Short CommunicationMolecular data do not provide unambiguous support for the monophyly of flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes): A reply to Betancur-R and Ortí

- Monophyly of flatfishes is ambiguous with molecular and morphological evidence.
- Monophyly of the suborder Pleuronectoidei is well-supported.
- Acknowledging the lack of certainty present in phylogenetic results is useful.
- Our work highlights areas for future research in genomics and molecular evolution.

Betancur-R and Ortí (2014) offer a criticism of our recent examination of the monophyly of extant flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes; Campbell et al., 2013). We welcome this opportunity to examine and respond to the main issues presented in Betancur-R and Ortí (2014). Briefly, this debate centers on the question of whether or not analyses of the available evidence support a stable and confident conclusion regarding a sister group relationship between the two recognized pleuronectiform suborders: Psettodoidei (four species) and Pleuronectoidei (>700 species). In Campbell et al. (2013), we reported results based on sequences from six nuclear genes compatible with monophyly of Pleuronectoidei but not with that of Pleuronectiformes. In our analyses, the most closely related percomorph family to the Pleuronectoidei was resolved to be the Centropomidae. In Campbell et al. (2013), we also provided a critical review of the morphological evidence in favor flatfish monophyly showing that this evidence requires a careful re-examination where it concerns psettodoids. Here we present our perspective on the issues raised in Betancur-R and Ortí (2014).