4.3 Article

Haplotype diversity and phylogenetic relationships among the Iberian barbels (Barbus, Cyprinidae) reveal two evolutionary lineages

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEREDITY
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 140-147

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jhered/93.2.140

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The phylogenetic relationships and haplotype diversity of all Iberian barbels were examined by analyzing the complete mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequence (1141 bp) of 72 specimens from 59 Iberian localities. Phylogenetic findings demonstrated a clear distinction between two mitochondrial lineages and confirmed the existence of two previously considered subgenera: Barbus and Luciobarbus. The first subgenus, Barbus, is represented on the Iberian Peninsula by Barbus haasi and Barbus meridionalis. The second subgenus, Luciobarbus, includes the remaining endemic Iberian species: Barbus comizo, Barbus bocagei, Barbus microcephalus, Barbus sclateri, Barbus guiraonis, and Barbus graellsii. Mean haplotype divergence between these subgenera was 10.40%, providing evidence of a clear subdivision within the Iberian barbels. Our results conflict with those reported in a recent study, based on 307 cytochrome b base pairs, that failed to identify any division within the genus Barbus in the Iberian Peninsula. The inclusion of nine further species belonging to this genus (used as outgroups) allowed us to establish a closer relationship of the Iberian species of the subgenus Barbus with other European taxa than with the Iberian Luciobarbus, which was found to cluster with North African, Caucasian, and Greek species. At the population level, no biogeographic structure was shown by specimens of each species (only 5.98% of the variation was attributable to differences among populations of each species). Given the discrete amount of divergence found among the Luciobarbus species, the formation of current hydrographic basins during the Plio-Pleistocene seems to have played a major role in their isolation and evolution.

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