A review of Gammaridae (Crustacea: Amphipoda): The family extent, its evolutionary history, and taxonomic redefinition of genera
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, ISSN: 1096-3642, Vol: 176, Issue: 2, Page: 323-348
2016
- 81Citations
- 107Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
By molecular analysis of a high number of gammarids, including 29 out-group genera, we could assure the monophyly of Gammaridae. To avoid the paraphyly of the family, we propose the omission of Pontogammaridae, Typhlogammaridae, and all Baikalian families. Similarly, the genera Fontogammarus, Sinogammarus, Lagunogammarus, Pephredo, Neogammarus, and Laurogammarus may be cancelled. But, tens of Baikal genera, nested within Gammarus, are so diverse that they must be retained, although rendering Gammarus paraphyletic. Besides we propose the polyphyletic Echinogammarus-Chaetogammarus group to be divided into monophyletic genera Echinogammaruss. str., Homoeogammarus, Parhomoeogammarus, Marinogammarus, Relictogammarus gen.nov., Chaetogammarus, and Trichogammarus gen.nov. These solutions made it possible to complete the first analysis of the family evolution in light of its phylogeny. Perimarine clades are mainly basally split clades, whereas in some ancient lakes extremely rich endemic faunas had developed polyphyletically. The troglobiotic Typhlogammarus group from Dinarides and Caucasus formed a monophylum, whereas the troglobiotic assemblage of Gammarus species is highly polyphyletic. Reduction of the uropodIII endopodite, which classically distinguishes between the genera Gammarus and Echinogammarus, appeared to be highly polyphyletic. Protective dorsal pleonal projections occur scattered across the family and beyond, whereas lateral projections were limited to species of ancient lakes, so both structures were polyphyletic. The evolutionary history of Gammaridae was investigated with ten different calibration schemes, which produced incompatible results; however, the most probable scenario is a late rise of the family, which can only explain the absence of Gammaridae species around the Indo-Pacific.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84956580193&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12318; https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12318; https://zenodo.org/record/5357553; https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12318; https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/176/2/323/2449815
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know