Document of bibliographic reference 348194

BibliographicReference record

Type

Bibliographic resource

Type of document

Journal article

BibLvlCode

AS

Title

Phylogenetic revision of the shrimp genera Ephyrina, Meningodora and Notostomus (Acanthephyridae: Caridea)

Abstract

The shrimp genera Ephyrina, Meningodora and Notostomus have an unusual carapace strengthened with carinae and a half-serrated mandible, which may suggest a possible monophyly of this group. Here we test this hypothesis and present the first phylogenetic study of these genera based on 95 morphological characters (all valid species coded) and six molecular markers (71% of valid species sequenced). Representatives of all genera of Oplophoridae (sister to Acanthephyridae) were outgroups, 32 species belonging to all genera and potentially different clades of Acanthephyridae were ingroups. Both morphological and molecular analyses retrieve trees with similar topology. Our results reject the hypothesis of a clade formed by Ephyrina + Meningodora + Notostomus. We show that Ephyrina and Notostomus are monophyletic, both on morphological and on molecular trees, Meningodora gains support only on morphological trees. Evolutionary traits in the Ephyrina and Meningodora + Notostomus clades are different. Synapomorphies are mostly linked to adaptations to forward motion in Ephyrina (oar-like meri and ischia of pereopods, stempost-like rostrum) and to progressive strengthening of the carapace and pleon in Meningodora and Notostomus (net of sharp carinae). Unusual mandibles evolved in the clades independently and represent convergent adaptations to feeding on gelatinous organisms.

WebOfScience code

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000715575800008

Bibliographic citation

Lunina, A.A.; Kulagin, D.N.; Vereshchaka, A.L. (2021). Phylogenetic revision of the shrimp genera Ephyrina, Meningodora and Notostomus (Acanthephyridae: Caridea). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 193(3): 1002-1019. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlaa161

Topic

Marine

Is peer reviewed

true