Species delineation in the speciation grey zone—The case of Diopatra (Annelida, Onuphidae)
Taxonomy based on morphology can be difficult. The challenges arise from different sources such as poor original descriptions, new records based on inadequate knowledge, uncritical application of general assumptions or presence of complexes of cryptic species. One example of problematic taxonomy is...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Zoologica scripta 2020-07, Vol.49 (4), p.516-534 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 534 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 516 |
container_title | Zoologica scripta |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Elgetany, Asmaa H. Rensburg, Hendré Hektoen, Martin Matthee, Conrad Budaeva, Nataliya Simon, Carol A Struck, Torsten H. |
description | Taxonomy based on morphology can be difficult. The challenges arise from different sources such as poor original descriptions, new records based on inadequate knowledge, uncritical application of general assumptions or presence of complexes of cryptic species. One example of problematic taxonomy is the genus Diopatra Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 (Onuphidae, Annelida) and within it the two species Diopatra aciculata and D. neapolitana. The species exhibit great similarity between them casting doubts on their validity as separate species. Our study aims to investigate whether D. aciculata and D. neapolitana should be synonymized, using an integrative taxonomic approach. Therefore, we assessed 22 morphological characters of 70 specimens including one specimen, which might have been erroneously assigned to D. dentata. Additionally, sequence information of five different molecular markers (i.e., 16S rDNA, COI, 28S, ITS1 and ITS2) was gathered to delineate possible species boundaries between these two species. Our results show some evidence for delineating the two species, but they are not conclusive due to both presence of shared morphological characters and conflicting evidence in the molecular data. Accordingly, our results neither confirm nor disprove complete speciation and both species seem to be in the grey zone of speciation. In conclusion, considering taxonomic stability and slight support by morphological characters, we still regard each as two independent species. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/zsc.12421 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2414178605</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2414178605</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2971-1f6f4923635b72b6dbe46fcdfa95883e8eb12fc9dfbf37d800e8eaf7f5eb14953</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9Kw0AQxhdRsFYPvsGCFwum3X_ZJMfS-g8KPbReRFg2yaxNqZu4myLtyYfwCX0St8arc5lhvt98Ax9Cl5QMaajR3hdDygSjR6hHheSRFCQ7Rj3CCYk4i-UpOvN-TQhJJSU99LJooKjA4xI2lQXdVrXFlcXtCrA_SN3m1cEO72sL359fyyAV2gOuDZ5WdaNbp_H12NrgUOobPLfbZhUmGJyjE6M3Hi7-eh893d0uJw_RbH7_OBnPooJlCY2okUZkjEse5wnLZZmDkKYojc7iNOWQQk6ZKbLS5IYnZUpIWGmTmDgIIot5H111vo2r37fgW7Wut86Gl4oJKmiSSnKgBh1VuNp7B0Y1rnrTbqcoUYfwVAhP_YYX2FHHflQb2P0PqufFpLv4ASRDceU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2414178605</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Species delineation in the speciation grey zone—The case of Diopatra (Annelida, Onuphidae)</title><source>Wiley Blackwell Journals</source><creator>Elgetany, Asmaa H. ; Rensburg, Hendré ; Hektoen, Martin ; Matthee, Conrad ; Budaeva, Nataliya ; Simon, Carol A ; Struck, Torsten H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Elgetany, Asmaa H. ; Rensburg, Hendré ; Hektoen, Martin ; Matthee, Conrad ; Budaeva, Nataliya ; Simon, Carol A ; Struck, Torsten H.</creatorcontrib><description>Taxonomy based on morphology can be difficult. The challenges arise from different sources such as poor original descriptions, new records based on inadequate knowledge, uncritical application of general assumptions or presence of complexes of cryptic species. One example of problematic taxonomy is the genus Diopatra Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 (Onuphidae, Annelida) and within it the two species Diopatra aciculata and D. neapolitana. The species exhibit great similarity between them casting doubts on their validity as separate species. Our study aims to investigate whether D. aciculata and D. neapolitana should be synonymized, using an integrative taxonomic approach. Therefore, we assessed 22 morphological characters of 70 specimens including one specimen, which might have been erroneously assigned to D. dentata. Additionally, sequence information of five different molecular markers (i.e., 16S rDNA, COI, 28S, ITS1 and ITS2) was gathered to delineate possible species boundaries between these two species. Our results show some evidence for delineating the two species, but they are not conclusive due to both presence of shared morphological characters and conflicting evidence in the molecular data. Accordingly, our results neither confirm nor disprove complete speciation and both species seem to be in the grey zone of speciation. In conclusion, considering taxonomic stability and slight support by morphological characters, we still regard each as two independent species.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-3256</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1463-6409</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12421</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oslo: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Annelida ; Cryptic species ; Diopatra ; Diopatra aciculata ; Diopatra dentata ; Diopatra neapolitana ; DNA ; Morphology ; New records ; Nucleotide sequence ; Onuphidae ; rRNA 16S ; Speciation ; Species ; Stability ; Taxonomy</subject><ispartof>Zoologica scripta, 2020-07, Vol.49 (4), p.516-534</ispartof><rights>2020 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2971-1f6f4923635b72b6dbe46fcdfa95883e8eb12fc9dfbf37d800e8eaf7f5eb14953</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2971-1f6f4923635b72b6dbe46fcdfa95883e8eb12fc9dfbf37d800e8eaf7f5eb14953</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6071-1953 ; 0000-0002-6836-069X ; 0000-0003-3280-6239</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fzsc.12421$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fzsc.12421$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elgetany, Asmaa H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rensburg, Hendré</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hektoen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthee, Conrad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budaeva, Nataliya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Carol A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Struck, Torsten H.</creatorcontrib><title>Species delineation in the speciation grey zone—The case of Diopatra (Annelida, Onuphidae)</title><title>Zoologica scripta</title><description>Taxonomy based on morphology can be difficult. The challenges arise from different sources such as poor original descriptions, new records based on inadequate knowledge, uncritical application of general assumptions or presence of complexes of cryptic species. One example of problematic taxonomy is the genus Diopatra Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 (Onuphidae, Annelida) and within it the two species Diopatra aciculata and D. neapolitana. The species exhibit great similarity between them casting doubts on their validity as separate species. Our study aims to investigate whether D. aciculata and D. neapolitana should be synonymized, using an integrative taxonomic approach. Therefore, we assessed 22 morphological characters of 70 specimens including one specimen, which might have been erroneously assigned to D. dentata. Additionally, sequence information of five different molecular markers (i.e., 16S rDNA, COI, 28S, ITS1 and ITS2) was gathered to delineate possible species boundaries between these two species. Our results show some evidence for delineating the two species, but they are not conclusive due to both presence of shared morphological characters and conflicting evidence in the molecular data. Accordingly, our results neither confirm nor disprove complete speciation and both species seem to be in the grey zone of speciation. In conclusion, considering taxonomic stability and slight support by morphological characters, we still regard each as two independent species.</description><subject>Annelida</subject><subject>Cryptic species</subject><subject>Diopatra</subject><subject>Diopatra aciculata</subject><subject>Diopatra dentata</subject><subject>Diopatra neapolitana</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>New records</subject><subject>Nucleotide sequence</subject><subject>Onuphidae</subject><subject>rRNA 16S</subject><subject>Speciation</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Stability</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><issn>0300-3256</issn><issn>1463-6409</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM9Kw0AQxhdRsFYPvsGCFwum3X_ZJMfS-g8KPbReRFg2yaxNqZu4myLtyYfwCX0St8arc5lhvt98Ax9Cl5QMaajR3hdDygSjR6hHheSRFCQ7Rj3CCYk4i-UpOvN-TQhJJSU99LJooKjA4xI2lQXdVrXFlcXtCrA_SN3m1cEO72sL359fyyAV2gOuDZ5WdaNbp_H12NrgUOobPLfbZhUmGJyjE6M3Hi7-eh893d0uJw_RbH7_OBnPooJlCY2okUZkjEse5wnLZZmDkKYojc7iNOWQQk6ZKbLS5IYnZUpIWGmTmDgIIot5H111vo2r37fgW7Wut86Gl4oJKmiSSnKgBh1VuNp7B0Y1rnrTbqcoUYfwVAhP_YYX2FHHflQb2P0PqufFpLv4ASRDceU</recordid><startdate>202007</startdate><enddate>202007</enddate><creator>Elgetany, Asmaa H.</creator><creator>Rensburg, Hendré</creator><creator>Hektoen, Martin</creator><creator>Matthee, Conrad</creator><creator>Budaeva, Nataliya</creator><creator>Simon, Carol A</creator><creator>Struck, Torsten H.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6071-1953</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6836-069X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3280-6239</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202007</creationdate><title>Species delineation in the speciation grey zone—The case of Diopatra (Annelida, Onuphidae)</title><author>Elgetany, Asmaa H. ; Rensburg, Hendré ; Hektoen, Martin ; Matthee, Conrad ; Budaeva, Nataliya ; Simon, Carol A ; Struck, Torsten H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2971-1f6f4923635b72b6dbe46fcdfa95883e8eb12fc9dfbf37d800e8eaf7f5eb14953</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Annelida</topic><topic>Cryptic species</topic><topic>Diopatra</topic><topic>Diopatra aciculata</topic><topic>Diopatra dentata</topic><topic>Diopatra neapolitana</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>New records</topic><topic>Nucleotide sequence</topic><topic>Onuphidae</topic><topic>rRNA 16S</topic><topic>Speciation</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Stability</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elgetany, Asmaa H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rensburg, Hendré</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hektoen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthee, Conrad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budaeva, Nataliya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Carol A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Struck, Torsten H.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Zoologica scripta</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elgetany, Asmaa H.</au><au>Rensburg, Hendré</au><au>Hektoen, Martin</au><au>Matthee, Conrad</au><au>Budaeva, Nataliya</au><au>Simon, Carol A</au><au>Struck, Torsten H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Species delineation in the speciation grey zone—The case of Diopatra (Annelida, Onuphidae)</atitle><jtitle>Zoologica scripta</jtitle><date>2020-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>516</spage><epage>534</epage><pages>516-534</pages><issn>0300-3256</issn><eissn>1463-6409</eissn><abstract>Taxonomy based on morphology can be difficult. The challenges arise from different sources such as poor original descriptions, new records based on inadequate knowledge, uncritical application of general assumptions or presence of complexes of cryptic species. One example of problematic taxonomy is the genus Diopatra Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 (Onuphidae, Annelida) and within it the two species Diopatra aciculata and D. neapolitana. The species exhibit great similarity between them casting doubts on their validity as separate species. Our study aims to investigate whether D. aciculata and D. neapolitana should be synonymized, using an integrative taxonomic approach. Therefore, we assessed 22 morphological characters of 70 specimens including one specimen, which might have been erroneously assigned to D. dentata. Additionally, sequence information of five different molecular markers (i.e., 16S rDNA, COI, 28S, ITS1 and ITS2) was gathered to delineate possible species boundaries between these two species. Our results show some evidence for delineating the two species, but they are not conclusive due to both presence of shared morphological characters and conflicting evidence in the molecular data. Accordingly, our results neither confirm nor disprove complete speciation and both species seem to be in the grey zone of speciation. In conclusion, considering taxonomic stability and slight support by morphological characters, we still regard each as two independent species.</abstract><cop>Oslo</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/zsc.12421</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6071-1953</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6836-069X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3280-6239</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0300-3256 |
ispartof | Zoologica scripta, 2020-07, Vol.49 (4), p.516-534 |
issn | 0300-3256 1463-6409 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2414178605 |
source | Wiley Blackwell Journals |
subjects | Annelida Cryptic species Diopatra Diopatra aciculata Diopatra dentata Diopatra neapolitana DNA Morphology New records Nucleotide sequence Onuphidae rRNA 16S Speciation Species Stability Taxonomy |
title | Species delineation in the speciation grey zone—The case of Diopatra (Annelida, Onuphidae) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T07%3A19%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Species%20delineation%20in%20the%20speciation%20grey%20zone%E2%80%94The%20case%20of%20Diopatra%20(Annelida,%20Onuphidae)&rft.jtitle=Zoologica%20scripta&rft.au=Elgetany,%20Asmaa%20H.&rft.date=2020-07&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=516&rft.epage=534&rft.pages=516-534&rft.issn=0300-3256&rft.eissn=1463-6409&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/zsc.12421&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2414178605%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2414178605&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |