Abstract

We investigated the feasibility of using the DNA barcode region in identifying Deltocephalus from China. Sequences of the barcode region of the mitochondrial COI gene were obtained for 98 specimens (Deltocephalus vulgaris – 88, Deltocephalus pulicaris – 5, Deltocephalus uncinatus – 5). The average genetic distances among morphological and geographical groups of D. vulgaris ranged from 0.9% to 6.3% and among the three species of Deltocephalus ranged from 16.4% to 21.9% without overlap, which effectively reveals the existence of a “DNA barcoding gap”. It is important to assess the status of these morphological variants and explore the genetic variation among Chinese populations of D. vulgaris because the status of this species has led to taxonomic confusion because specimens representing two distinct morphological variants based on the form of the aedeagus are often encountered at a single locality. Forty-five haplotypes (D. vulgaris – 36, D. pulicaris – 5, D. uncinatus – 4) were defined to perform the phylogenetic analyses; they revealed no distinct lineages corresponding either to the two morphotypes of D. vulgaris or to geographical populations. Thus, there is no evidence that these variants represent genetically distinct species.

Highlights

  • China contains threatened biodiversity hotspots, including one spanning the Palearctic and Oriental regions and containing a high level of species diversity (Lin et al 2010)

  • DNA barcoding as a standardised method to provide rapid and accurate species demarcation and has been widely applied in identifying and delimiting taxa since it was first reported by Hebert et al (2003)

  • Two standard criteria have generally been accepted in delimiting species using c oxidase I (COI)-based DNA barcodes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

China contains threatened biodiversity hotspots, including one spanning the Palearctic and Oriental regions and containing a high level of species diversity (Lin et al 2010). The COI-based identification system has achieved remarkable success discriminating species across numerous animal groups, including birds (Hebert et al 2004b), fishes (Hubert et al 2008), and the insect orders Lepidoptera (Hebert et al 2004a; Hajibabaei et al 2006; Yang et al 2012; Ashfaq et al 2013), Ephemeroptera (Ball et al 2005), and Hymenoptera (Smith et al 2008) This technology has failed to identify species accurately under certain circumstances. Within the dipteran family Calliphoridae, Whitworth et al (2007) found that only 60% of species tested could be identified reliably

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call