3.9 Article

GENETIC ANALYSIS OF AN UNUSUAL POPULATION OF THE PROBLEMATIC TIGER BEETLE GROUP, CICINDELA SPENDIDA/C. LIMBALIS, FROM VIRGINIA, USA (COLEOPTERA: CICINDELIDAE) USING MTDNA

Journal

ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS
Volume 120, Issue 4, Pages 341-348

Publisher

AMER ENTOMOL SOC
DOI: 10.3157/021.120.0401

Keywords

Green Claybank tiger beetle; Cicindela denverensis; Splendid tiger beetle; Common Claybank tiger beetle; Cicindela limbalis; mitochondrial DNA; phylogenetic analysis; hybridization

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous morphological studies within the claybank group of tiger beetles concluded that C. limbalis, C. splendida, and C. denverensis were separate species, but results from a limited mitochondrial DNA analysis suggested they may represent a single species. Here we review relevant literature on the relationships between C limbalis and C. splendida and present results of mtDNA analysis of several populations of these taxa, including a Virginia population with specimens morphologically matching both species. Mitochondrial haplotypes for cob and cox1 revealed that C. limbalis and C. splendida from several populations were closely related and could not be diagnosed under the criterion of exclusivity. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted under parsimony criteria and Bayseian inference, and in all reconstructions, C. limbalis and C. splendida (and a reference sample of C. denverensis) were united into a large polytomy. Nested clade analysis revealed no patterns of geographic distribution significantly different from panmixia. The lack of geographic structure across the sampled range recovered no support for earlier phylogeographic hypothesis that C. splendida and C. limbalis separated in the foothills of the Appalachians during the Pleistocene. It is hoped that these findings will provide impetus for a thorough systematic analyses of the claybank group of tiger beetles.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available