Cryptic species diversity and molecular diagnosis of
            <i>Channa orientalis</i>
            ; an endemic freshwater fish of Sri Lanka

Ekanayake, Hansani; Perera, Naalin; Ukuwela, Kanishka D. B.; Walpita, Chaminda; Kodithuwakku, Suranga P.; Perera, Sandun J.

doi:10.1080/24701394.2021.1876040

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include the identification of disease vectors (Tabanid flies: Banerjee et al, 2015; sand flies: Gajapathy et al, 2016; biting midges Culicoides: Harrup et al, 2016; mosquitos: Weeraratne et al, 2018), and also of highly invasive agricultural pests (fruit fly: Khamis et al, 2012; tea mosquito bugs: Rebijith et al, 2012; Pentatomomorpha bugs: Tembe et al, 2014; Kaur & Sharma, 2016; thrips: Tyagi et al, 2017; and fall armyworm: Nanayakkara et al, 2020). Furthermore, barcoding approaches have been used to resolve taxonomic questions in butterflies (Goonesekera et al, 2019; Rajpoot et al, 2018), fishes (Dhaneesh et al, 2015; Ekanayake et al, 2021; Lakra et al, 2016; Raja & Perumal, 2017; Senevirathna & Munasinghe, 2013), frogs (Biju et al, 2014; Meegaskumbura et al, 2015), freshwater crabs (Beenaerts et al, 2010), spiders (Ileperuma Arachchi & Benjamin, 2019; Kanesharatnam & Benjamin, 2019), snakes (Pyron et al, 2013), and snails (Raheem et al, 2017). Concerted and comprehensive initiatives, which coordinate the sampling and data basing efforts, as known from Europe and northern America, for example, are yet missing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple species delimitation approaches with COI barcodes poorly fit each other and morphospecies – An integrative taxonomy case of Sri Lankan Sericini chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

Ranasinghe

Eberle

Thormann

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DNA taxonomy including barcoding and metabarcoding is widely used to explore the diversity in biodiversity hotspots. In most of these hotspot areas, chafers are represented by a multitude of species, which are well defined by the complex shape of male genitalia. Here, we explore how well COI barcode data reflect morphological species entities and thus their usability for accelerated species inventorization. We conducted dedicated field surveys in Sri Lanka to collect the species-rich and highly endemic Sericini chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Congruence among results of a series of protocols for de novo species delimitation and with morphology-based species identifications was investigated. Different delimitation methods, such as the Poisson tree processes (PTP) model, Statistical Parsimony Analysis (TCS), Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD), Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning (ASAP), and Barcode Index Number (BIN) assignments, resulted in different numbers of molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs). All methods showed both over-splitting and lumping of morphologically identified species. Only 18 of the observed 45 morphospecies perfectly matched MOTUs from all methods. The congruence of delimitation between MOTUs and morphospecies expressed by the match ratio was low, ranging from 0.57 to 0.67. TCS and multirate PTP (mPTP) showed the highest match ratio, while (BIN) assignment resulted in the lowest match ratio and most splitting events. mPTP lumped more species than any other method. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) on a match ratio-based distance matrix revealed incongruent outcomes of multiple DNA delimitation methods, although applied to the same data. Our results confirm that COI barcode data alone are unlikely to correctly delimit all species, in particular, when using only a single delimitation approach. We encourage the integration of various approaches and data, particularly morphology, to validate species boundaries.

show abstract