4.3 Article

Recent discoveries of alien Watersipora (Bryozoa) in Western Europe, with redescriptions of species

期刊

ZOOTAXA
卷 -, 期 2093, 页码 43-59

出版社

MAGNOLIA PRESS
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2093.1.3

关键词

Invasive marine bryozoans; zooid morphometrics; colony colour; neotype; cytochrome oxidase I; transport on ships; oysters

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the introduction of the encrusting bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata to Atlantic coasts of Europe. This species is highly invasive, having become common on coastlines throughout cool-temperate areas of the world since the 1980s. Confusion exists over the identity of this and other Watersipora species, which lack characters that are conventionally used in bryozoan systematics. W. subtorquata has not been well distinguished from W. cucullata which, reports dating back to the mid 1800s suggest, is native to the Mediterranean Basin or represents an early shipping introduction. W. cucullata has been placed in synonymy with W. subovoidea, a taxon lacking a holotype. We designate a neotype for W. subovoidea, recognizing its conspecificity with W. cucullata, and demonstrate a simple morphometric means of separating this species from W. subtorquata using zooid feature ratios (operculum area versus total frontal shield). An orange watersiporid population that was first recognized in Guernsey, in the European-Atlantic, in 2007, is shown by morphometric and mitochondrial genetic analysis to match W. subtorquata. It contains the commonest, widely introduced COI haplotype that, along with other evidence, suggests recent transfer via shipping traffic to Europe. A second population (previously referred alternatively to W. aterrima or W. subovoidea) has been reported from Brittany and Bordeaux (Atlantic coastline, France). This population is also aligned with W. subtorquata based on morphometrics and COI haplotype. In contrast to the Guernsey introduction, the earlier French-Atlantic introduction appears related to oyster imports from Japan.

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

4.3
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