and separate from parasphenoid. Paralleled in nodes 168 and 170 and in Hemiodus cf. thayeria . Reversed in node 193 and in Markiana nigripinnis , Rhaphiodon vulpinus , and Roeboides microlepis .

2. Rhinosphenoid (47): (0> 1) present. Paralleled in nodes 168 and 170 and in Hemiodus cf. thayeria . Reversed in nodes 207, 260, 280, and 298 and in Aphyocharax nattereri , Attonitus ephimeros , Brycon orbignyanus , Bryconamericus scleroparius , Hollandichthys multifasciatus , Pseudocorynopoma doriae , and Salminus brasiliensis .

3. Canal of lateral line on caudal-fin membrane (92): (0> 1) present. Paralleled in Piaractus mesopotamicus . Reversed in the Aphyoditeinae and Bryconops clade, in nodes 227, 229, 244, 287, 294, and 298, and in Aphyocharax nattereri , Bryconamericus rubropictus , B. thomasi , Charax stenopterus , Hyphessobrycon anisitsi , Inpaichthys kerri , and Phenacogaster tegatus .

4. Total number of vertebrae (227): (0> 1) 41 or more. Paralleled in Apareiodon affinis , Hemiodus cf. thayeria , and Prochilodus lineatus . Reversed in nodes 205 and 302 and in Brycon pesu .

5. Number of branched anal-fin rays (288): (0> 1) 25 or more. Paralleled in node 186. Reversed in nodes 200, 277, and 300 and in Acestrorhynchus pantaneiro and Iguanodectes geisleri .

6. Anterior ventral procurrent caudal-fin rays (305): (0> 1) fused in laminar medial bones.

7. Radii of scales (322): (1> 0) not converging at focus. Paralleled in node 168 and in Hemiodus cf. thayeria . Reversed in node 273 and in Stichonodon insignis and Tetragonopterus argenteus . Some trees: Reversed in node 302 and in Microschemobrycon casiquiare .

8. Attachment of medial tendon of A1 section of adductor mandibulae (333): (1> 0) on quadrate near its articulation with preopercle. Reversed in node 211.

Some trees:

9. Radii oriented towards anterior field of scales (321): (0> 2) absent. Reversed in node 302.