Molecular phylogeny supports division of the ‘cosmopolitan’ taxon Celleporella (Bryozoa; Cheilostomata) into four major clades

Morphology and biology ofLaetmonice producta productaGrube (Polychaeta: Aphroditidae) in the Bellingshausen Sea and Antarctic Peninsula (Southern Ocean, Antarctica)

“…The bryozoan A. bougainvillei is a common taxon (Rogick 1956;Hughes et al 2008) widely reported in the Antarctic Peninsula littoral (López de la Cuadra & García Gómez 2000;Moyano 2005). It is a generalist colonizing species with a low specificity for substrata, previously recorded over the giant isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus Eights, 1852 (Key & Barnes 1999) and L. producta (Moyano 1972).…”

In search of phylogenetic congruence between molecular and morphological data in bryozoans with extreme adult skeletal heteromorphy

“…A reasonably large number of skeletal morphological characters are available for cheilostome taxonomy and molecular studies at low taxonomic levels generally show good congruence with morphology (e.g., Hughes et al, 2008;Herrera-Cubilla & Jackson, 2014), even though morphological convergence is evident between some higher taxonomic groups (Waeschenbach et al, 2012). Cyclostomes, however, have a simpler skeletal morphology and there can be significant incongruence between molecules and morphology, as is apparent from mismatches when traditional suborders founded on skeletal morphology are mapped onto molecular trees (Waeschenbach et al, 2009;Taylor et al, 2011).…”

Scorpiodinipora costulata(Canu & Bassler, 1929) (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata), a taxonomic and biogeographic dilemma: complex of cryptic species or human-mediated cosmopolitan colonizer?

“…Scanning electron microscopy has changed the observation scale of the morphological features, allowing the use of new criteria for splitting old taxa (e.g., Harmelin 2006;Wright et al 2007;Berning et al 2008;Vieira et al 2010). Still rarely used for resolving taxonomic problems in Bryozoa but extremely promising, molecular methods, such as DNA barcoding validated by mating trials, are efficient tools in clade discrimination within cosmopolitan species (Gómez et al 2007;Nikulina et al 2007;Hughes et al 2008). However, the use of molecular tools is difficult to apply to taxa exhibiting only small and rare encrusting colonies.…”