Cryptic lineages—same but different?

Feckler, Alexander; Schulz, Ralf; Bundschuh, Mirco

doi:10.1002/ieam.1370

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The existence of cryptic lineages among such model morphospecies is problematic, as they may differ in both physiological and ecological traits (Feckler et al, 2013;Feckler et al, 2014). For L. rubellus it has been shown that two lineages vary in their methylation pattern in response to arsenic pollution (Kille et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cryptic speciation and limited hybridization within Lumbricus earthworms (Clitellata: Lumbricidae)

Martinsson

Erséus

2017

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cryptic speciation and limited hybridization within Lumbricus earthworms (Clitellata: Lumbricidae)

Martinsson

Erséus

2017

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most studies are limited either in geographic or phylogenetic scope. In the amphipod literature, these include but are not limited to a species geographic range size (Trontelj et al., ), the extent of ecological niche overlap and species coexistence (Fišer, Altermatt, Zakšek, Knapič, & Fišer, ), the strength of size‐assortative pairing (Galipaud et al., ), the effectiveness of conservation measures (Venarsky, Anderson, & Wilhelm, ) and the use of biological indicators in ecosystem health assessment (Feckler, Schulz, & Bundschuh, ; Feckler, Thielsch, Schwenk, Schulz, & Bundschuh, ; Feckler et al., ; Major, Soucek, Giordano, Wetzel, & Soto‐Adames, ; Soucek, Dickinson, Major, & McEwen, ; Weston et al., ; Zettler et al., ). Notably, all these studies consider cryptic species as a source of error that must be accounted for when documenting and explaining biodiversity patterns.…”

Section: Cryptic Diversity In Biodiversity Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost all detailed ecological studies showed that cryptic species differed in their requirements along one or more dimensions of (Cothran, Henderson, et al, 2013;Wellborn & Cothran, 2004, 2007. Westram, Baumgartner, Keller, and Jokela Ecotoxicological tests further revealed large differences in sensitivity to a number of pollutants across a range of cryptic taxa (Feckler et al, 2012(Feckler et al, , 2013(Feckler et al, , 2014Major et al, 2013;Soucek et al, 2013;Weston et al, 2013). Interpretation of the magnitude of these differences in an ecological context is highly challenging, but studies on co-occurrence of cryptic species indicate they are insufficient to mediate stable coexistence (Box 2).…”

Section: Geographically and Phylogenetically Limited Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The species concept is the cornerstone of biodiversity science, and any paradigm shift in the delimitation of species affects many research fields. Many biologists now are embracing a new "species" paradigm as separately evolving populations using different delimitation criteria. Individual criteria can emerge during different periods of speciation; some may never evolve. As such, a paradigm shift in the species concept relates to this inherent heterogeneity in the speciation process and species category-which is fundamentally overlooked in biodiversity research. Cryptic species fall within this paradigm shift: they are continuously being reported from diverse animal phyla but are poorly considered in current tests of ecological and evolutionary theory. The aim of this review is to integrate cryptic species in biodiversity science. In the first section, we address that the absence of morphological diversification is an evolutionary phenomenon, a "process" counterpart to the long-studied mechanisms of morphological diversification. In the next section regarding taxonomy, we show that molecular delimitation of cryptic species is heavily biased towards distance-based methods. We also stress the importance of formally naming of cryptic species for better integration into research fields that use species as units of analysis. Finally, we show that incorporating cryptic species leads to novel insights regarding biodiversity patterns and processes, including large-scale biodiversity assessments, geographic variation in species distribution and species coexistence. It is time for incorporating multicriteria species approaches aiming to understand speciation across space and taxa, thus allowing integration into biodiversity conservation while accommodating for species uncertainty.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, such cryptic lineages may differ in certain ecological and physiological properties (e.g. Hamb€ ack et al, 2013;Sattler et al, 2007;Sturmbauer et al, 1999), but this variation is likely to be ignored if the species taxonomy is not fully resolved (Feckler et al, 2013). The use of inadequate taxonomy makes it almost impossible to interpret and compare results involving such species complexes, as it is not known if the same cryptic species has been investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Revision ofCognettia(Clitellata, Enchytraeidae): re-establishment ofChamaedrilusand description of cryptic species in thesphagnetorumcomplex

Martinsson

Rota

Erséus

2014

Systematics and Biodiversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The oligochaete worm, Cognettia sphagnetorum (Vejdovsk y, 1878), is widely used as a model organism in soil biology, and therefore it is important that its taxonomy is firmly established. A previous study based on both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic markers showed that this taxon is an assemblage of at least four species that do not form a monophyletic group. Also the validity of the genus Cognettia Nielsen and Christensen, 1959 is subject to debate, since the existence of two putative senior synonyms, Euenchytraeus Bretscher, 1906 and Chamaedrilus Friend, 1913 has been pointed out. Herein we revise the generic assignment of the species currently placed in Cognettia: two species, C. clarae Bauer, 1993 and C. piperi Christensen and D ozsa-Farkas, 1999, are transferred to Euenchytraeus, together with its type Eu. bisetosus Bretscher, 1906, whereas the remaining species, including Cognettia sphagnetorum, are being transferred to Chamaedrilus. Five species within the Chamaedrilus sphagnetorum complex are revised: the type species of Chamaedrilus, Ch. chlorophilus Friend, 1913, as well as the type species of Cognettia, Ch. sphagnetorum s. str. are redescribed, and a neotype is designated for the latter; and the cryptic species Ch. pseudosphagnetorum sp. nov. and Ch. chalupskyi sp. nov. are described as new to science and discussed against a paratype of Ch. valeriae (Dumnicka, 2010) comb. nov. DNA-barcodes are provided for all the named species in the complex except Ch. valeriae. A key to the species in the complex is given and the value of different somatic characters for separating and identifying species of Chamaedrilus is discussed. No morphological feature seems to distinguish Ch. sphagnetorum from Ch. pseudosphagnetorum. Thus, for a reliable identification of these species, molecular methods, e.g. DNA barcoding, are recommended. http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F840CD92-F784-429E-B4BF-3E61F6632A8D

show abstract

Cryptic lineages—same but different?

Cited by 17 publications

References 5 publications

Cryptic speciation and limited hybridization within Lumbricus earthworms (Clitellata: Lumbricidae)

Cryptic speciation and limited hybridization within Lumbricus earthworms (Clitellata: Lumbricidae)

Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept

Revision ofCognettia(Clitellata, Enchytraeidae): re-establishment ofChamaedrilusand description of cryptic species in thesphagnetorumcomplex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About