Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Neotropical ichthyology (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252015000400673 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT In the present response paper, the article entitled "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" by Mejía et al . 2015 is critically reviewed. The current review pinpoints some of the more conspicuous conceptual inconsistencies and fundamental errors found in the study by Mejía et al . (2015), It is contended that the authors fail to provide any new insights into the complex biogeography and evolutionary history of the Nosferatu and Herichthys genus groups, and that while results of their Cox1 molecular analysis are comparable to those by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015), the conclusions of the two studies are not comparable. In addition, it is contested that, whereas the designation of genus Nosferatu by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015) was found on the principles of the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, the rejection of the genus by Mejía et al . (2015) is solely based "on the presence of (overlapping) morphometric characters" between genera. The assumption by Mejía et al . (2015),that because their geometric morphometrics analysis failed to provide separation of species, then Nosferatu genus does not correspond to a valid taxon; and their suggesting geometric morphometrics "as useful tool to discriminate species, because it allows to propose diagnostic characters" were not supported by their results. While Mejía et al . present some interesting thoughts on the systematics of Nosferatu , they unfortunately fail to provide any data that can be objectively assessed as relevant to motivate any changes in the current taxonomy. |
id |
SBI-1_623f336d2b361e13e198a6735dceb6b2 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1679-62252015000400673 |
network_acronym_str |
SBI-1 |
network_name_str |
Neotropical ichthyology (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistenciesCox 1GeneraGeometric morphometricsMonophyly requirementParaphyleticSpecies conceptsABSTRACT In the present response paper, the article entitled "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" by Mejía et al . 2015 is critically reviewed. The current review pinpoints some of the more conspicuous conceptual inconsistencies and fundamental errors found in the study by Mejía et al . (2015), It is contended that the authors fail to provide any new insights into the complex biogeography and evolutionary history of the Nosferatu and Herichthys genus groups, and that while results of their Cox1 molecular analysis are comparable to those by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015), the conclusions of the two studies are not comparable. In addition, it is contested that, whereas the designation of genus Nosferatu by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015) was found on the principles of the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, the rejection of the genus by Mejía et al . (2015) is solely based "on the presence of (overlapping) morphometric characters" between genera. The assumption by Mejía et al . (2015),that because their geometric morphometrics analysis failed to provide separation of species, then Nosferatu genus does not correspond to a valid taxon; and their suggesting geometric morphometrics "as useful tool to discriminate species, because it allows to propose diagnostic characters" were not supported by their results. While Mejía et al . present some interesting thoughts on the systematics of Nosferatu , they unfortunately fail to provide any data that can be objectively assessed as relevant to motivate any changes in the current taxonomy.Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia2015-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252015000400673Neotropical Ichthyology v.13 n.4 2015reponame:Neotropical ichthyology (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia (SBI)instacron:SBI10.1590/1982-0224-20150066info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMaza-Benignos,Mauricio de laLozano-Vilano,Ma. de LourdesGarcía-Ramírez,María Elenaeng2015-12-16T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1679-62252015000400673Revistahttp://www.ufrgs.br/ni/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||neoichth@nupelia.uem.br1982-02241679-6225opendoar:2015-12-16T00:00Neotropical ichthyology (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia (SBI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
title |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
spellingShingle |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies Maza-Benignos,Mauricio de la Cox 1 Genera Geometric morphometrics Monophyly requirement Paraphyletic Species concepts |
title_short |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
title_full |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
title_fullStr |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
title_full_unstemmed |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
title_sort |
Response paper: Morphometric article by Mejía et al. 2015 alluding genera Herichthys and Nosferatu displays serious inconsistencies |
author |
Maza-Benignos,Mauricio de la |
author_facet |
Maza-Benignos,Mauricio de la Lozano-Vilano,Ma. de Lourdes García-Ramírez,María Elena |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lozano-Vilano,Ma. de Lourdes García-Ramírez,María Elena |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Maza-Benignos,Mauricio de la Lozano-Vilano,Ma. de Lourdes García-Ramírez,María Elena |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Cox 1 Genera Geometric morphometrics Monophyly requirement Paraphyletic Species concepts |
topic |
Cox 1 Genera Geometric morphometrics Monophyly requirement Paraphyletic Species concepts |
description |
ABSTRACT In the present response paper, the article entitled "Morphometric variation of the Herichthys bartoni (Bean, 1892) species group (Teleostei: Cichlidae): How many species comprise H. labridens (Pellegrin, 1903)?" by Mejía et al . 2015 is critically reviewed. The current review pinpoints some of the more conspicuous conceptual inconsistencies and fundamental errors found in the study by Mejía et al . (2015), It is contended that the authors fail to provide any new insights into the complex biogeography and evolutionary history of the Nosferatu and Herichthys genus groups, and that while results of their Cox1 molecular analysis are comparable to those by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015), the conclusions of the two studies are not comparable. In addition, it is contested that, whereas the designation of genus Nosferatu by De la Maza-Benignos et al . (2015) was found on the principles of the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, the rejection of the genus by Mejía et al . (2015) is solely based "on the presence of (overlapping) morphometric characters" between genera. The assumption by Mejía et al . (2015),that because their geometric morphometrics analysis failed to provide separation of species, then Nosferatu genus does not correspond to a valid taxon; and their suggesting geometric morphometrics "as useful tool to discriminate species, because it allows to propose diagnostic characters" were not supported by their results. While Mejía et al . present some interesting thoughts on the systematics of Nosferatu , they unfortunately fail to provide any data that can be objectively assessed as relevant to motivate any changes in the current taxonomy. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-12-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252015000400673 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252015000400673 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1982-0224-20150066 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Neotropical Ichthyology v.13 n.4 2015 reponame:Neotropical ichthyology (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia (SBI) instacron:SBI |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia (SBI) |
instacron_str |
SBI |
institution |
SBI |
reponame_str |
Neotropical ichthyology (Online) |
collection |
Neotropical ichthyology (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Neotropical ichthyology (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia (SBI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||neoichth@nupelia.uem.br |
_version_ |
1752122181776572416 |