2017
DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Looks can be deceiving: species delimitation reveals hidden diversity in the freshwater crab Aegla longirostri (Decapoda: Anomura)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The GMYC is a robust method that models branching thresholds for intraspecific (coalescent) and interspecific (speciation/diversification) patterns (Fujisawa and Barraclough 2013). This approach has been widely applied in a number of studies to identify cryptic diversity within morphologically defined species (e.g., Crivellaro et al 2017;Grabowski et al 2017;Kordbacheh et al 2017). The ultrametric trees for GMYC analyses were estimated in BEAST (Drummond and Rambaut 2007) using two priors (Yule model and Coalescent model with constant population size) and two rates of molecular evolution (constant and relaxed clock).…”
Section: Data Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The GMYC is a robust method that models branching thresholds for intraspecific (coalescent) and interspecific (speciation/diversification) patterns (Fujisawa and Barraclough 2013). This approach has been widely applied in a number of studies to identify cryptic diversity within morphologically defined species (e.g., Crivellaro et al 2017;Grabowski et al 2017;Kordbacheh et al 2017). The ultrametric trees for GMYC analyses were estimated in BEAST (Drummond and Rambaut 2007) using two priors (Yule model and Coalescent model with constant population size) and two rates of molecular evolution (constant and relaxed clock).…”
Section: Data Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both approaches have been widely applied in a number of studies to reveal hidden diversity within morphologically defined species and also for delimitation of candidate species in taxonomic groups that have been poorly studied morphologically (e.g., Chakona et al, 2018;Crivellaro et al, 2017;Kordbacheh et al, 2017;Ottoni et al, 2019). The ultrametric tree for GMYC analysis was estimated in BEAST, and the same tree was used as input tree for the bPTP analysis.…”
Section: Species Delimitation Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, for the bPTP approach, these limits are defined by the number of nucleotide substitutions between haplotypes, not requiring an ultrametric tree. Both approaches have been widely applied in a number of studies to reveal hidden diversity within morphologically defined species and also for delimitation of candidate species in taxonomic groups that have been poorly studied morphologically ( e.g ., Chakona et al ., 2018; Crivellaro et al ., 2017; Kordbacheh et al ., 2017; Ottoni et al ., 2019). Following both methods, the original Nannocharax data set consisting of 35 sequences was reduced to include only unique haplotypes, resulting in 29 sequences.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The GMYC is a robust method that models branching thresholds for intraspecific (coalescent) and interspecific (speciation/diversification) patterns (Fujisawa and Barraclough 2013). This approach has been widely applied in a number of studies to identify cryptic diversity within morphologically defined species (e.g., Crivellaro et al 2017; Grabowski et al 2017; Kordbacheh et al 2017). The ultrametric trees for GMYC analyses were estimated in BEAST (Drummond and Rambaut 2007) using two priors (Yule model and Coalescent model with constant population size) and two rates of molecular evolution (constant and relaxed clock).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%