| 摘要: |
| 围胸总目藤壶科的分类系统经历了二亚科系统(小藤壶亚科Chthamalinae,藤壶亚科Balaninae)、三亚科系统[藤壶亚科(Balaninae), 巨藤壶亚科(Megabalaninae),凹藤壶亚科(Concavinae)], 现在采用的是四亚科系统[藤壶亚科(Balaniae)、纹藤壶亚科(Amphibalanus)、巨藤壶亚科(Megabalaninae)和凹藤壶亚科(Concavinae)], 但各亚科之间的系统演化关系尚未进行过分子系统学方面的研究。许多藤壶科物种存在趋同进化的趋势, 致使传统的形态分类存在困难, 不能正确地进行鉴别。本文测定了藤壶科3 个亚科里个代表种的线粒体COI, 16S 和12S 基因的部分序列, 结合GenBank 中藤壶科其他物种的12S,28S和18S等基因序列, 比较了不同基因片段作为鉴别藤壶科物种的条形码的可行性和有效性, 并联合16S和12S序列初步分析了藤壶科各亚科之间的一些亲缘关系。研究结果表明: COI基因的种间和种内遗传距离有明显的间隔区, COI最小种间距离为0.122, 远大于最大种内距离0.023, 而16S基因的种间与种内距离存在覆盖, 最小种间距离为0.018, 小于最大种内距离0.023, 因此表明, 线粒体基因COI能更准确地鉴定藤壶科种间以及种内关系, 并得出阈值为种内差异小于0.023, 种间差异大于0.1。ML和BI 系统发育分析结果基本一致, 支持4 亚科的分类系统; 巨藤壶亚科形成明显单系群, 支持率很高,而两种纹藤壶和管藤壶聚成一支, 形成一个单系, 本结果支持Newman & Ross 的假说, 即纹藤壶属和管藤壶属应合并。 |
| 关键词: 藤壶科 条形码 DNA 亚科 系统发育 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家科学技术基础性工作专项(2011FY120200) |
|
| DNA taxonomy of Balanidae |
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The Balanidae (Cirripedia Thoracica) taxonomy had two subfamilies systems(Chthamalinae, Balaninae) and three subfamilies systems (Balaninae, Megabalaninae, Concavinae). The current system is the four subfamilies system. Molecular systematic research between them have never been reported. Many species of barnacles had convergent evolution so that the traditional morphological classification was not well identified. Our research determined three mitochondrial gene fragments and compared different gene fragments’ (COI, 16S, 12S, 28SS and 18S) feasibility and effectiveness as barcoding to identify Barnacle species based on the 12S, 16S gene sequence. The results showed that the COI distance between groups and distance within groups had obvious interval. Minimum distance between species was 0.122, being much larger than the maximum distance within species (0.023). The distance between groups and distance within groups of 16S had coincidence; minimum distance between species was 0.018, less than the maximum distance within species 0.023. Therefore, the mitochondrial COI gene could more accurately identify barnacle between species and within species, and intraspecific difference was less than 0.023, difference between species was bigger than 0.1. The analysis of ML and BI was consistent, which supported the classification of four subfamily system. Megabalaninae formed a monophyletic with a higher rate of support, which proved that transverse tubes was plesiomorphy. Amphibalanus and Fistulobalanus form a single clade. The result supported Newman & Ross’s (1976) hypothesis that the two should be merged. |
| Key words: Balanidae Barcoding DNA Subfamily Phylogenetic |
