Submitted by Alberto Vieira (martins_vieira@ibest.com.br) on 2018-01-18T20:49:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 569962.pdf: 13351558 bytes, checksum: 5aa622184407df6c703e410546a7be61 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-01-18T20:49:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 569962.pdf: 13351558 bytes, checksum: 5aa622184407df6c703e410546a7be61 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2001 / A hipótese de monofiletismo da família Aplocheilidae assim como as suas inter-relações são reexaminadas. A análise é baseada em morfologia, principalmente osteologia, de 25 espécies. São incluídos 130 caracteres, sendo 34 novos, 30 citações pessoais de Costa e as restantes citações anteriores de Costa (1998 a e b) e Parenti (1981). A árvore de consenso estrito, obtida de 13 cladogramas igualmente parcimoniosos (comprimento 294, índice de consistência 0.60, índice de retenção 0.79) apresenta a seguinte topologia: (Rivulus caudomarginatus ((Epiplatys sangmelinensis ((Epiplatys bifasciatus; Epiplatys fasciolatus)( Epiplatys chaperi; Epiplatys mesogramma))(Nothobranchius guentheri ((Aphyosemion aureum)(Aphyosemion bivittatum)(Aphyosemion herzogi ) (Aphyosemion cameroensis)(Aphyosemion petersi; Aphyosemion guignardi)(Fundulopanchax splendidum; Fundulopanchax gulare) )(Pachypanchax playfairi (Aplocheilus panchax (Aplocheilus blocki (Aplocheilus lineatus(Aplocheilus dayi; Aplocheilus werneri))))). A hipótese filogenética gerada pela presente análise corrobora o monofiletismo da família Aplocheilidae, diferindo da hipótese originalmente proposta por Parenti ( 1981) somente no que concerne a relação entre os gêneros: o gênero Epiplatys é grupo irmão do clado composto pelos gêneros Aphyosemion, Fundulopanchax e Nothobranchius, em vez de ser grupo irmão dos gêneros Aplocheilus e Pachypanchax. Este aspecto concorda com a hipótese baseada em biologia molecular de Murphy and Collier (1997). São comparadas as hipóteses filogenéticas desta análise com as de Parenti (1981) e Murphy and Collier (1997). / The hypothesis of monophyly and inter relationships of the family Aplocheilidae are reexamined. The analysis is based on morphology, primarily osteology, of 25 species. It includes 130 characters, of which 34 are new; 30 are personal communications by Costa and the remaining are from Parenti's (1981) and Costa's ( 1998 a and b) phylogenetic studies. The strict consensus tree obtained from the 13 equally most parsimonious cladograms (consistency índex 0.60, retention índex 0.79, length, 294) has the following topology: (Rivulus caudomarginatus ((Epiplatys sangmelinensis ((Epiplatys bifasciatus; Epiplatys fasciolatus)(Epiplatys chaperi; Epiplatys mesogramma))(Nothobranchius guentheri ((Aphyosemion aureum)(Aphyosemion bivittatum)(Aphyosemion herzogi) (Aphyosemion cameroensis)(Aphyosemion petersi; Aphyosemion guignardi)(Fundulopanchax splendidum; Fundulopanchax gulare) )(Pachypanchax playfairi (Aplocheilus panchax (Aplocheilus blocki (Aplocheilus lineatus(Aplocheilus dayi Aplocheilus werneri))))). Monophyly of Aplocheilidae is supported. The present phylogenetic hypothesis differs from that of Parenti's (1981) in the proposed sister group relationship between Epiplatys and the clade comprising the genera Aphyosemion, Fundulopanchax and Nothobranchius instead of Epiplatys being n the sister group relationship to the genera Aplocheilus and Pachypanchax. In this aspect it agrees with the Murphy and Collier's (1997) hypothesis. Comparison between the present hypothesis, that one from Parenti's ( 1981) analysis and the other one from Murphy and Collier's (1997) analysis are made .

The reproductive and developmental styles of Aplocheilichthys johnstoni closely resemble those of other oviparous cyprinodont fishes reported in the literature. Reproductively it sorts to the guild of nonguarding phytophyllic broodhiders, is a daily, fractional spawner of relatively large, adhesive eggs. The length of the embryonic period varies between 14 and 19 days and the larval period can last for up to 30 days. Sexual maturity can be attained at an age of 150 days from fertilization. The embryology is described in detail and close comparison is made with the embryology of other cyprinodonts to highlight possible phylogenetic differences. Major differences with other cyprinodonts are in the rate of development, and heterochronic shifts in the appearance of certain structures in relation to each other. A discussion is included on the nature of development. It is suggested that development proceeds in a gradual stepwise fashion, interspersed with four major saltations, namely, fertilisation, onset of exogenous feeding, sexual maturity and death