4.8 Article

Museum Genomics Confirms that the Lord Howe Island Stick Insect Survived Extinction

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 20, Pages 3157-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.058

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University
  2. Schlinger Foundation Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Lord Howe Island stick insect, Dryococelus australis, was once common on the island but was driven to extinction after the arrival of ship rats in the early 20th century [1, 2]. It was thought to be extinct for decades, until a tiny population of similar-looking stick insects was discovered 20 km away, on the islet of Ball's Pyramid, in 2001 [2]. Individuals from this population are currently being reared in Australia and elsewhere in the world, with the eventual goal of recolonizing Lord Howe Island [3]. Recent surveys of the wild population on Ball's Pyramid suggest that it is among the world's rarest species. However, there are significant morphological differences between Ball's Pyramid and museum specimens, and there has never been a genetic confirmation of the rediscovered population's species identity. Because Dryococelus is monotypic, there are also no known extant relatives for comparison. Using shotgun genomic data from the Ball's Pyramid population, we assembled a draft genome and the complete mitochondrial genome. We found that the genome is massive, over 4 Gb in size, and is most likely hexaploid. We re-sequenced mitochondrial genomes from historic museum specimens collected on Lord Howe Island before the extinction event. Sequence divergence between the two populations is less than 1% and is within the range of intraspecific differences between the museum specimens, suggesting that they are conspecific and that D. australis has successfully evaded extinction so far. This work highlights the importance of museum collections for taxonomic validation in the context of ongoing conservation efforts.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available