4.1 Article

Quantitative morphology and mtDNA reveal that Lasius maltaeus is not endemic to the Maltese Islands (Hymenoptera, Formicidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYMENOPTERA RESEARCH
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 129-142

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/jhr.95.96365

关键词

ants; biogeography; Formicinae; Mediterranean islands; Sicily

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lasius maltaeus Seifert, 2020 was described as a Maltese endemic ant based on morphology, but further research shows that it has a wider distribution in Sicily. It was also discovered that the populations of L. emarginatus in Sicily have diverged genetically. The distribution patterns of L. emarginatus and L. maltaeus in Sicily reflect the island's complex paleogeographic history.
Lasius maltaeus Seifert, 2020 was recently described as a Maltese endemic ant based on quantitative morphology, after decades of uncertainties over the identity of the local population, which has a phenotype resembling L. emarginatus (Olivier, 1791). At the same time, Sicilian L. emarginatus populations were discovered to diverge in their mitochondrial DNA to a degree that suggested heterospecificity. Considering the biogeographic similarity of Malta and Sicily, with land bridges connecting them repeatedly until the last glacial maximum, we questioned the assumption that L. maltaeus was endemic to Malta. We integrated quantitative morphology and mtDNA in the study of the Maltese and southern Italian populations phenotypically close to L. emarginatus. We discovered that the range of L. maltaeus extends over most of Sicily, while the true L. emarginatus replace it in the north-eastern sector of the island, the nearby Aeolian Islands, and the Italian peninsula. The distributions of L. emarginatus and L. maltaeus in Sicily follow biogeographic patterns recalling the island's complex paleogeographic history. Further investigations should verify the existence of truly Maltese endemic ants, since the status of other allegedly endemic species is not strongly supported.

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

4.1
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