4.5 Article

Phylogenetics links monster larva to deep-sea shrimp

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 2, 期 10, 页码 2367-2373

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.347

关键词

Cerataspis monstrosa; Decapoda; DNA barcoding; larval-adult linkage; phylogenetics

资金

  1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. Southeast Fisheries Science Center
  4. Department of Interior-Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
  5. Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mid-water plankton collections commonly include bizarre and mysterious developmental stages that differ conspicuously from their adult counterparts in morphology and habitat. Unaware of the existence of planktonic larval stages, early zoologists often misidentified these unique morphologies as independent adult lineages. Many such mistakes have since been corrected by collecting larvae, raising them in the lab, and identifying the adult forms. However, challenges arise when the larva is remarkably rare in nature and relatively inaccessible due to its changing habitats over the course of ontogeny. The mid-water marine species Cerataspis monstrosa (Gray 1828) is an armored crustacean larva whose adult identity has remained a mystery for over 180 years. Our phylogenetic analyses, based in part on recent collections from the Gulf of Mexico, provide definitive evidence that the rare, yet broadly distributed larva, C. monstrosa, is an early developmental stage of the globally distributed deep-water aristeid shrimp, Plesiopenaeus armatus. Divergence estimates and phylogenetic relationships across five genes confirm the larva and adult are the same species. Our work demonstrates the diagnostic power of molecular systematics in instances where larval rearing seldom succeeds and morphology and habitat are not indicative of identity. Larval-adult linkages not only aid in our understanding of biodiversity, they provide insights into the life history, distribution, and ecology of an organism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据