The claim that eukaryotic micro-organisms have global geographic ranges, constituting a significant departure from the situation with macro-organisms, has been supported by studies of morphological species from protistan kingdoms. Here, we examine this claim by reviewing examples from another kingdom of eukaryotic microbes, the Fungi. We show that inferred geographic range of a fungal species depends upon the method of species recognition. While some fungal species defined by morphology show global geographic ranges, when fungal species are defined by phylogenetic species recognition they are typically shown to harbour several to many endemic species. We advance two non-exclusive reasons to explain the perceived difference between the size of geographic ranges of microscopic and macroscopic eukaryotic species when morphological methods of species recognition are used. These reasons are that microbial organisms generally have fewer morphological characters, and that the rate of morphological change will be slower for organisms with less elaborate development and fewer cells. Both of these reasons result in fewer discriminatory morphological differences between recently diverged lineages. The rate of genetic change, moreover, is similar for both large and small organisms, which helps to explain why phylogenetic species of large and small organisms show a more similar distribution of geographic ranges. As a consequence of the different rates in fungi of genetic and morphological changes, genetic isolation precedes a recognizable morphological change. The final step in speciation, reproductive isolation, also follows genetic isolation and may precede morphological change.
We critically examined methods for recognizing species in the model filamentous fungal genus Neurospora by comparing traditional biological species recognition (BSR) with more comprehensive applications of both BSR and phylogenetic species recognition (PSR). Comprehensive BSR was applied to a set of 73 individuals by performing extensive crossing experiments and delineating biological species based on patterns of reproductive success. Within what were originally considered two species, N. crassa and N. intermedia, we recognized four reproductively isolated biological species. In a concurrent study (Dettman et al. 2003), we used genealogical concordance of four independent nuclear loci to recognize phylogenetic species in Neurospora. Overall, the groups of individuals identified as species were similar whether recognized by reproductive success or by phylogenetic criteria, and increased genetic distance between parents was associated with decreased reproductive success of crosses, suggesting that PSR using genealogical concordance can be used to reliably recognize species in organisms that are not candidates for BSR. In one case, two phylogenetic species were recognized as a single biological species, indicating that significant phylogenetic divergence preceded the development of reproductive isolation. However, multiple biological species were never recognized as a single phylogenetic species. Each of the putative N. crassa x N. intermedia hybrids included in this study was confidently assigned to a single species, using both PSR and BSR. As such, no evidence for a history of hybridization in nature among Neurospora species was observed. By performing reciprocal mating tests, we found that mating type, parental role, and species identity of parental individuals could all influence the reproductive success of matings. We also observed sympatry-associated sexual dysfunction in interspecific crosses, which was consistent with the existence of reinforcement mechanisms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.