Figure 3 in Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha)

Figure 3. Hypotheses of osteoglossomorph interrelationships, redrawn from: A, Shen (1996); B, Bonde (1996); C, Taverne (1998). Question marks and dashed lines indicate doubt concerning the placement of a taxon. Note that Shen's (1996) hypothesis places several fossil taxa that are commonly regarded as osteoglossomorphs outside the group (e.g. †Jiaohichthys, †Lycoptera, †Tongxinichthys & †Plesiolycoptera). Taverne's (1998) hypothesis resulted from analysis of 344 characters, although these were presented as a list rather than in the form of a data matrix, and some characters were reversals of others (see Cavin & Forey, 2001). Note that Taverne (1998) considered †Brychaetus to be distantly related to †Phareodus (contrary to Li et al., 1997a), and he considered both genera to be paraphyletic. Contrary to Li & Wilson (1996a), Taverne (1998) considered †Ostariostoma and †Lycoptera to be closely related to the hiodontids, †Singida to be relatively basal, and the monophyly of Scleropages to be uncertain.Published as part of Hilton, Eric J., 2003, Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha), pp. 1-100 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1) on page 10, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00032.x, http://zenodo.org/record/543725