Phylogenetic relationships of tropical western Atlantic snappers in subfamily Lutjaninae (Lutjanidae: Perciformes) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships among 20 nominal species of tropical lutjanine snappers (Lutjanidae) (12 from the western Atlantic, one from the eastern Pacific, and seven from the Indo‐Pacific) were inferred based on 2206 bp (712 variable, 614 parsimony informative) from three protein‐coding mitochondrial genes. Also included in the analysis were DNA sequences from two individuals, identified initially as Lutjanus apodus, which were sampled off the coast of Bahia State in Brazil (western Atlantic), and from three individuals labelled as ‘red snapper’ in the fish market in Puerto Armuelles, Panama (eastern Pacific). Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum‐likelihood bootstrap percentages strongly supported monophyly of all lutjanines sampled and the hypothesis that western Atlantic lutjanines are derived from an Indo‐Pacific lutjanine lineage. The phylogenetic hypothesis also indicated that oceans where lutjanines are distributed (western Atlantic, eastern Pacific, and Indo‐Pacific) are not reciprocally monophyletic for the species distributed within them. There were three strongly supported clades that included all western Atlantic lutjanines: one included six species of Lutjanus from the western Atlantic, two species of Lutjanus from the eastern Pacific, and the monotypic genera Rhomboplites and Ocyurus (western Atlantic); one that included three, probably four, species of Lutjanus in the western Atlantic; and one that included Lutjanus cyanopterus (western Atlantic), an unknown species of Lutjanus from the eastern Pacific, and three species of Lutjanus from the Indo‐Pacific. Molecular‐clock calibrations supported an early Miocene diversification of an Indo‐Pacific lutjanine lineage that dispersed into the western Atlantic via the Panamanian Gateway. Divergent evolution among these lutjanines appears to have occurred both by vicariant and ecological speciation: the former following significant geographic or geological events, including both shoaling and closure of the Panamanian Gateway and tectonic upheavals, whereas the latter occurred via phenotypic diversification inferred to indicate adaptation to life in different habitats. Taxonomic revision of western Atlantic lutjanines appears warranted in that monotypic Ocyurus and Rhomboplites should be subsumed within the genus Lutjanus. Finally, it appears that retail mislabelling of ‘red snapper’ in commercial markets extends beyond the USA. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 102, 915–929.

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

“…Ethanol-preserved tissue samples were digested using 10 mg L -1 proteinase K, in 300 µL extraction buffer with 2% Johnson (1980) propuso la monofilia de las especies del género Lutjanus con base en sus caracteres morfológicos primitivos y derivados, pero las recientes filogenias basadas en las secuencias de ADN han sugerido que este género es parafilético debido a las asociaciones filogenéticas de algunas especies de Lutjanus con otros géneros de las familias Lutjanidae y Caesionidae (Chow y Walsh 1992, Miller y Cribb 2007, Gold et al 2011.…”

“…Se usó el gen mitocondrial citocromo c oxidasa subunidad I (COI) para obtener el código de barra genético e inferir las relaciones filogenéticas de Lutjanidae, ya que es posible realizar comparaciones con varias secuencias obtenidas en trabajos previos (Ward y Holmes 2007, Steinke et al 2009, Victor et al 2009, Asgharian et al 2011, Gold et al 2011, Lakra et al 2011, Zhang y Hanner 2011. Además, se examinó la relación entre los dos conespecíficos de L. russellii mediante la secuencia de la región control (RC) del ADN mitocondrial porque resuelve mejor las relaciones entre poblaciones, subespecies o especies recientemente divergidas (Parker et al 1998, Shaw et al 2000.…”

“…Previously, Johnson (1980) suggested monophyly of Lutjanus species based on their primitive and derivative morphological characters, but recent DNA sequence based phylogenies have rendered the genus Lutjanus as paraphyletic due to the phylogenetic associations of some Lutjanus species with other genera of the families Lutjanidae and Caesionidae (Chow and Walsh 1992, Miller and Cribb 2007, Gold et al 2011.…”

“…The mitochondrial DNA cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) was used to barcode and infer phylogenetic relationships of Lutjanidae, since many sequences are available for comparison from previous studies (Ward and Holmes 2007, Steinke et al 2009, Victor et al 2009, Asgharian et al 2011, Gold et al 2011, Lakra et al 2011, Zhang and Hanner 2011. The relationship between the two conspecifics of L. russellii was further investigated using the mitochondrial DNA control region (CR) sequence since it better resolves relationships among populations, subspecies, or recently diverged species (Parker et al 1998, Shaw et al 2000.…”

First record of the cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Lutjanidae), from the Azores (NE Atlantic) and possible extension range for the West Atlantic

“…Another possible cause is that the specimen described in García-Mederos and Tuset (2014) was wrongly identified. Contrasting with their western counterparts (e.g., Victor et al 2009, Gold et al 2011, there have been to date no molecular studies focusing on eastern Atlantic snappers. Therefore, not only their taxonomic status needs to be verified using molecular and morphological methods, but also very little can be said about the evolutionary relations between eastern and western Atlantic species.…”