4.1 Article

Morphological and molecular study of the genus Nosopsyllus (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae). Nosopsyllus barbarus (Jordan & Rothschild 1912) as a junior synonym of Nosopsyllus fasciatus (Bosc d'Antic, 1800)

Journal

INSECT SYSTEMATICS & EVOLUTION
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 81-101

Publisher

BRILL
DOI: 10.1163/1876312X-00002164

Keywords

Nosopsyllus barbarus; Nosopsyllus fasciatus; ribosomal RNA; mitochondrial DNA; Siphonaptera

Funding

  1. V Plan Propio de Investigacion of the University of Seville, Spain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present work, a comparative morphological and molecular study of Nosopsyllus barbarus (Jordan & Rothschild 1912) and Nosopsyllus fasciatus (Bosc, d'Antic 1800) isolated from rodents from different geographical regions (Spain, Morocco, Belgium, France and Portugal) has been carried out. The Internal Transcribed Spacers 1 and 2 (ITS1, ITS2) and partial 18S rRNA, and partial cytochrome c oxidase 1 (cox1) and cytochrome b (cytb) mtDNA sequences were determined to clarify the taxonomic status of these two species and to assess intraspecific variation and inter-specific sequence differences. In addition, a phylogenetic analysis with other species of fleas using Bayesian inference was performed. We have found morphological differences between N. barbarus and N. fasciatus that did not correspond with molecular differences. Furthermore, any of the five molecular markers used in this study was able to discriminate between the two species. Thus, based on the phylogenetic and molecular study of three nuclear markers (18S, ITS1, ITS2) and two mitochondrial markers (cox1 and cytb), as well as the concatenated dataset of both species, we concluded that morphological characters traditionally used to discriminate between the two species do not provide solid arguments for considering these two morphospecies as two different species. Therefore, we propose N. barbarus should be considered as a junior synonym of N. fasciatus.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available