The
monophyly of the Limnocorinae (Limnocoris lutzi) is characterized by three autapomorphies: (8-3), (37-2), and (39-1).
In contrast, recent investigations have identified several larval features (listed in a later section) that may lend apomorphic support for the
monophyly of Nothochrysinae [7-10].
The enigmatic mitochondrial genome of Rhabdopkura compacta (Pterobranchia) reveals insights into selection of an efficient tRNA system and supports
monophyly of Ambulacraria.
However, the lack of reciprocal specific
monophyly between C.
Removal of these two sequences results in the reciprocal
monophyly of C.
Monophyly. According to Toma and Carvalho (1995), there has not yet been any reported character that supports
monophyly of this genus.
Gobioid
monophyly has been well-supported by both morphology (e.g., Miller 1973, 1992; Springer 1983) and molecules (Thacker and Hardman, 2005) and is not questioned here.
Previous phylogenetic studies based on morphological and molecular data support the
monophyly of Otatea and its sister relationship with the Mesoamerican bamboo genus Olmeca (Ruiz-Sanchez et al., 2008; Ruiz-Sanchez et al., 2011b).
Monophyly of Gerromorpha has been confirmed by later studies (e.g., Damgaard, 2008b), whereas relationships with other infraorders remain disputed (Wheeler et al., 1993; Mahner, 1993; Shcherbakov and Popov, 2002; Xie et al., 2008).
However, the phylogenetic relationships within the group have remained problematic, and the question of
monophyly of the Thelodonti has also been controversial (e.g., Turner 1991; Janvier 1996; Donoghue & Smith 2001; Wilson & Mdrss 2004).
This recent admixture could account for both the lack of
monophyly in the haplogroups, as well as the high polymorphisms found in these breeds.