RESUMO
In the present response paper, the article entitled "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" by Mejía et al . 2015 is critically reviewed. The current review pinpoints some of the more conspicuous conceptual inconsistencies and fundamental errors found in the study by Mejía et al . (2015), It is contended that the authors fail to provide any new insights into the complex biogeography and evolutionary history of the Nosferatu and Herichthys genus groups, and that while results of their Cox1 molecular analysis are comparable to those by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015), the conclusions of the two studies are not comparable. In addition, it is contested that, whereas the designation of genus Nosferatu by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015) was found on the principles of the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, the rejection of the genus by Mejía et al . (2015) is solely based "on the presence of (overlapping) morphometric characters" between genera. The assumption by Mejía et al . (2015),that because their geometric morphometrics analysis failed to provide separation of species, then Nosferatu genus does not correspond to a valid taxon; and their suggesting geometric morphometrics "as useful tool to discriminate species, because it allows to propose diagnostic characters" were not supported by their results. While Mejía et al . present some interesting thoughts on the systematics of Nosferatu , they unfortunately fail to provide any data that can be objectively assessed as relevant to motivate any changes in the current taxonomy.
El presente documento de respuesta analiza críticamente el artículo titulado "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" por Mejía et al. (2015), así como también evidencia algunas de las contradicciones conceptuales y errores fundamentales encontrados en dicho documento. Se arguye que el artículo no proporciona ningún aspecto nuevo acerca de la compleja biogeografía, ni de la historia evolutiva de los géneros Nosferatu y Herichthys , y que mientras que los resultados del análisis molecular utilizando el gen Cox1 son similares a los de la Maza-Benignos et al. (2015), las conclusiones de ambos estudios no son compatibles. Se contiende además que mientras que la designación del género Nosferatu por De la Maza-Benignos et al. (2015) se fundamentó en principios asociados a los conceptos biológico y filogenético de especie, el rechazo del género por Mejía et al. ,(2015) únicamente se basa "en la existencia de caracteres morfométricos (superpuestos)" entre géneros. La inferencia por parte de Mejía et al . de que debido a que el análisis de morfometría geométrica no logró separar a las especies, y que por lo tanto el género Nosferatu no corresponde a un taxón válido; así como la observación de que la morfometría geométrica corresponde a "una herramienta útil para diferenciar especies, porque permite proponer caracteres de diagnóstico" no están sustentadas por los resultados de su análisis, y mientras que Mejía et al. ,presentan algunas ideas interesantes sobre la sistemática de Nosferatu , lamentablemente no proporcionan ningún dato relevante que pueda ser evaluado objetivamente como para motivar cambios en la taxonomía actual.
Assuntos
Animais , Manuscritos como Assunto/história , Peixes/classificação , Peixes/crescimento & desenvolvimento , Peixes/fisiologiaRESUMO
In the present response paper, the article entitled "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" by Mejía et al . 2015 is critically reviewed. The current review pinpoints some of the more conspicuous conceptual inconsistencies and fundamental errors found in the study by Mejía et al . (2015), It is contended that the authors fail to provide any new insights into the complex biogeography and evolutionary history of the Nosferatu and Herichthys genus groups, and that while results of their Cox1 molecular analysis are comparable to those by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015), the conclusions of the two studies are not comparable. In addition, it is contested that, whereas the designation of genus Nosferatu by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015) was found on the principles of the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, the rejection of the genus by Mejía et al . (2015) is solely based "on the presence of (overlapping) morphometric characters" between genera. The assumption by Mejía et al . (2015),that because their geometric morphometrics analysis failed to provide separation of species, then Nosferatu genus does not correspond to a valid taxon; and their suggesting geometric morphometrics "as useful tool to discriminate species, because it allows to propose diagnostic characters" were not supported by their results. While Mejía et al . present some interesting thoughts on the systematics of Nosferatu , they unfortunately fail to provide any data that can be objectively assessed as relevant to motivate any changes in the current taxonomy.(AU)
El presente documento de respuesta analiza críticamente el artículo titulado "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" por Mejía et al. (2015), así como también evidencia algunas de las contradicciones conceptuales y errores fundamentales encontrados en dicho documento. Se arguye que el artículo no proporciona ningún aspecto nuevo acerca de la compleja biogeografía, ni de la historia evolutiva de los géneros Nosferatu y Herichthys , y que mientras que los resultados del análisis molecular utilizando el gen Cox1 son similares a los de la Maza-Benignos et al. (2015), las conclusiones de ambos estudios no son compatibles. Se contiende además que mientras que la designación del género Nosferatu por De la Maza-Benignos et al. (2015) se fundamentó en principios asociados a los conceptos biológico y filogenético de especie, el rechazo del género por Mejía et al. ,(2015) únicamente se basa "en la existencia de caracteres morfométricos (superpuestos)" entre géneros. La inferencia por parte de Mejía et al . de que debido a que el análisis de morfometría geométrica no logró separar a las especies, y que por lo tanto el género Nosferatu no corresponde a un taxón válido; así como la observación de que la morfometría geométrica corresponde a "una herramienta útil para diferenciar especies, porque permite proponer caracteres de diagnóstico" no están sustentadas por los resultados de su análisis, y mientras que Mejía et al. ,presentan algunas ideas interesantes sobre la sistemática de Nosferatu , lamentablemente no proporcionan ningún dato relevante que pueda ser evaluado objetivamente como para motivar cambios en la taxonomía actual.(AU)
Assuntos
Animais , Peixes/classificação , Peixes/crescimento & desenvolvimento , Peixes/fisiologia , Manuscritos como Assunto/históriaRESUMO
Ceratocystis wilt is among the most important diseases on mango (Mangifera indica) in Brazil, Oman, and Pakistan. The causal agent was originally identified in Brazil as Ceratocystis fimbriata, which is considered by some as a complex of many cryptic species, and four new species on mango trees were distinguished from C. fimbriata based on variation in internal transcribed spacer sequences. In the present study, phylogenetic analyses using DNA sequences of mating type genes, TEF-1α, and ß-tubulin failed to identify lineages corresponding to the four new species names. Further, mating experiments found that the mango isolates representing the new species were interfertile with each other and a tester strain from sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), on which the name C. fimbriata is based, and there was little morphological variation among the mango isolates. Microsatellite markers found substantial differentiation among mango isolates at the regional and population levels, but certain microsatellite genotypes were commonly found in multiple populations, suggesting that these genotypes had been disseminated in infected nursery stock. The most common microsatellite genotypes corresponded to the four recently named species (C. manginecans, C. acaciivora, C. mangicola, and C. mangivora), which are considered synonyms of C. fimbriata. This study points to the potential problems of naming new species based on introduced genotypes of a pathogen, the value of an understanding of natural variation within and among populations, and the importance of phenotype in delimiting species.
Assuntos
Ascomicetos/classificação , Ipomoea batatas/microbiologia , Mangifera/microbiologia , Doenças das Plantas/microbiologia , Ascomicetos/genética , Ascomicetos/isolamento & purificação , Brasil , Código de Barras de DNA Taxonômico , DNA Fúngico/química , DNA Fúngico/genética , DNA Espaçador Ribossômico/genética , Proteínas Fúngicas/genética , Variação Genética , Genótipo , Repetições de Microssatélites/genética , Filogenia , Análise de Sequência de DNARESUMO
Trichoderma harzianum is known as a cosmopolitan, ubiquitous species associated with a wide variety of substrates. It is possibly the most commonly used name in agricultural applications involving Trichoderma, including biological control of plant diseases. While various studies have suggested that T. harzianum is a species complex, only a few cryptic species are named. In the present study the taxonomy of the T. harzianum species complex is revised to include at least 14 species. Previously named species included in the complex are T. guizhouense, T. harzianum, and T. inhamatum. Two new combinations are proposed, T. lentiforme and T. lixii. Nine species are described as new, T. afarasin, T. afroharzianum, T. atrobrunneum, T. camerunense, T. endophyticum, T. neotropicale, T. pyramidale, T. rifaii and T. simmonsii. We isolated Trichoderma cultures from four commercial biocontrol products reported to contain T. harzianum. None of the biocontrol strains were identified as T. harzianum s. str. In addition, the widely applied culture 'T. harzianum T22' was determined to be T. afroharzianum. Some species in the T. harzianum complex appear to be exclusively endophytic, while others were only isolated from soil. Sexual states are rare. Descriptions and illustrations are provided. A secondary barcode, nuc translation elongation factor 1-α (TEF1) is needed to identify species in this complex.