4.7 Article

Species Separation within, and Preliminary Phylogeny for, the Leafhopper Genus Anoscopus with Particular Reference to the Putative British Endemic Anoscopus duffieldi (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae)

Journal

INSECTS
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/insects11110799

Keywords

Anoscopus duffieldi; Aphrodinae; Cicadellidae; endemic species; genetic distance; molecular separation

Categories

Funding

  1. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The subfamily Aphrodinae (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) contains similar to 33 species in Europe within four genera. Species in two genera in particular, Aphrodes and Anoscopus, have proved to be difficult to distinguish morphologically. Our aim was to determine the status of the putative species Anoscopus duffieldi, found only on the RSPB Nature Reserve at Dungeness, Kent, a possible rare UK endemic. DNA from samples of all seven UK Anoscopus species (plus Anoscopus alpinus from the Czech Republic) were sequenced using parts of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I and 16S rRNA genes. Bayesian inference phylogenies were created. Specimens of each species clustered into monophyletic groups, except for Anoscopus albifrons, A. duffieldi and Anoscopus limicola. Two A. albifrons specimens grouped with A. duffieldi repeatedly with strong support, and the remaining A. albifrons clustered within A. limicola. Genetic distances suggest that A. albifrons and A. limicola are a single interbreeding population (0% divergence), while A. albifrons and A. duffieldi diverged by only 0.28%. Shared haplotypes between A. albifrons, A. limicola and A. duffieldi strongly suggest interbreeding, although misidentification may also explain these topologies. However, all A. duffieldi clustered together in the trees. A conservative approach might be to treat A. duffieldi, until other evidence is forthcoming, as a possible endemic subspecies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available