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.