Phylogenetics

In the past there has been much debate regarding the phylogeny of the Turbinidae family. Historically there have been many in favour of monophyly of Turbinidae, based on the evidence of 19 synapomorphies in an analyses performed on 43 distinct morphological characters. However in an argument posed by Williams and Ozawa (2006) and as discussed elsewhere on this webpage, the main characters that have been used to define the Turbinidae family are traditionally the presence of a highly calcified operculum, and more recently the expression of unique radulae features. However again, according to Williams and Ozawa (2006) neither of these characteristics offers compelling evidence for monophyly of this family. In the past couple of decades, Hickman and McLean (1990) conducted a comprehensive study of the Turbinidae family, defining a total of nine subfamilies within this family, and four informally classified groups based on morphological phylogenetics. Their findings indicated a monophyly, however a more recent study by Williams and Ozawa (2006) suggests this is not the case based on molecular phylogenetic evidence. More research is required to further solve the dispute, however it must be noted that while the previously mentioned studies by Hickman and McLean (1990) and Williams and Ozawa (2006) differ in their phylogenetic findings, there is some degree of agreement in the cladistics of certain genera.