4.3 Article

Biogeography in a Continental Island: Population Structure of the Relict Endemic Centipede Craterostigmus tasmanianus (Chilopoda, Craterostigmomorpha) in Tasmania Using 16S rRNA and COI

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEREDITY
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 80-91

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esr110

关键词

Australia; Gondwana; isolation by distance; mitochondrial markers; Tyler's Line

资金

  1. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University
  2. Museum of Comparative Zoology
  3. Bauer Center for Genomics Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) sequence data to investigate the population structure in the centipede Craterostigmus tasmanianus Pocock, 1902 (Chilopoda: Craterostigmomorpha: Craterostigmidae) and to look for possible barriers to gene flow on the island of Tasmania, where C. tasmanianus is a widespread endemic. We first confirmed a molecular diagnostic character in 28S rRNA separating Tasmanian Craterostigmus from its sister species Craterostigmus crabilli (Edgecombe and Giribet 2008) in New Zealand and found no shared polymorphism in this marker for the 2 species. In Tasmania, analysis of molecular variance analysis showed little variation at the 16S rRNA and COI loci within populations (6% and 13%, respectively), but substantial variation (56% and 48%, respectively) among populations divided geographically into groups. We found no clear evidence of isolation by distance using a Mantel test. Bayesian clustering and gene network analysis both group the C. tasmanianus populations in patterns which are broadly concordant with previously known biogeographical divisions within Tasmania, but we did not find that genetic distance varied in a simple way across cluster boundaries. The coarse-scale geographical sampling on which this study was based should be followed in the future by sampling at a finer spatial scale and to investigate genetic structure within clusters and across cluster boundaries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据