Open Access Repository

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

Mertens, KN, Adachi, M, Anderson, DM, Band-Schmidt, CJ, Bravo, I, Brosnahan, ML, Bolch, CJS ORCID: 0000-0001-9047-2391, Calado, AJ, Carbonell-Moore, MC, Chomerat, N, Elbrachter, M, Figueroa, RI, Fraga, S, Garate-Lizarraga, I, Garces, E, Gu, H, Hallegraeff, G ORCID: 0000-0001-8464-7343, Hess, P, Hoppenrath, M, Horiguchi, T, Iwataki, M, John, U, Kremp, A, Larsen, J, Leaw, CP, Li, Z, Lim, PT, Litaker, W, MacKenzie, L, Masseret, E, Matsuoka, K, Moestrup, O, Montresor, M, Nagai, S, Nezan, E, Nishimura, T, Okolodkov, YB, Orlova, TY, Rene, A, Sampedro, N, Satta, CT, Shin, HH, Siano, R, Smith, KF, Steidinger, K, Takano, Y, Tillmann, U, Wolny, J, Yamaguchi, A and Murray, S 2020 , 'Morphological and phylogenetic data do not support the split of Alexandrium into four genera' , Harmful Algae, vol. 98 , pp. 1-8 , doi: 10.1016/j.hal.2020.101902.

Full text not available from this repository.

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.

Item Type: Article
Authors/Creators:Mertens, KN and Adachi, M and Anderson, DM and Band-Schmidt, CJ and Bravo, I and Brosnahan, ML and Bolch, CJS and Calado, AJ and Carbonell-Moore, MC and Chomerat, N and Elbrachter, M and Figueroa, RI and Fraga, S and Garate-Lizarraga, I and Garces, E and Gu, H and Hallegraeff, G and Hess, P and Hoppenrath, M and Horiguchi, T and Iwataki, M and John, U and Kremp, A and Larsen, J and Leaw, CP and Li, Z and Lim, PT and Litaker, W and MacKenzie, L and Masseret, E and Matsuoka, K and Moestrup, O and Montresor, M and Nagai, S and Nezan, E and Nishimura, T and Okolodkov, YB and Orlova, TY and Rene, A and Sampedro, N and Satta, CT and Shin, HH and Siano, R and Smith, KF and Steidinger, K and Takano, Y and Tillmann, U and Wolny, J and Yamaguchi, A and Murray, S
Keywords: Alexandrium taxonomy, phylogenetics, paraphyletic, saxitoxin, spirolides, harmful algal blooms
Journal or Publication Title: Harmful Algae
Publisher: Elsevier Science Bv
ISSN: 1568-9883
DOI / ID Number: 10.1016/j.hal.2020.101902
Copyright Information:

Crown copyright 2020

Related URLs:
Item Statistics: View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page Item Control Page
TOP