Ichthyological Research

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

An overview of the phylogenetic relationships of the suborder Trachinoidei (Acanthomorpha: Perciformes)

  • Hisashi ImamuraEmail author
  • Kenji Odani


The phylogenetic relationships of the perciform suborder Trachinoidei, currently including 11 families (Cheimarrichthyidae, Pinguipedidae, Percophidae, Trichonotidae, Creediidae, Champsodontidae, Chiasmodontidae, Leptoscopidae, Ammodytidae, Trachinidae and Uranoscopidae) are reviewed from an historical perspective. The previously questioned monophyly of the suborder and familial limitations remain unclear because of conflicting evidence and differing phylogenetic proposals resulting from morphological and molecular perspectives.


Trachinoidei Phylogenetic relationships Morphology Molecular phylogeny Monophyly 



We express our sincere thanks to Y. Kai (FAKU) for providing valuable comments and information on molecular phylogenetic studies. We are grateful to M. McGrouther (AMS), P. Pruvost (MNHN), A. Stewart and C. Roberts (NMNZ), J. Williams, S.L. Jewett and L. Palmer (USNM), T. Yamakawa (BSKU, formerly KSHS), and T. Yoshino (Okinawa, Japan, formerly the University of Ryukyus) for providing materials. Our thanks also go to S.A. Dembner (FAO), J.-C. Herremans (Linnean Society of New South Wales), Y. Miura (Tokai University Press) and T. Nakabo (Kyoto University Museum), for providing permission to use drawings appeared in their publications in this study. We also express our thanks to G.S. Hardy (Ngunguru, New Zealand) for English corrections. Finally, we sincerely thank M.F. Gomon (NMV) and G. Shinohara (NSMT), who provided many constructive suggestions with us.


  1. Baldwin CC, Johnson GD (1993) Phylogeny of the Epinephelinae (Teleostei: Serranidae). Bull Mar Sci 52:240–283Google Scholar
  2. Berg DP (1940) Classification of fishes, both Recent and Fossil. Trav Inst Zool Acad Sci USSR 5:87–517Google Scholar
  3. Chen WJ, Bonillo C, Lecointre G (2003) Repeatability of clades as a criterion of reliability: a case study for molecular phylogeny of Acanthomorpha (Teleostei) with larger number of taxa. Mol phylogenet Evol 26:262–288Google Scholar
  4. Dettai A, Lecointre G (2005) Further support for the clades obtained by multiple molecular phylogenies in the acanthomorph bush. Comptes Rendus Biol 328:674–689Google Scholar
  5. Dettaï A, Lecointre G (2008) New insights into the organization and evolution of vertebrate IRBP genes and utility of IRBP gene sequences for the phylogenetic study of the Acanthomorpha (Actinopterygii: Teleostei). Mol Plylogenet Evol 48:258–269Google Scholar
  6. Eschmeyer WN (1998) Collection abbreviations. In: Eschmeyer WN (ed) Catalog of fishes. Vols 1–3. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, pp 16–22 Google Scholar
  7. Gosline WA (1968) The suborders of perciform fishes. Proc US Nat Mus 124:1–78Google Scholar
  8. Greenwood PH, Rosen DN, Weitzman SH, Myers GS (1966) Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bull Amer Mus Nat Hist 131:339–455Google Scholar
  9. Hastings PA (1993) Relationships of fishes of the perciform suborder Notothenioidei. In: Miller RG (ed) A history and atlas of the fishes of the Antarctic Ocean. Foresta Institute for Ocean and Mountain Studies, Carson City, pp 99–107Google Scholar
  10. Hatooka K (2002) 295. Trichodontidae. In: Nakabo T (ed) Fishes of Japan with pictorial keys to the species, English edn. Tokai University Press, p 1058Google Scholar
  11. Imamura H, Matsuura K (2003) Redefinition and phylogenetic relationships of the family Pinguipedidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). Ichthyol Res 50:259–269Google Scholar
  12. Imamura H, Yabe M (2002) Demise of the Scorpaeniformes (Actinopterygii: Percomorpha): an alternative phylogenetic hypothesis. Bull Fish Sci Hokkaido Univ 53:107–128Google Scholar
  13. Imamura H, Yoshino T (2007) Ryukyupercis, a new genus of pinguipedid fish for the species Parapercis gushikeni (Teleostei: Perciformes) based on the phylogenetic relationships of the family. Raffles Bull Zool Suppl (14):93–100Google Scholar
  14. Imamura H, Shirai S, Yabe M (2005) Phylogenetic position of the family Trichodontidae (Teleostei: Perciformes), with a revised classification of the perciform suborder Cottoidei. Ichthyol Res 52:264–274Google Scholar
  15. Johnson GD (1993) Percomorph phylogeny: progress and problems. Bull Mar Sci 52:3–28Google Scholar
  16. Jordan DS (1923) A classification of fishes including families and genera as far as known. Stanford Univ Publ, Univ Ser, Biol Sci 3:77–243 + i–xGoogle Scholar
  17. Li B, Dettaï A, Cruaud C, Couloux A, Desoutter-Meniger M, Lecointre G (2009) RNF213, a new nuclear marker for acanthomorph phylogeny. Mol Phylogenet Evol 50:345–63Google Scholar
  18. McCulloch AR (1915) Notes on, and descriptions of Australian fishes. Proc Linn Soc NSW 40:259–277, pls 35–37Google Scholar
  19. McDowall RM (1973) Relationships and taxonomy of the New Zealand torrent fish, Cheimarrichthys fosteri Haast (Pisces: Mugiloididae). J Royal Soc New Zealand 3:199–217Google Scholar
  20. McDowall RM (2000) Biogeography of the New Zealand torrentfish, Cheimarrichthys fosteri (Teleostei: Pinguipedidae): a distribution driven mostly by ecology and behaviour. Environ Biol Fish 58:119–131Google Scholar
  21. Mecklenburg CW, Mecklenburg TA, Thorsteinson LK (2002) Fishes of Alaska. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  22. Mooi RD, Johnson GD (1997) Dismantling the Trachinoidei: evidence of a scorpaenoid relationship for the Champsodontidae. Ichthyol Res 44:143–176Google Scholar
  23. Nakabo T (2002) Key to the families. In: Nakabo T (ed) Fishes of Japan with pictorial keys to the species, English edn. Tokai University Press, pp 3–103Google Scholar
  24. Nakae M, Asai S, Sasaki K (2006) The lateral line system and its innervation in Champsodon snyderi (Champsodontidae): distribution of approximately 1000 neuramasts. Ichthyol Res 53:209–215Google Scholar
  25. Nazarkin MV, Voskoboinikova OS (2000) New fossil genus and species of Trichodontidae and the position of this family in the order Perciformes. Vopr Iktiol 40:725–742 Google Scholar
  26. Nelson JS (1976) Fishes of the world. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson JS (1984) Fishes of the world, second edn. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson JS (1985) On the interrelationships of the genera of Creediidae (Perciformes: Trachinoidei). Jpn J Ichthyol 32:283–293Google Scholar
  29. Nelson JS (1986) Some characters of Trichonotidae, with emphasis to those distinguishing it from Creediidae (Perciformes: Trachinoidei). Jpn J Ichthyol 33:1–6Google Scholar
  30. Nelson JS (1994) Fishes of the world, third edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York Google Scholar
  31. Nelson JS (2006) Fishes of the world, fourth edn. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Odani K, Imamura H (2011) New phylogenetic proposal for the family Leptoscopidae (Perciformes: Trachinoidei). Bull Fac Fish Hokkaido Univ 61:49–63Google Scholar
  33. Odani K, Imamura H, Nakaya K (2006) Osteological description of the Brazilian flathead, Percophis brasiliensis (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Percophidae), with comments on its phylogenetic position. Spec Divers 11:277–294Google Scholar
  34. Okada Y, Suzuki K (1952) On two new bembroid fishes from the deep sea off Mie Prefecture with special reference in relation to hitherto known species. Ret Fac Fish Prefectural Univ Mie 1:67–74 Google Scholar
  35. Paulin C, Stewart A, Roberts C, McMillan P (1989) New Zealand fish, a complete guide. Nat Mus NZ Misc Ser 19:i–xiv + 1–279Google Scholar
  36. Pietsch TW (1989) Phylogenetic relationships of trachinoid fishes of the family Uranoscopidae. Copeia 1989:253–303Google Scholar
  37. Pietsch TW, Zabetian CP (1990) Osteology and interrelationships of the sand lances (Teleostei: Ammodytidae). Copeia 1990:78–100Google Scholar
  38. Randall JE (1984) Two new Indo-Pacific mugiloidid fishes of the genus Parapercis. Freshwater Mar Aqua 7(12):41–49Google Scholar
  39. Rosa IL, Rosa RS (1997) Systematic revision of the South American species of Pinguipedidae (Teleostei, Trachinoidei). Revta Bras Zool 14:845–865Google Scholar
  40. Roux C (1981) Trachinidae. In: Fisher W, G Bianchi, WS Scott (eds) FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Eastern Central Atlantic. Fishing area 34 and part of 47. FAO, Rome, unpagedGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith DG, Johnson GD (2007) A new species of Pteropsaron (Teleostei: Trichonotidae: Hemerocoetinae) from the western Pacific, with notes on related species. Copeia 2007:364–377Google Scholar
  42. Smith WL, Wheeler WC (2004) Polyphyly of the mail-cheeked fishes (Teleostei: Scorpaeniformes): evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 32:627–646Google Scholar
  43. Smith WL, Craig MT (2007) Casting the percomorph net widely: the importance of broad taxonomic sampling in the search for the placement of serranid and percid fishes. Copeia 2007:35–55Google Scholar
  44. Watson W, Matarese AC, Stevens EG (1984) Trachinoidea: development and relationships. In: Moser HG, Richards WJ, Cohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW Jr, Richardson SL (eds) Ontogeny and systematics of fishes. Allen Press Inc, Lawrence, pp 554–561Google Scholar
  45. Wiley EO, Johnson GD (2010) A teleost classification based on monophyletic groups. In: Nelson JS, H-P Schultze, MVH Wilson (eds) Origin and phylogenetic interrelationships of teleosts. Verlag Dr Friedrich Pfeil, München, pp 123–182 Google Scholar
  46. Winterbottom R (1974) A descriptive synonymy of the striated muscles of the Teleostei. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philad 125:225–317Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ichthyological Society of Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Marine Biology and Biodiversity (Systematic Ichthyology), Faculty of Fisheries SciencesHokkaido UniversityHakodateJapan
  2. 2.Fisheries Research InstituteAomori Prefectural Industrial Technology CenterHiranai-machiJapan

Personalised recommendations