4.1 Article

Cryptic Species Differentiated in Conus ebraeus, a Widespread Tropical Marine Gastropod

期刊

BIOLOGICAL BULLETIN
卷 217, 期 3, 页码 292-305

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/BBLv217n3p292

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [03-16338]
  2. University of Michigan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anomalous mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences in individuals of the widely distributed tropical marine gastropod Conus ebraeus that were not distinguishable by shell shape and color pattern characters suggested the presence of a second, cryptic species. We tested this hypothesis by genetic, morphological, and ecological comparisons of additional individuals from the site in Okinawa where the two forms co-occurred. Radular tooth size and shape, prey type in nature, and microhabitats utilized differed markedly between the two forms. Adults with typical C. ebraeus DNA and radular teeth preyed primarily on errant polychaetes (Eunicidae); those with anomalous DNA and teeth ate mainly sedentary capitellids. Juveniles (shell length <13 mm) had more similar teeth and ate primarily syllids. Radular teeth of the anomalous form agreed with those of Conus judaeus, distinguished from C. ebraeus by Rudolph Bergh in 1895 solely on tooth characters of one specimen from the Philippines. Samples from other widely scattered Pacific localities revealed only typical C. ebraeus gene sequences. Both forms occurred in Seychelles (western Indian Ocean), where their radular teeth and diets were consistent with the data from Okinawa, but DNA of available material was degraded. Although C judaeus was long dismissed as an aberrant specimen and junior synonym of C. ebraeus, our results support its validity as a distinct species. These results highlight the importance of molecular and radular tooth characters relative to those of the shell. Moreover, cryptic species could well be important components of species richness in Conus specifically and marine molluscan biodiversity more generally.

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