Phylogenetic relationships of selected genera of Lutjanidae inferred from mitochondrial regions, with a note on the taxonomic status of Pinjalo pinjalo

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Phylogenetic relationships of 43 species in 11 genera, representing four subfamilies of the family Lutjanidae and two genera of the family Caesionidae, were inferred using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI). Further assessment using the mtDNA control region (CR) was carried out to infer the relationship between the Indian and western Pacific types of Lutjanus russellii collected from the coast of Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 11 and 12 species were sequenced for COI and CR genes, respectively. Clade formation reflects, to some extent, the species groupings based on morphological characteristics and their biogeography. The close phylogenetic relationship between Pinjalo pinjalo and the Lutjanus red snappers (Lutjanus malabaricus and Lutjanus sebae) warrants a taxonomic revision of the former as the two genera are currently separated based on non-exclusive morphological characters. A sequence divergence of 4.2% between the Indian and western Pacific types of L. russellii as well as the morphological and biogeographical differences may suggest two separate species.Key words: Lutjanus, Pinjalo, COI, barcoding, taxonomic revision. RESUMEN.Las relaciones filogenéticas de 43 especies pertenecientes a 11 géneros, representando cuatro subfamilias de la familia Lutjanidae y dos géneros de la familia Caesionidae, fueron inferidas a partir del gen mitocondrial citocromo c oxidasa subunidad I (COI). Además, se usó la región control (RC) del ADN mitocondrial para inferir la filogenia entre los tipos de Lutjanus russellii del océano Índico y el Pacífico occidental recolectados en las costas de la península de Malasia. Se generaron secuencias de COI (11 especies) y RC (12 especies). Los clados generados concuerdan con las agrupaciones propuestas anteriormente basadas en la morfología y biogeografía de las especies. La relación filogenética cercana entre Pinjalo pinjalo y los pargos rojos Lutjanus malabaricus y Lutjanus sebae justifica la revisión taxonómica de los mismos ya que los caracteres morfológicos empleados para diferenciar ambos géneros son ambiguos. La divergencia de las secuencias (4.2%) entre los dos tipos de L. russellii (Índico y Pacifico occidental), así como la caracterización morfológica y la información biogeográfica permiten sugerir que son dos especies distintas.Palabras clave: Lutjanus, Pinjalo, COI, código de barras genético, revisión taxonómica.

Multiloci analyses suggest synonymy among Rhomboplites, Ocyurus and Lutjanus and reveal the phylogenetic position of Lutjanus alexandrei (Lutjanidae: Perciformes)

“…The relationships recovered in BI for L. alexandrei, L. apodus, L. jocu and L. griseus are consistent with previous inferences (Sarver et al, 1996;Gold et al, 2011;Chu et al, 2013;Gold et al, 2015;Frédérich, Santini, 2017), the present study stands out by the inclusion of L. alexandrei that was selected for dating inferences.…”

“…The relationships in the clade F and in the clade D, apparently discordant with previous studies (Sarver et al, 1966;Gold et al, 2011), are in fact the result of the more limited sampling of the first sample set analyzed, therefore analyzing the second sample set, the relationships between L. synagris, L. mahogoni and L. analis, as well as among gray snapper, resemble results already reported (Chu et al, 2013, Frédérich, Santini, 2017.…”

“…But, other studies with snappers from WA report that L. cyanopterus is not closely related to any other studied species in this Atlantic region (Sarver et al, 1966;Gold et al, 2011). As commonly observed for many other Lutjaninae species from WA, the putative sister taxon of L. cyanopterus is L. novemfasciatus (Gill, 1862), a native species from Pacific Ocean (Chu et al, 2013;Gold et al, 2015;Frédérich, Santini, 2017).…”

“…On the other hand, if we consider any subfamily, and not only WA species, other molecular studies considered that the status of this subfamily as a natural group is questionable. For instance, analyses using 16S rRNA, cyt b, ND-4 and COI mitochondrial genes placed Caesionidae within Lutjaninae (Miller, Cribb, 2007;Chu et al, 2013;Gold et al, 2015). Similarly, Frédérich, Santini (2017) indicated that Lutjaninae is a non-monophyletic group inasmuch as all genera of fusiliers (regarded as a subfamily of Lutjanidae by these authors) were closely related to the former.…”

“…Taking into account that our results corroborated several reports that reveal the high genetic affinities between Lutjanus, Rhomboplites and Ocyurus, and that the morphological differences among these putative genera are subtle and mostly derived from ecological adaptation, we consider that there is sufficient evidence to allocate these monotypic genera within Lutjanus. Even though, the monophyly of the genus remains unsolved and should be investigated by integrative studies, since the grouping of Lutjanus with other genera of Lutjaninae and Caesioninae have also been indicated (Chu et al, 2013;Frédérich, Santini, 2017).…”