4.4 Article

Morphological and molecular diversity of Lake Baikal candonid ostracods, with description of a new genus

期刊

ZOOKEYS
卷 -, 期 684, 页码 19-56

出版社

PENSOFT PUBL
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.684.13249

关键词

Crustacea; Deep lakes; molecular phylogeny; taxonomy; CO1; 16S rRNA; 18S rRNA; 28S rRNA

类别

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B01009806]
  2. Russian Government [0345-2016-0009]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B01009806] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uncoupling between molecular and morphological evolution is common in many animal and plant lineages. This is especially frequent among groups living in ancient deep lakes, because these ecosystems promote rapid morphological diversification, and has already been demonstrated for Tanganyika cychlid fishes and Baikal amphipods. Ostracods are also very diverse in these ecosystems, with 107 candonid species described so far from Baikal, majority of them in the genera Candona Baird, 1845 and Pseudocandona Kaufmann, 1900. Here we study their morphological and molecular diversity based on four genes (two nuclear and two mitochondrial), 10 species from the lake, and 28 other species from around the world. The results of our phylogenetic analysis based on a concatenated data set, along with sequence diversity, support only two genetic lineages in the lake and indicate that a majority of the Baikal Candona and Pseudocandona species should be excluded from these genera. We describe a new genus, Mazepovacandona gen. n., to include five Baikal species, all redescribed here. We also amend the diagnosis for the endemic genus Baicalocandona Mazepova, 1972 and redescribe two species. Our study confirms an exceptional morphological diversity of Lake Baikal candonids and shows that both Baikal lineages are closely related to Candona, but only distantly to Pseudocandona.

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

4.4
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