4.7 Article

Phylogenetic discordance and integrative species delimitation in the Mammillaria haageana species complex (Cactaceae)

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107891

关键词

Genotyping-by-sequencing; Incomplete lineage sorting; Mammillaria; Reticulate evolution; Species delimitation; Phylogenetic network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study classified the Mammillaria haageana complex using genomic, morphological, and ecological data. The complex was found to consist of six distinct entities, mainly due to ecological speciation. These species hypotheses can be useful for future extinction risk assessments and conservation strategies.
Species complexes consist of very close phylogenetic relatives, where morphological similarities make it difficult to distinguish between them using traditional taxonomic methods. Here, we focused on the long-standing challenge of species delimitation in the Mammillaria haageana complex, a group that presents great morpho-logical diversity that makes its taxonomy a puzzle. Our work integrates genomic, morphological, and ecological data to establish the taxonomic limits in the M. haageana complex, and we also studied the evolutionary re-lationships with the remainder of the M. ser. Supertextae species. Our genetic analyses, as well as morphological and ecological evidence, led us to propose that the M. haageana complex is made up of six distinct entities (M. acultzingensis, M. conspicua, M. haageana, M. lanigera, M. meissneri, and M. san-angelensis), mainly as a result of ecological speciation. A recent taxonomic proposal considered these taxa as a single species; therefore, we propose their recognition at the species level. Our results also show a high level of incomplete lineage sorting rather than reticulation, which is especially likely in recently diverged species such as those comprising M. ser. Supertextae. The species hypotheses proposed here may be useful in future extinction risk assessments and conservation strategies.

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

4.7
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