KOEPFLI, K.-P.*; GOMPPER, M.E.; EIZIRIK, E.; HO, C.-C.; LINDEN, L.; MALDONADO, J.E.; WAYNE, R.K.; Univ. of California, Los Angeles; University of Missouri, Columbia; Faculdade de Biociencias, PUCRS; Univ. of California, Los Angeles; Univ. of California, Los Angeles; Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History; Univ. of California, Los Angeles: Molecular Phylogeny Reveals Extensive Morphological Parallelism in the Procyonidae (Mammalia: Carnivora)
The Procyonidae have played a central role in resolving the controversial systematics of the giant and lesser pandas, but the phylogenetic relationships of species within the family itself have received much less attention. Cladistic analyses of morphological characters conducted during the last two decades have resulted in topologies that group ecologically and morphologically similar taxa together. We examined procyonid phylogenetics based on the combined data from nine nuclear and two mitochondrial gene segments totaling 6,534 bp. We were able to fully resolve the relationships within the family with strongly supported, congruent results from four methods of phylogeny reconstruction. We identified three distinct lineages within the family: a (Nasua, Bassaricyon) clade, a (Bassariscus, Procyon) clade, and a Potos lineage, which was basal to the other two clades. These findings, which are in strong disagreement with prior fossil and morphological-based assessments of procyonid relationships, reemphasize the morphological and ecological flexibility of these taxa. In particular, the morphological similarities between kinkajous and olingos reflect the independent acquisition of traits via parallel evolution associated with an arboreal lifestyle rather than ancestry. The strong discordance between the molecular and morphological estimates of procyonid phylogeny mirror similar findings for certain groups of primates, including hominoids, and other groups of carnivorans. In support of these other studies, our results suggest that, in certain cases, craniodental evidence may not be a reliable indicator of phylogenetic affinity.
