Morphological and phylogenetic data do not support the split of Alexandrium into four genera SCIE SCOPUS

Cited 10 time in WEB OF SCIENCE Cited 12 time in Scopus
Title
Morphological and phylogenetic data do not support the split of Alexandrium into four genera
Author(s)
Mertens, Kenneth Neil; Adachi, Masao; Anderson, Donald M.; Band-Schmidt, Christine J.; Bravo, Isabel; Brosnahan, Michael L.; Bolch, Christopher J.S.; Calado, António J.; Carbonell-Moore, M. Consuelo; Chomérat, Nicolas; Elbrächter, Malte; Figueroa, Rosa Isabel; Fraga, Santiago; Gárate-Lizárraga, Ismael; Garcés, Esther; Gu, Haifeng; Hallegraeff, Gustaaf; Hess, Philipp; Hoppenrath, Mona; Horiguchi, Takeo; Iwataki, Mitsunori; John, Uwe; Kremp, Anke; Larsen, Jacob; Leaw, Chui Pin; Li, Zhun; Lim, Po Teen; Litaker, Wayne; MacKenzie, Lincoln; Masseret, Estelle; Matsuoka, Kazumi; Moestrup, Øjvind; Montresor, Marina; Nagai, Satoshi; Nézan, Elisabeth; Nishimura, Tomohiro; Okolodkov, Yuri B.; Orlova, Tatiana Yu.; Reñé, Albert; Sampedro, Nagore; Satta, Cecilia Teodora; Shin, Hyeon Ho; Siano, Raffaele; Smith, Kirsty F.; Steidinger, Karen; Takano, Yoshihito; Tillmann, Urban; Wolny, Jennifer; Yamaguchi, Aika; Murray, Shauna
KIOST Author(s)
Shin, Hyeon Ho(신현호)
Publication Year
2020-09
Abstract
A recently published study analyzed the phylogenetic relationship between the genera Centrodinium and Alexandrium, confirming an earlier publication showing the genus Alexandrium as paraphyletic. This most recent manuscript retained the genus Alexandrium, introduced a new genus Episemicolon, resurrected two genera, Gessnerium and Protogonyaulax, and stated that: "The polyphyly [sic] of Alexandrium is solved with the split into four genera". However, these reintroduced taxa were not based on monophyletic groups. Therefore this work, if accepted, would result in replacing a single paraphyletic taxon with several non-monophyletic ones. The morphological data presented for genus characterization also do not convincingly support taxa delimitations. The combination of weak molecular phylogenetics and the lack of diagnostic traits (i.e., autapomorphies) render the applicability of the concept of limited use. The proposal to split the genus Alexandrium on the basis of our current knowledge is rejected herein. The aim here is not to present an alternative analysis and revision, but to maintain Alexandrium. A better constructed and more phylogenetically accurate revision can and should wait until more complete evidence becomes available and there is a strong reason to revise the genus Alexandrium. The reasons are explained in detail by a review of the available molecular and morphological data for species of the genera Alexandrium and Centrodinium. In addition, cyst morphology and chemotaxonomy are discussed, and the need for integrative taxonomy is highlighted.
ISSN
1568-9883
URI
https://sciwatch.kiost.ac.kr/handle/2020.kiost/37598
DOI
10.1016/j.hal.2020.101902
Bibliographic Citation
HARMFUL ALGAE, v.98, 2020
Publisher
ELSEVIER
Subject
SP-NOV DINOPHYCEAE; SETO INLAND SEA; GENUS ALEXANDRIUM; OSTENFELDII DINOPHYCEAE; LABORATORY CONDITIONS; PYRODINIUM-BAHAMENSE; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; RESTING CYSTS; DINOFLAGELLATE; TAMARENSIS
Keywords
Taxonomy; Phylogenetics; Paraphyletic; Saxitoxin; Spirolides; Harmful algal blooms
Type
Article
Document Type
Article
Publisher
ELSEVIER
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

qrcode

Items in ScienceWatch@KIOST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse