Tytuł pozycji:
Andrefrancia solem, 1960 (Gastropoda: pulmonata: charopidae) - a systematic revision
- Tytuł:
-
Andrefrancia solem, 1960 (Gastropoda: pulmonata: charopidae) - a systematic revision
- Autorzy:
-
Pawlowska-Banasiak, E.
- Powiązania:
-
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/84691.pdf
- Data publikacji:
-
2008
- Wydawca:
-
Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika. Wydział Biologii i Ochrony Środowiska. Stowarzyszenie Malakologów Polskich
- Źródło:
-
Folia Malacologica; 2008, 16, 3
1506-7629
- Język:
-
angielski
- Prawa:
-
CC BY: Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0
- Dostawca treści:
-
Biblioteka Nauki
-
Przejdź do źródła  Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
The revision of the endemic New Caledonian genus Andrefrancia Solem, 1960 is based on 1,167
specimens from 108 localities (collection Paris Museum of Natural History). Seventeen earlier described species
are revised, and 33 new species are described; data on further six species, absent from the Paris collection
but included in Andrefrancia, are cited. Identification keys, synonymy, conchological and anatomical descriptions
and figures, as well as distribution maps are provided. Phylogeny reconstruction used 21 conchological
characters with 64 character states, and 26 characters of the reproductive system with 62 character states. The
characters were polarised based on out-group comparison (out-groups: Charopidae from the Pacific islands,
Australia, New Zealand, Juan Fernandez and Chile; Endodontidae from the Pacific islands) and ontogenetic
criterion. The aim of the study was to answer the following questions: (1) is the genus monophyletic? (2) are
species groups within the genus monophyletic? (3) what are phylogenetic relationships among the species and
their groups? Difficulties resulted from incompleteness of data (only shells available for some species), frequent
instances of convergent evolution and consequent paucity of unequivocal apomorphies which would
define monophyletic groups. As a result the phylogenies provided are only preliminary, and any formal classification
changes would be premature. Based on combination of characters the genus was divided into seven
groups; most species were assigned to groups distinguished by earlier authors; one new group was proposed.
The geographical distribution was analysed in terms of endemism, but the lack of unequivocal phylogeny
made it impossible to analyse it in the light of evolutionary relationships.