4.6 Article

Morphology and molecular evidence support the validity of Pogonias courbina (Lacepede, 1803) (Teleostei: Sciaenidae), with a redescription and neotype designation

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216280

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [PICT 2014-2357]
  2. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales de Mar del Plata [EXA 867/18]
  3. FAPESP [2016/09204-6, 2014/26508-3]
  4. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico - CNPq [306054/2006-0]
  5. Museum national d'histoire naturelle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The family Sciaenidae comprises about 300 species. The black drum Pogonias cromis was the only valid species of the genus. Herein, Pogonias courbina Lacepede 1803 is redescribed based on morphological and molecular evidence and a neotype is designated. Pogonias courbina is distinguished by the following characters: the occurrence of characteristic thickening of the dorsal spines VII to XI in all specimens larger than 250 mm SL; all pterygiophores in the dorsal-fin laminar, thin; anal-fin pterygiophores slender excluded those of spines; lateral projections of gas bladder with few finger-like projections; genetic distance between both species 1%; exclusive occurrence of characters in six informative sites of COI (58 G; 214 G; 328 A; 331 A; 553C; 580 G). The method Automatic Barcode gap Discovery detected gaps in nucleotid distance congruent with the NJ, MP, and ML tree analysis. Also, advertisement calls are three times shorter in duration in P. courbina than in P. cromis. In addition, two monophyletic groups for P. cromis and P. courbina appear in trees obtained with different methodologies, emphasizing the absence of shared haplotypes. A gap of about 8000 km occurs in the distribution of both species along coastal areas of the Atlantic Ocean.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available