Molecular evidence for the retention of the Thaumatopsyllidae in the order Cyclopoida (Copepoda) and establishment of four suborders and two families within the Cyclopoida

Khodami, Sahar; Mercado-Salas, Nancy F.; Tang, Danny; Arbizu, Pedro Martínez

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2019.05.019

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This mismatch stems from the difference in BOXSHALL 40 • Megataxa 1 (1) © 2020 Magnolia Press time required to generate the data. The recent analysis by Khodami et al (2019) of relationships within the order Cyclopoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) serves as an example. This extensive molecular analysis recovered four major groupings within the order and four new suborders were proposed which have already been widely adopted (e.g.…”

Section: Maintaining and Enhancing The System Of Reciprocal Illuminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if we consider the level of identification as a surrogate for the level of available morphological detail, then there is a mismatch in the level of granularity since the morphology of 49.2% of the taxa has not yet been fully elucidated. Given that much of the incompletely identified material in Khodami et al (2019) is likely new to science, this mismatch is understandable as it takes time to work up the descriptions. However, for the duration of the time lag any reciprocal illumination breaks down as our morphological knowledge is failing to keep up.…”

Section: Maintaining and Enhancing The System Of Reciprocal Illuminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, for the duration of the time lag any reciprocal illumination breaks down as our morphological knowledge is failing to keep up. As an example here, I refer to a small copepod clade recovered by Khodami et al (2019) comprising the Archinotodelphyidae and Notodelphyidae, both of which contain symbionts of tunicates. These symbiotic families lie within a larger, mostly free-living clade including the marine benthic Cyclopinidae, the planktonic Oithonidae, plus a third family ("Cyclopoida sp.").…”

Section: Maintaining and Enhancing The System Of Reciprocal Illuminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Self-help for taxonomists: three things we must do for taxonomy to survive

Boxshall

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knapp & Boxshall (2010) concluded that “at the very time when the importance of biodiversity has been realised, our capability of describing and documenting it has been eroded to a crisis point.” It seems to me that little has changed since then but other contributions are focusing on the overall problem so I want to use this article to highlight three practical challenges for taxonomy going forwards. 1. Maintaining and enhancing the system of Reciprocal Illumination. 2. Building and maintaining taxonomic information systems. 3. Addressing issues of societal relevance.

show abstract

Section: Maintaining and Enhancing The System Of Reciprocal Illuminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maintaining and Enhancing The System Of Reciprocal Illuminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maintaining and Enhancing The System Of Reciprocal Illuminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-help for taxonomists: three things we must do for taxonomy to survive

Boxshall

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be noted that subsequent re-analyses of the molecular dataset published by Khodami et al (2017) failed to reproduce both their topology and branch supports, despite the use of the same methods and software (Mikhailov and Ivanenko 2019a). It is reasonable to conclude that we are still in the early stages of understanding cyclopoid systematics, with wider taxon and character sampling continuing to raise as many questions as they answer (Khodami et al 2019; but see Mikhailov and Ivanenko 2019b). Validity of many genera is widely disputed among different researches (see, for example, Karanovic 2008;Ivanenko et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four new Cyclopina (Copepoda, Cyclopinidae) from South Korea

Karanovic¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copepods are well studied in South Korea, with the exception of marine non-parasitic cyclopoids, and especially cyclopinids; only three species were found so far here, and only one of them is endemic. A survey of intertidal interstitial faunas from sandy beaches revealed four endemic members of the genus Cyclopina Claus, 1863, which represents the first record of the largest cyclopinid genus in South Korea. A detailed study of their morphology revealed numerous differences, including in rarely studied cuticular organs. Some of these micro-characters could easily be homologised and showed little intraspecific variability, which might prove invaluable for matching sexes and reconstructing phylogenetic relationships. Cyclopina busanensissp. nov. is described from both sexes collected near Busan (South Coast of South Korea), and is most similar to the only congener from Japan: C. kiraensis Horomi, 1984. Cyclopina koreanasp. nov. is described from both sexes collected near Gangneung (East Coast), and has no close relatives among currently known species. Cyclopina curtijejusp. nov. is described from two females from Jeju (off South Coast); it is possibly closely related to C. smirnovi Herbst, 1982, but the latter is known from a single male from the Russian Far East. Cyclopina widosp. nov. is described from both sexes from Wido (West Coast), and shows numerous reductions in segmentation and armature of appendages, most of them probably a consequence of its diminutive size. A table of 26 discrete and continuous characters commonly used in the taxonomy of this group is provided for 48 valid species and subspecies of Cyclopina.

show abstract

“…Copepoda is a large and diverse group of arthropods that encompasses roughly 10 wellrecognized orders. To this day, the phylogenetic relationship between the copepod orders remains in dispute (Ferrari et al 2010;Ferrari & von Vaupel Klein 2019;Ho 1994;Huys & Boxshall 1991;Khodami et al 2019). Early molecular phylogenetic analyses of the copepod phylogeny based on rDNA sequences found it difficult to draw clear conclusions on the branching of several groups (Huys et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low support values and lack of reproducibility of molecular phylogenetic analysis of Copepoda orders

Mikhailov

Ivanenko

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reanalysis of the dataset used by Khodami et al. (2017) reveals low support values for the key nodes of the copepod (Crustacea) phylogeny and fails to reproduce the results obtained in the study. Maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analyses with the dataset produce phylogenies that are inconsistent with the branching of copepod groups proposed by Khodami et al. (2017).The proposed phylogeny is refuted by the approximately unbiased (AU) statistical test, which undermines several conclusions drawn from the original study.

show abstract

Molecular evidence for the retention of the Thaumatopsyllidae in the order Cyclopoida (Copepoda) and establishment of four suborders and two families within the Cyclopoida

Cited by 23 publications

References 48 publications

Self-help for taxonomists: three things we must do for taxonomy to survive

Self-help for taxonomists: three things we must do for taxonomy to survive

Four new Cyclopina (Copepoda, Cyclopinidae) from South Korea

Low support values and lack of reproducibility of molecular phylogenetic analysis of Copepoda orders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About