The genetic diversity, phylogeography and morphology of Elphidiidae (Foraminifera) in the Northeast Atlantic
The genetic diversity, phylogeography and morphology of Elphidiidae (Foraminifera) in the Northeast Atlantic
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.marmicro.2016.09.001
复制
发表时间：
2016-12-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Austin, William E. N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Darling, Kate F.;Schweizer, Magali;Austin, William E. N.
遗传表征（SSU rRNA基因分型）和单个测试的扫描电镜（SEM）成像相结合，确定了东北大西洋陆架生物群落中有孔虫科Elphidiidae （Elphidium， Haynesina及其相关属）的现代物种丰富度。从高北极到伊比利亚的25个地点采集了标本，共1013个个体标本成功地进行了扫描电镜成像和基因分型。结合GenBank中其他28个elphidiid序列进行系统发育分析，在样本集中鉴定出17个不同的elphidiid遗传类型，其中7个为首次测序。遗传类型可分为七个主要分支，这些分支在很大程度上代表了它们的一般形态特征。遗传类型在遗传、形态和生物地理水平上的差异表明了物种水平上的差异。结合来自GenBank的elphidiid SSU序列和来自文献的高分辨率图像，它们的生物地理分布表明，它们每个都表现出物种特异性而不是林地特异性的生物地理特征。由于分类的不确定性和不同流派之间的分类概念的分歧，我们认为形态物种的名称不应该放在分子系统发育上，除非形态和遗传类型都与正式命名的全型或同等类型相关联。基于严格的形态学标准，我们主张在微体古生物学研究中只采用三阶段分类学方法。它包括基因分型，生成与遗传类型相关的SEM图像的正式形态描述，然后通过与正式类型描述的比较分配最合适的分类名称。使用这种方法，我们能够将分类名称应用于15种遗传类型。剩下的两个可能是潜在的隐蔽性，一个是在文献中描述的。总体而言，系统地理分布与我们对相应形态种的生态学和生物地理分布的认识一致，突出了Elphidiidae在时间和空间上的总体稳健的分类框架。(C) 2016年作者。Elsevier B.V.出版
Genetic characterisation (SSU rRNA genotyping) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) imaging of individual tests were used in tandem to determine the modern species richness of the foraminiferal family Elphidiidae (Elphidium, Haynesina and related genera) across the Northeast Atlantic shelf biomes. Specimens were collected at 25 locations from the High Arctic to Iberia, and a total of 1013 individual specimens were successfully SEM imaged and genotyped. Phylogenetic analyses were carried out in combination with 28 other elphidiid sequences from GenBank and seventeen distinct elphidiid genetic types were identified within the sample set, seven being sequenced for the first time. Genetic types cluster into seven main clades which largely represent their general morphological character. Differences between genetic types at the genetic, morphological and biogeographic levels are indicative of species level distinction. Their biogeographic distributions, in combination with elphidiid SSU sequences from GenBank and high resolution images from the literature show that each of them exhibits species-specific rather than Glade-specific biogeographies. Due to taxonomic uncertainty and divergent taxonomic concepts between schools, we believe that morphospecies names should not be placed onto molecular phylogenies unless both the morphology and genetic type have been linked to the formally named holotype, or equivalent. Based on strict morphological criteria, we advocate using only a three-stage approach to taxonomy for practical application in micropalaeontological studies. It comprises genotyping, the production of a formal morphological description of the SEM images associated with the genetic type and then the allocation of the most appropriate taxonomic name by comparison with the formal type description. Using this approach, we were able to apply taxonomic names to fifteen genetic types. One of the remaining two may be potentially cryptic, and one is undescribed in the literature. In general, the phylogeographic distribution is in agreement with our knowledge of the ecology and biogeographical distribution of the corresponding morphospecies, highlighting the generally robust taxonomic framework of the Elphidiidae in time and space. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.