Citharoidea

Campbell, Matthew A., Chen, Wei-Jen, Chanet, Bruno, Chen, Jhen-Nien & Lee, Mao-Ying, 2019, Origins and relationships of the Pleuronectoidei: Molecular and morphological analysis of living and fossil taxa, Zoologica Scripta 48 (5), pp. 640-656 : 648

4.2 | Citharoidea

The monophyly of Citharoidea ( Citharidae ) receives low support in (BS% = 56) in the concatenated ML analysis. Sampling of this family in previous multilocus studies, for example (Betancur‐R., Broughton, et al., 2013; Betancur‐R., Li, et al., 2013; Campbell et al., 2013; Harrington et al., 2016) have found high support for monophyly of Citharidae . Low support for the monophyly of this family in molecular phylogenetic study was previously shown in mitogenomic phylogenies (Campbell, López, et al., 2014), sampling to date, however, has not included more than three genera of this lineage. This study includes Brachypleura , representing four of the five genera in the family, only leaving Paracitharus unsampled. The earliest‐branching lineage of the family based on these four genera and the molecular data presented here is Brachypleura . Consequently, the low support for monophyly of this family here may be a result of the short internodes in the tree in this region. Numerous studies have doubted the monophyly of Citharidae , for example ( Chapleau, 1993; Cooper & Chapleau, 1998b; Hensley, 1997; Hensley & Ahlstrom, 1984); however, Hoshino (2001) established synapomorphies for Citharidae and indicated them to be monophyletic.