4.6 Article

Geographic Life History Differences Predict Genomic Divergence Better than Mitochondrial Barcodes or Phenotype

期刊

GENES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes11030265

关键词

Cicindelidia politula; species complex; cryptic species; molecular systematics; mtDNA; taxonomy; tiger beetles

资金

  1. Huxley Fellowship in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Rice University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species diversity can be inferred using multiple data types, however, results based on genetic data can be at odds with patterns of phenotypic variation. Tiger beetles of the Cicindelidiapolitula (LeConte, 1875) species complex have been taxonomically problematic due to extreme phenotypic variation within and between populations. To better understand the biology and taxonomy of this group, we used mtDNA genealogies and multilocus nuclear analyses of 34,921 SNPs to elucidate its evolutionary history and evaluate the validity of phenotypically circumscribed species and subspecies. Genetic analyses recovered two divergent species that are also ecologically distinct, based on adult life history. These patterns are incongruous with the phenotypic variation that informed prior taxonomy, and most subspecies were not supported as distinct evolutionary lineages. One of the nominal subspecies was found to be a cryptic species; consequently, we elevate C. p. laetipennis (Horn, 1913) to a full species. Although nuclear and mtDNA datasets recovered broadly similar evolutionary units, mito-nuclear discordance was more common than expected, being observed between nearly all geographically overlapping taxonomic pairs. Additionally, a pattern of 'mitochondrial displacement' was observed, where mitochondria from one species unidirectionally displace others. Overall, we found that geographically associated life history factors better predict genomic divergence than phenotype and mitochondrial genealogies, and consequently taxon identifications based on mtDNA (e.g., DNA barcodes) may be misleading.

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

4.6
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