{"title":"Opportunities and challenges presented by cryptic bryophyte species","authors":"M. Renner","doi":"10.7751/telopea14083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cryptic bryophyte species exhibit a decoupling in the degree of morphological and molecular divergence, as a result of different processes, from recent divergence to stasis. Here a body of cryptic species literature comprising 110 papers published between 2000 and end 2018 is reviewed. Most studies of cryptic species focused on northern hemispheric taxa, but we do not yet have sufficient studies to assess whether a geographic bias in the distribution of cryptic species exists, and we don’t know how many cryptic bryophyte species there might be globally. Fully two-thirds of all studies on cryptic bryophyte species rested their claims of morphological crypsis on previous taxonomic investigations, without revision of morphology to confirm cryptic species status. There is more than one kind of morphological crypsis, and while quantification of morphological patterns can contribute to our understanding of crypsis this is a widely neglected component. The usage of ‘cryptic species’ as an etymological tool to flag instances where traditional species concepts are deficient devalues the term, and a distinction between genuine crypsis and business as usual revision of species circumscription should be re-established and maintained. Hybridisation is possibly an under-appreciated contributor to cryptic species, but inference of hybridization has been limited by study design. Opportunities exist in the application of geometric morphometric methods and next generation sequencing technologies to overcome intrinsic limitations in traditional morphological and molecular data sources.","PeriodicalId":49440,"journal":{"name":"Telopea","volume":"235 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telopea","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7751/telopea14083","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16
Abstract
Cryptic bryophyte species exhibit a decoupling in the degree of morphological and molecular divergence, as a result of different processes, from recent divergence to stasis. Here a body of cryptic species literature comprising 110 papers published between 2000 and end 2018 is reviewed. Most studies of cryptic species focused on northern hemispheric taxa, but we do not yet have sufficient studies to assess whether a geographic bias in the distribution of cryptic species exists, and we don’t know how many cryptic bryophyte species there might be globally. Fully two-thirds of all studies on cryptic bryophyte species rested their claims of morphological crypsis on previous taxonomic investigations, without revision of morphology to confirm cryptic species status. There is more than one kind of morphological crypsis, and while quantification of morphological patterns can contribute to our understanding of crypsis this is a widely neglected component. The usage of ‘cryptic species’ as an etymological tool to flag instances where traditional species concepts are deficient devalues the term, and a distinction between genuine crypsis and business as usual revision of species circumscription should be re-established and maintained. Hybridisation is possibly an under-appreciated contributor to cryptic species, but inference of hybridization has been limited by study design. Opportunities exist in the application of geometric morphometric methods and next generation sequencing technologies to overcome intrinsic limitations in traditional morphological and molecular data sources.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts submitted for publication in TELOPEA are published online, after peer review and acceptance by the TELOPEA Editorial Committee and when final editorial formatting has been completed. The journal specialises in plant systematics and phylogeny. The geographic scope of the journal encompasses Australia, Malesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. The suitability of a work for the journal depends on the topic and the region of origin, generally the narrower the focus of the manuscript the closer to New South Wales must be its geographic focus.
As a general guide, we will consider:
1) revisionary treatments and other substantial bodies of work from any of the regions mentioned above.
2) new species from any Australian state.
3) new country records for Australia from any state.
4) new state records from New South Wales only.
However, we aim to support botanical research across the broader Australasian and Pacific region, and will consider submissions on their merit.
Generally we will not consider extraterritorial new country records, or single lectotypification papers unless they pertain to New South Wales taxa, or have significant bearing on the Australian flora.