Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 2000 40(3):382-392; doi:10.1093/icb/40.3.382
© 2000 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Knott, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Wray, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Controversy and Consensus in Asteroid Systematics: New Insights to Ordinal and Familial Relationships1

K. Emily Knott2,1 and Gregory A. Wray3,1
1 Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794-5245

Phylogenetic approaches have sparked controversy in asteroid systematics since 1987. Despite recent attempts at resolving these differences and evidence of some consensus, our understanding of relationships among asteroid taxa remains unsatisfactory. This paper presents results of an investigation into asteroid evolutionary history using DNA sequence data from mitochondrial transfer RNA and the cytochrome oxidase c subunit I genes analyzed with and without previously published ribosomal gene sequences. Analysis of these genes provides an assessment of familial relationships but does little to elucidate ordinal relationships. A basal position for the Paxillosida is not supported. However, close relationships of some velatid and valvatid taxa are upheld. The resulting phylogenies are not a definitive answer to controversies in asteroid systematics. However, with new insights to some asteroid relationships, they highlight the need for a redirection of future systematic studies so a consensus can be made.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.