4.5 Article

Genomic investigation refutes record of most diverged avian hybrid

Journal

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9689

Keywords

avian; divergence; genomics; hybridization; species identification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study sequenced the DNA of a suspected bird hybrid and confirmed its parentage through analysis. Although the hybrid is not between Numida meleagris and Penelope superciliaris, it still represents the most diverged avian hybrid confirmed with genetic data.
The most diverged avian hybrid that has been documented (Numida meleagris x Penelope superciliaris) was reported in 1957. This identification has yet to be confirmed, and like most contemporary studies of hybridization, the identification was based on phenotype, which can be misleading. In this study, we sequenced the specimen in question and performed analyses to validate the specimen's parentage. We extracted DNA from the specimen in a dedicated ancient DNA facility and performed whole-genome short-read sequencing. We used BLAST to find Galliformes sequences similar to the hybrid specimen reads. We found that the proportion of BLAST hits mapped overwhelmingly to two species, N. meleagris and Gallus gallus. Additionally, we constructed phylogenies using avian orthologs and parsed the species placed as sister to the hybrid. Again, the hybrid specimen was placed as a sister to N. meleagris and G. gallus. Despite not being a hybrid between N. meleagris and P. superciliaris, the hybrid still represents the most diverged avian hybrid confirmed with genetic data. In addition to correcting the record of the most diverged avian hybrid, these findings support recent assertions that morphological and behavioral-based identifications of avian hybrids can be error-prone. Consequently, this study serves as a cautionary tale to researchers of hybridization.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available