Conflicting patterns of DNA barcoding and taxonomy in the cicada genus Tettigettalna from southern Europe (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). (6th September 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nunes, Vera L.; Mendes, Raquel; Marabuto, Eduardo; Novais, Bruno M.; Hertach, Thomas; Quartau, José A.; Seabra, Sofia G.; Paulo, Octávio S.; Simões, Paula C.
• Is Part Of: Molecular ecology resources. Volume 14:Number 1(2014:Jan.)
• Page Start: 27
• Page End: 38
• Publication Date: 2013-09-06
• Subjects: Molecular ecology -- Periodicals; 572.8
• DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12158
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1755-098X

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="men12158-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>DNA barcodes have great potential to assist in species identification, especially when high taxonomical expertise is required. We investigated the utility of the 5′ mitochondrial cytochrome <italic>c</italic> oxidase I (COI) region to discriminate between 13 European cicada species. These included all nine species currently recognized under the genus <italic>Tettigettalna</italic>, from which seven are endemic to the southern Iberian Peninsula. These cicadas have species‐specific male calling songs but are morphologically very similar. Mean COI divergence between congeners ranged from 0.4% to 10.6%, but this gene was proven insufficient to determine species limits within genus <italic>Tettigettalna</italic> because a barcoding gap was absent for several of its species, that is, the highest intraspecific distance exceeded the lowest interspecific distance. The genetic data conflicted with current taxonomic classification for <italic>T. argentata</italic> and <italic>T. mariae</italic>. Neighbour‐joining and Bayesian analyses revealed that <italic>T. argentata</italic> is geographically structured (clades North and South) and might constitute a species complex together with <italic>T. aneabi</italic> and <italic>T. mariae</italic>. The latter diverges very little from the southern clade of <italic>T. argentata</italic> and shares with it its most common haplotype. <italic>T. mariae</italic> is often in sympatry with <italic>T. argentata</italic> but it remains unclear whether introgression or incomplete lineage sorting may be responsible for the sharing of haplotypes. <italic>T. helianthemi</italic> and <italic>T. defauti</italic> also show high intraspecific variation that might signal hidden cryptic diversity. These taxonomic conflicts must be re‐evaluated with further studies using additional genes and extensive morphological and acoustic analyses.</p> </abstract>