HYPOSTOMINAE, KNER, 1853

Armbruster, Jonathan W., 2004, Phylogenetic relationships of the suckermouth armoured catfishes (Loricariidae) with emphasis on the Hypostominae and the Ancistrinae, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 141 (1), pp. 1-80 : 50

HYPOSTOMINAE

Isbrücker (1980), Nijssen & Isbrücker (1986), and Isbrücker & Nijssen (1989) broke the Ancistrinae into an array of tribes and subtribes based on few or no characters. Their system is found not to reflect phylogeny and is here abandoned. It is almost impossible to compare the morphological phylogeny presented here ( Figs 36–38 ) with that of Montoya-Burgos et al. (1998), so mainly instances of similarity are mentioned.

The Hypostominae is broken into five tribes, three of them new: Corymbophanini new tribe, Rhinelepini new tribe, Hypostomini , Pterygoplichthini new tribe, and Ancistrini ( Figs 36–38 ). An interesting finding is the sister-group relationship of the Pterygoplichthini and the Ancistrini ( Figs 36 , 37 ). Schaefer (1986) has the Ancistrini placed within a polytomy consisting of various genera or species now placed in Hypostomus and Pterygoplichthys as sister to Hypostomus + Ancistrinae ( Fig. 4 ). However, recognition of a relationship between the Pterygoplichthini and Ancistrini has precedent. Prior to this study, most of the species of the Hemiancistrus annectens group were referred to the Ancistrinae , and several of the species now placed in Pterygoplichthys had been considered to be Ancistrus or Chaetostoma (genera that are essentially synonymous with the Ancistrini in many early works) by early workers (i.e. Kner, 1853; Regan, 1904). In this study, the sister-group relationship of the Pterygoplichthini and the Ancistrini is supported by five or more plates between the opercle and canal plate (88: 3) and hypertrophied odontodes present regardless of season or sex on evertible cheek plates (183: 2 and 184: 2).

Figures

Figure 4. Phylogeny from Schaefer (1986) based on osteology. Some names have been changed from those reported by Schaefer to update taxonomy (Oligancistrus was formerly in Parancistrus) and to correct misidentifications (one of the Hypostomus was listed as Corymbophanes, Schizolecis was listed as Pogonopomoides, and Pterygoplichthys punctatus was listed as Megalancistrus).

Figure 36. Relationships of Astroblepus, Lithogenes, hypostomine tribes, and the nonhypostomine loricariids based on the ordered analysis. This is part of the strict consensus of 5098 most parsimonious trees of trees of 1328 steps, CI = 0.203, remainder of the consensus tree is in Figs 37 and 38. Numbers above the branches are clade numbers, numbers below are decay indices.

Figure 37. Relationships of the hypostomine tribes and taxa within the Corymbophanini, the Rhinelepini, the Hypostomini, and the Pterygoplichthini based on the ordered analysis. This is part of the strict consensus of 5098 most parsimonious trees of trees of 1328 steps, CI = 0.203, remainder of the strict consensus tree is in Figs 36 and 38. Numbers above the branches are clade numbers, numbers below are decay indices. 1Aphanotorulus, Cochliodon, and Isorineloricaria are placed in Hypostomus. 2The Hemiancistrus annectens group represents an undescribed genus, Hypostomus panamensis is now placed in Hemiancistrus. 3Glyptoperichthys and Liposarcus are placed in Pterygoplichthys.

Figure 38. Relationships of the taxa within the Ancistrini based on the ordered analysis. This is part of the strict consensus of 5098 most parsimonious trees of trees of 1328 steps, CI = 0.203, remainder of the strict consensus tree is in Figs 36 and 37. Numbers above the branches are clade numbers, numbers below are decay indices. 1Hemiancistrus landoni represents an undescribed genus. 2Oligancistrus is placed in Spectracanthicus. 3Lithoxancistrus is transferred to Pseudancistrus. 4Cordylancistrus platyrhynchus is transferred to Chaetostoma.