Phylogenetic Relationship within the Genus Carcharhinus on the Basis of Lemon shark (N. brevirostris) Position

Abstract

Many doubts have not been answered about the phylogenetic relationship of the sharks. The morphological models and molecular studies, frequently used these days, can put some species into different order or suborder. The sharks contain about 1% of all fishes, separated into 8 orders. Within these, the largest group is the genus Carcharhinus, which includes economically important sharks. A lot of different analyses were done to determine the relationship among these genera. Most of them indicate that phylogenetic relationships at most taxonomic levels remain mysterious for this genera. This study was applied to determine the interrelationship between Carcharhinus and Negaprion genera based on the lemon shark position and to find out the possible paraphyletic situation of genus Carcharhinus, via using ribosomal ITS2 region and mtDNA D-loop for comparison and to get more reliable findings. As a result, based on the ribosomal ITS2 analyses, the lemon shark is placed within the genus Carcharhinus, on the other hand, the lemon shark finds a place outside of the genus Carcarhinus according to the mtDNA D-loop analyses results. Different findings regarding the position of the lemon shark indicate that it is necessary for more accurate results of the study by using more samples and more gene data.

Keywords

• Carcharhinus
• Evolution
• İnterrelationship
• N. brevirostris
• Systematics

References

1. Cabot EL, Beckenbach AT. 1989. Simultaneous editing of multiple nucleic acid and protein sequences with ESEE. Comput Appl Biosci, 5: 233-234.
2. Castro JI. 1983. The Sharks of the North American waters. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, US, pp: 80-85.
3. Compagno LJV. 1984. Sharks of the world: Carcharhiniformes. FAO, 4: 250-655.
4. Compagno LJV. 1988. Sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, US, pp: 100-110.
5. Demirsoy A. 1998. Yaşamın temel kuralları. 3 (1): Omurgalılar: Anamniyota. Meteksan Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 250-280.
6. Dosay M. 2000. A molecular view of various issues in shark phylogenetics and the evolution of shark rRNA ITS. PhD thesis, The Quenn’s University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, pp: 120.
7. Dulvy NK. 1998. Life histories and conservation of sharks and rays. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, pp: 105.
8. Felsenstein J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evol, 39: 783-791.

9. Felsenstein J. 1993. PHYLIP: Phylogeny inference package, Version 3.5c. Distributed by the author, University of Washington, Seattle, US.
10. Iglésias SP, Lecointre G, Sellos DY. 2005. Extensive paraphylies within sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol, 34: 569-83.
11. Irschick DJ, Fu A, Lauder G, Wilga C, Kuo CY, Hammerschlag N. 2017. A comparative morphological analysis of body and fin shape for eight shark species. Biol J Linn Soc, 122: 589-604.
12. Lavery S. 1992. Electrophoretic analysis of phylogenetic relationships among Australian Carcharhinid sharks. Aust J Mar Freshwater Res, 43: 97-108.
13. Maisey JG. 1984. Higher elasmobranch phylogeny and biostratigraphy. Zool J Linn Soc, 82: 33-54.
14. Martin A. 1992. Tempo and mode of mitochondrial DNA evolution in sharks and rays. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, US, pp: 200.
15. Martin AP. 1993. Hammerhead shark origins. Nature, 364: 494.
16. Martin AP. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA sequence evolution in sharks: Rates, patterns, and phylogenetic inferences. Mol Biol Evol, 12: 1114-1123.
17. Mcdiarmid M. 1996. Shark attack. Parrogon Books Limited, Bristol, UK, pp: 70-80.
18. Naylor GJP. 1989. The phylogenetic relationships of Carcharhiniform sharks inferred from electrophoretic data. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, US, pp: 250.
19. Naylor GJP. 1992. The phylogenetic relationships among Requem and Hammerhead sharks: Inferring phylogeny when thousands of equally most parsimonious trees result. Cladistic, 8: 295-318.
20. Soltis DE, and Kuzoff RK. 1995. Discordance between nuclear and chloroplast phylogenies in the Heuchera group (Saxifragaceae). Evol, 49: 727-742.
21. Strimmer K, von Haeseler A. 1996. Quartet puzzling: Quartet maximum likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol Biol Evol, 13: 964-969.
22. Swift DG, Dunning LT, Igea J, Brooks EJ, Jones CS, Noble LR, Ciezarek A, Humble E, Savolainen V. 2016. Evidence of positive selection associated with placental loss in tiger sharks. BMC Evol Biol, 16: 126.
23. Tricas TC, Deacon K, Last P, McCosker JE, Walker TI, Taylor LR. 1997. Sharks & Rays. Nature Company Guides, Time Life Education Publishers, Weldon Owen, Sydney, Australia, pp: 150-170.