Representatives of Ligophorus Euzet et Suriano, 1977 were found on the gills of Mugil liza Valenciennes caught in southern Brazil. They were identified as Ligophorus uruguayense Failla Siquier et Ostrowski de Núñez, 2009 and Ligophorus saladensis Marcotegui et Martorelli, 2009, even though specific identification proved to be difficult due to inconsistencies in some diagnostic features reported for these two species. Therefore, a combined morphological and molecular approach was used to critically review the validity of these species, by means of phase contrast and confocal fluorescence microscopical examination of sclerotised hard parts, and assessing the genetic divergence between L. saladensis, L. uruguayense and their congeners using rDNA sequences. The main morphological differences between the two species relate to the shape of the accessory piece of the penis and the median process of the ventral bar. The accessory piece in L. uruguayense is shorter than in L. saladensis, has a cylindrical, convex upper lobe and straight lower lobe (vs with the distal tip of the lower lobe turning away from the upper lobe in the latter species). The ventral bar has a V-shaped anterior median part in L. uruguayense (vs U-shaped in L. saladensis). The two species are suggested to be part of a species complex together with L. mediterraneus Sarabeev, Balbuena et Euzet, 2005. We recommend to generalise such comparative assessment of species of Ligophorus for a reliable picture of the diversity and diversification mechanisms within the genus, and to make full use of its potential as an additional marker for mullet taxonomy and systematics., Natalia C. Marchiori, Antoine Pariselle, Joaber Pereira Jr., Jean-François Agnèse, Jean-Dominique Durand, Maarten P.M. Vanhove., and Obsahuje bibliografii
The two species of the genus Stomaphis feeding on oak and birch, respectively, although morphologically similar, are considered to be separate species. However, the birch-feeding S. betulae Mamontova is considered to be a synonym of the oak and birch feeding S. quercus (L.) by some authors. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the birch feeding and oak feeding populations attributed to S. quercus belong to the same species. The mitochondrial cytochrome-c oxidase I (COXI) and II (COXII) were used to determine whether these two populations differ. There are no significant differences in these markers from oak and birch feeding individuals, indicating that these populations are conspecific. However, morphologically and ecologically distinct populations of Stomaphis were discovered feeding on oak. The molecular analysis confirmed that these populations are distinct, which resulted in the description of the new oak-feeding species, Stomaphis wojciechowskii Depa, sp. n. This new species previously remained unrecognized due to its very cryptic mode of life., Lukasz Depa, Ewa Mroz, Karol Szawaryn., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
Species of the Agrilus viridis-complex and the genus Trachys are morphologically difficult to identify or even indistinguishable. However, all of them are ecologically clearly separated because their larvae develop in different host plants. Hitherto, it was unclear whether they represent varieties, ecological races or true species. In this paper the genetic variation and phylogenetic relationships within these groups are analysed using partial sequence data from mitochondrial genes (12S rDNA, and a fragment containing regions of ND1 and 16S rDNA). The phylogenetic analyses yielded largely congruent tree topologies and indicate that all species and varieties of the Agrilus viridis-complex belong to a monophyletic group, which is closely related to A. cuprescens. Compared to all other Agrilus-species tested, the genetic distances within the A. viridis-complex are very small. However, all varieties and species are clearly separated. Thus, our data support the view that both the members of the Agrilus viridis-complex and the species of the Trachys-group represent genetically separated taxa.
The Sympetrum vulgatum (Linnaeus, 1758) complex is composed of the subspecies S. vulgatum vulgatum, S. vulgatum decoloratum (Selys, 1884) and S. vulgatum ibericum Ocharan, 1985 in the West Palaearctic. These taxa have parapatric distributions and noticeable morphological differences in colour and body size, and their taxonomic status is debated. Here we revise the systematics of this group using molecular taxonomy, including molecular analyses of mitochondrial (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, COI) and nuclear (internal transcribed spacer, ITS1) DNA taking into account known morphological differences. Each subspecies has a unique and differentiated COI haplotype, although divergences among them are low (0.4% maximum uncorrected p-distance). The subspecies are not differentiated by the nuclear marker ITS1. The genetic results for these taxa contrast with the deep divergence of the sister species S. striolatum (Charpentier, 1840). Given current evidence, we propose to maintain the subspecific status of the S. vulgatum complex and hypothesize their biogeographical history. It is likely that the three subspecies became isolated during one of the latest glacial periods, each in a different refugium: S. vulgatum ibericum possibly occupied the Iberian Peninsula, S. vulgatum vulgatum the Balkan Peninsula or territories further east and S. vulgatum decoloratum Anatolia., Joan C. Hinojosa, Ricard Martín, Xavier Maynou, Roger Vila., and Obsahuje bibliografii
Phylogenetic systematics comprise the principles and methods by which we reconstruct the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of organisms and transform this reconstruction into a biological classification of these organisms. The most important progress in designing the tools for phylogenetic reconstruction was initiated by the German entomologist Willi Hennig (1913-1976), who clarified or redefined the goals of phylogenetic systematics in a book published in 1950: Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. An extensively revised, English translation was published in 1966: Phylogenetic Systematics. W. Hennig's "phylogenetic systematics" undoubtedly was a very significant contribution to systematics, by some systematists and philosophers even characterized as a "revolution". Hennig's redefinition and clarification of the concepts of monophyly and phylogenetic relationships created a sound foundation for systematics in general. After decades of focussing on species-level problems, Hennig redirected the interest of systematists towards the study of higher taxa and the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships between them. A phylogenetic system is now almost universally accepted as the most useful general reference system for biology. It has been able to accommodate new developments in systematics (such as quantitative cladistics and molecular systematics), evolutionary biology (such as ecological phylogenetics), and historical biogeography.