“…Toro, Castro, Ojeda, & Vergara, ) has been the subject of much debate due to discrepancies between studies; that is, it has been classified as M. edulis (e.g. Koehn, ) or as Mytilus galloprovincialis chilensis (Cárcamo, Comesaña, Winkler, & Sanjuan, 2005) using allozymes, as Mytilus edulis chilensis using nuclear DNA markers (Toro, ), as Mytilus chilensis using random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs; Toro, Innes, & Thompson, ) or nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA markers (Oyarzún, Toro, Cañete, & Gardner, ), as an SH lineage of Mytilus galloprovincialis or as a mixture of NH M. galloprovincialis , SH M. galloprovincialis , and M. edulis using a nuclear DNA marker (Westfall & Gardner, ), as Mytilus platensis using mitochondrial DNA markers (Astorga, Cardenas, & Vargas, ), as Mytilus edulis platensis as a subspecies of M. edulis using microsatellites (Valenzuela, Astorga, Oyarzún, & Toro, ) or upon published morphological and molecular data (Borsa, Rolland, & Daguin‐Thiébaut, ). Also, Mylitus planulatus (Lamarck, 1819), described in Albany (Australia), was a candidate to be the SH M. galloprovincialis lineage (e.g.…”