Revision of Tomocerus similis Chen & Ma, with discussion of the kinoshitai complex and the distal tibiotarsal chaetae in Tomocerinae (Collembola, Tomoceridae)

Abstract

Molecular analysis and a detailed morphological comparison revealed that Tomocerus similis Chen & Ma was described from individuals belonging to several species from several localities. Based on both old and new material from Anhui and Jiangsu Provinces, China, T. similis is redescribed and two new species are described. The three species are morphologically similar. Tomocerus persimilis sp. nov. differs from the others by the presence of central macrochaeta on head and of several distinct distal inner teeth on unguis. Tomocerus dissimilis sp. nov. is characterised by pointed tenent hairs on anterior legs. Remarks are made on the systematics and ecology of the kinoshitai complex, and on the taxonomic value of tenent hair and its adjacent chaetae.

Species delimitation in the morphologically conserved Coecobrya (Collembola: Entomobryidae): A case study integrating morphology and molecular traits to advance current taxonomy

“…() listed eleven disciplines applied in arthropods and recommended the combination of three types of data for species delimitation because of a very low average error rate. Among them, DNA‐based approaches, such as DNA barcoding (Hebert et al., ), greatly helped to separate sibling species, to highlight cryptic diversity and discover potential new species overlooked by morphological diagnoses (e.g., Hausmann et al., ; Satler et al., ; Sun et al., ; Yu et al., ) and to link different developmental stages of the same taxon (e.g., Potapov, Bu, Huang, Gao, & Luan, ; Richard et al., ). A delimitation simultaneously using morphological and molecular data could result in a much more reliable, thorough study (Padial et al., ; Stevens et al., ; Will et al., ).…”

“…However, due to the conserved morphology, the forms corresponding to species‐level entities have not been given a clear taxonomic status in most studies. Recent studies indicated that many, not all, closely related forms could be recognised using molecular evidence and exhaustive examination of chaetotaxic homology and new morphological characters as exemplified in Pogonognathellus (Felderhoff et al., ), Tomocerus (Yu et al., ), Protaphorura (Sun et al., ), Entomobrya (Katz, Giordano, & Soto‐Adames, ) and Megalothorax (Schneider & D'Haese, ). Overlapping rather than discrete character status between clusters impedes the judgement of the species status by taxonomists, for instance the number of dental spines in Tomoceridae (Barjadze, Baquero, Soto‐Adames, Giordano, & Jordana, ; Christiansen, ), the pseudocelli pattern in Onychiuridae (Burkhardt, ; Pomorski, ), claw morphology in bidenticulati group of Cyphoderus (Jantarit, Satasook, & Deharveng, ), the patterns of pseudopores and chaetae on manubrial plaque in Coecobrya (current study).…”

“…Many recent studies provided standard DNA barcodes (Hebert et al., ) as complementary diagnoses, such as Heteromurus (Lukić, Porco, Bedos, & Deharveng, ), Homidia (Pan, Zhang, & Li, ), Tomocerus (Yu, Ding, & Ma, ), Willowsia (Pan & Zhang, ), Lepidobrya (Zhang, Greenslade, & Stevens, ), Megalothorax (Schneider & D'Haese, ; Schneider, Porco, & Deharveng, ), Chionobora and Kaylathalia (Stevens & D'Haese, ) and Friesea (D'Haese, Stevens, & Weiner, ). However, most DNA‐based studies separated species or lineages only by comparing genetic distances among lineages based on a single gene marker (but see Stevens & D'Haese, ).…”

“…Katz, Giordano, & Soto‐Adames (), Yu et al. () and Sun et al. () attempted to erect the tentative species delimitation criteria in Entomobrya , Tomocerus and Protaphorura , respectively; only the criteria of monophyly and morphological diagnoses were consistent among three studies.…”

Peer Review #2 of "Unusually low genetic divergence at COI barcode locus between two species of intertidal Thalassaphorura (Collembola: Onychiuridae) (v0.2)"

“…In an attempt to clarify the taxonomic status of these species, we combine detailed morphological and barcode analyses of the type populations of T. debilis and T. thalassophila. In the Collembola, DNA barcoding has been used to complement morphological characters to allow species characterization in several genera, including Deutonura (Porco, Bedos & Deharveng, 2010), Heteromurus (Lukić et al, 2015), Homidia (Pan, Zhang & Li, 2015), Lepidobrya (Zhang, Greenslade & Stevens, 2017), Protaphorura , and Tomocerus (Zhang et al, 2014;Yu, Ding & Ma, 2017). DNA-based approaches are regarded as powerful tools for species delimitation, especially in groups of closely related species with uncertain taxonomic status .…”