Harpagiferidae T. Gill 1861: 510

Parker, Elyse & Near, Thomas J., 2022, Phylogeny Reconciles Classification in Antarctic Plunderfishes, Ichthyology & Herpetology 110 (4), pp. 662-674 : 667

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.1643/i2021126

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7852576

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D5B246-FFCF-FFD0-FF57-FD6758F334F3

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Harpagiferidae T. Gill 1861: 510
status

 

Harpagiferidae T. Gill 1861: 510 View in CoL View at ENA

Type species.— Harpagifer bispinis View in CoL (Forster in Bloch and Schneider, 1801: 45).

Definition.— The least inclusive clade that includes Harpagifer bispinis (Forster) View in CoL and Artedidraco mirus Lönnberg (1905: 40– 41) View in CoL . The reference phylogeny is one inferred from a Sanger sequenced dataset comprising two mitochondrial gene regions and seven nuclear genes ( Dornburg et al., 2017: fig. 2).

Morphological apomorphies.— (1) Gill membranes are united and joined at the isthmus but do not form a fold ( Eakin, 1981; Balushkin, 2000) and (2) the presence of one or two epurals ( Eakin, 1981).

Composition.— There are 18 valid and distinct species of Harpagiferidae View in CoL with six species of Harpagifer View in CoL and 12 species of Artedidraconinae. Duhamel et al. (2005: 328, 358) and Eastman and Eakin (2021) call into question the distinctiveness of the five additional species of Harpagifer View in CoL described by V. P. Prirodina and A. V. Neyelov ( H. andirashevi Prirodina 2000 , H. nybelini Prirodina 2002 View in CoL , H. crozetensis Prirodina 2004 View in CoL , H. macquariensis Prirodina 2000 View in CoL , and H. permitini Neyelov and Prirodina 2006 View in CoL ). Duhamel et al. (2005) warn that these species are diagnosed primarily by the degree of development of the supraorbital protuberance, which is known to vary widely within a single species ( Eastman and Eakin, 2021). Given these concerns, we conservatively recognize six species of Harpagifer View in CoL and suggest that species delimitation analyses based on morphological and molecular data are needed to confirm the distinctiveness of the five species described by V. P. Prirodina and A. V. Neyelov.

Phylogenetic analyses.— Consistent with previous molecular phylogenetic studies ( Derome et al., 2002; Lecointre et al., 2011; Near et al., 2012, 2018), Artedidraco View in CoL sensu lato (s.l.) is paraphyletic in the ddRAD phylogenies inferred from both concatenated data and species tree analyses ( Figs. 2 View FIG , 3 View FIG ). A clade containing Neodraco skottsbergi and N. loennbergi is resolved as the sister lineage of all other species of Artedidraconinae. All other species of Artedidraco View in CoL sensu stricto (s.s.) included in this study ( A. orianae View in CoL , A. mirus View in CoL , A. glareobarbatus View in CoL , and A. shackletoni View in CoL ) resolve as a monophyletic group with strong node support ( Figs. 2 View FIG , 3 View FIG ). Relationships among species of Artedidraco View in CoL are consistent and strongly supported across all analyses: specimens of A. shackletoni View in CoL do not resolve as a monophyletic group because specimens of A. glareobarbatus View in CoL are nested within the species ( Figs. 2A View FIG , 3A View FIG ). A clade containing A. shackletoni View in CoL , specimens of A. glareobarbatus View in CoL , and A. mirus View in CoL is resolved as the sister lineage of A. orianae View in CoL ( Figs. 2 View FIG , 3 View FIG ).

In both the concatenated and species tree analyses of the min84 dataset, Artedidraco View in CoL is resolved as sister to a clade containing Histiodraco velifer View in CoL and Pogonophryne View in CoL ( Figs. 2A View FIG , 3A View FIG ). This clade, inclusive of Artedidraco View in CoL , H. velifer View in CoL , and Pogonophryne View in CoL , is resolved as the sister lineage of Dolloidraco longedorsalis View in CoL ( Figs. 2A View FIG , 3A View FIG ). These relationships among the major artedidraconine lineages are also resolved in the species tree analysis of the min126 dataset ( Fig. 3B View FIG ); however, the concatenated analyses of the min126 and min144 datasets as well as the species tree analysis of the min144 dataset result in slightly different topologies. In each of these analyses, D. longedorsalis View in CoL is resolved as the sister lineage of the clade containing H. velifer View in CoL and Pogonophryne View in CoL , and this clade including D. longedorsalis View in CoL , H. velifer View in CoL , and Pogonophryne View in CoL is resolved as the sister lineage of Artedidraco View in CoL ( Figs. 2B, C View FIG , 3C View FIG ). These alternative phylogenetic hypotheses likely emerge from differences in the phylogenetic information content across our analyzed datasets. Specifically, the hypothesized placement of D. longedorsalis View in CoL as sister to H. velifer View in CoL and Pogonophryne View in CoL is resolved only in datasets which contain fewer missing data and therefore also include fewer loci ( Figs. 2 View FIG , 3 View FIG ). It has been demonstrated that stricter thresholds on missing data may result in the filtering out of loci with the highest mutation rates, thereby producing datasets with lower phylogenetic information content ( Huang and Knowles, 2016). The reduction of phylogenetic informativeness in the datasets with fewer loci is evident by the decreasing node support observed for bipartitions in the phylogenies as the number of loci in a dataset is reduced ( Figs. 2 View FIG , 3 View FIG ).

Morphology.— There are significant differences among species of Artedidraco View in CoL and Neodraco in several meristic traits ( Fig. 4 View FIG ; Tables 1–4 View Table 1 View Table 2 ; Supplemental Tables S3–4; see Data Accessibility). Neodraco loennbergi and N. skottsbergi exhibit a significantly lower mean number of tubular upper lateral-line scales compared with species of Artedidraco View in CoL (pairwise rank sum Wilcoxon test: P, 0.05 for comparisons with all species except A. longibarbatus ; Table 1 View Table 1 , Supplemental Table S4f; see Data Accessibility). The mean number of spines in the first dorsal fin exhibited by A. shackletoni View in CoL and A. glareobarbatus View in CoL is significantly higher than that of species of Neodraco and A. mirus View in CoL (P, 0.05 for all comparisons; Table 2 View Table 2 ; Supplemental Table S4b; see Data Accessibility). Artedidraco mirus View in CoL , A. orianae View in CoL , and A. longibarbatus exhibit fewer anal-fin rays than observed in other species of Artedidraco View in CoL and the two species of Neodraco ( Table 3). In addition, Artedidraco mirus View in CoL and A. orianae View in CoL exhibit a lower mean number of second dorsal-fin rays ( Table 4).

The disparity in the meristic traits is reflected in the results of the PCA ( Fig. 4 View FIG ). The first three PC axes account for 93.4% of the variance in meristic traits. The first PC axis (51.2% of the variation) mostly represents variation in the first dorsal-fin spines and the number of tubular scales in the upper lateral line, the second PC axis (30.2%) mostly describes variation in the number of second dorsal-fin rays and anal-fin rays, and the third PC axis (12.0%) mostly represents variation in the number of pectoral-fin rays. Plotting PC2 against PC1 reveals separation of Neodraco skottsbergi and N. loennbergi from all species of Artedidraco View in CoL along both PC2 and PC1 ( Fig. 4 View FIG ). The distribution of specimens in the PC meristic morphospace is consistent with the diagnosis of Neodraco by a lower number of tubular scales in the upper lateral line as well two or three spines in the first dorsal fin ( Fig. 4 View FIG ; Tables 1 View Table 1 , 2 View Table 2 ). The PC plot shows almost no separation of A. shackletoni View in CoL and A. glareobarbatus View in CoL ( Fig. 4 View FIG ).

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Actinopterygii

Order

Perciformes

Family

Harpagiferidae

Loc

Harpagiferidae T. Gill 1861: 510

Parker, Elyse & Near, Thomas J. 2022
2022
Loc

Harpagiferidae T. Gill 1861: 510

Gill, T. 1861: 510
1861
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF