4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Cryptic species in Diacyclops bicuspidatus (Copepoda : Cyclopoida): evidence from crossbreeding studies

Journal

HYDROBIOLOGIA
Volume 417, Issue -, Pages 101-107

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1003811606429

Keywords

crossbreeding; reproductive isolation; cryptic species; development rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The problem of cryptic species in Diacyclops bicuspidatus was examined using interpopulation crosses of four populations collected from a: (1) permanent flood lake in Kiev, Ukraine, (2) temporary pool in Kiev, (3) permanent pond in St. Petersburg, Russia (1200 km to north from Kiev) and (4) lake in Crimea (1100 km south of Kiev). The only interpopulation crosses to exhibit fertility were those between the St. Petersburg population and each of the two Kiev populations. The crosses between the Kiev and Crimea populations, between the St. Petersburg and Crimea populations, and between the two Kiev populations were sterile, as evidenced by either nonviable eggs, empty egg membranes or incomplete copulations. The F-1 hybrids resulting from the St. Petersburg permanent pond X Kiev flood lake cross were fertile and produced mature F-2 offspring. Some data on development times of parental and hybrid lines are presented. The St. Petersburg parental line showed development times almost twice as long as those of the Kiev flood lake population when reared at 10 degrees C and 20 degrees C in the laboratory. The F-1 offspring of the cross between St. Petersburg females and Kiev floodlake males showed similar development times to females of the St. Petersburg parental lines at both temperatures. The F-2 hybrids also showed development times that approximated those of the St. Petersburg parental line. These crossbreeding studies suggest the presence of cryptic species in the D. bicuspidatus inhabiting ecologically different populations in many parts of its large holarctic range.

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