title: The necessity of DNA taxonomy to reveal cryptic diversity and spatial distribution of meiofauna, with a focus on Nemertea.
abstract: Meiofauna represent one of the most abundant and diverse communities in marine benthic ecosystems. However, an accurate assessment of diversity at the level of species has been and remains challenging for these microscopic organisms. Therefore, for many taxa, especially the soft body forms such as nemerteans, which often lack clear diagnostic morphological traits, DNA taxonomy is an effective means to assess species diversity. Morphological taxonomy of Nemertea is well documented as complicated by scarcity of unambiguous character states and compromised by diagnoses of a majority of species (and higher clades) being inadequate or based on ambiguous characters and character states. Therefore, recent studies have advocated for the primacy of molecular tools to solve the taxonomy of this group. DNA taxonomy uncovers possible hidden cryptic species, provides a coherent means to systematize taxa in definite clades, and also reveals possible biogeographic patterns. Here, we analyze diversity of nemertean species by considering the barcode region of the mitochondrial gene Cytochrome Oxidase subunit I (COI) and different species delineation approaches in order to infer evolutionarily significant units. In the aim to uncover actual diversity of meiofaunal nemerteans across different sites in Central America, COI sequences were obtained for specimens assigned here to the genera Cephalothrix, Ototyphlonemertes, and Tetrastemma-like worms, each commonly encountered in our sampling. Additional genetic, taxonomic, and geographic data of other specimens belonging to these genera were added from GenBank. Results are consistent across different DNA taxonomy approaches, and revealed (i) the presence of several hidden cryptic species and (ii) numerous potential misidentifications due to traditional taxonomy. (iii) We additionally test a possible biogeographic pattern of taxonomic units revealed by this study, and, except for a few cases, the putative species seem not to be widely distributed, in contrast to what traditional taxonomy would suggest for the recognized morphotypes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
authors.forename: Francesca
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Leasi
authors.affiliation: Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
authors.forename: Jon L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Norenburg
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D059001:Aquatic Organisms / Q000145:classification* / Q000235:genetics*; D058893:DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic; D003576:Electron Transport Complex IV / Q000235:genetics; D014644:Genetic Variation; D010176:Panama; D010802:Phylogeny; D058974:Phylogeography; D062206:Spatial Analysis
chemical_list: D003576:Electron Transport Complex IV
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2012 Apr;21(8):1864-77
references.pmid: 21883587
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2006 Mar 24;6:29
references.pmid: 16563161
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2007 Apr;5(4):e87
references.pmid: 17373857
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2012 Jan;62(1):485-95
references.pmid: 22079550
references.citation: Genet Mol Biol. 2009 Oct;32(4):864-7
references.pmid: 21637466
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2008 Jul;17(14):3306-22
references.pmid: 18573165
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2012 Mar;21(5):1239-54
references.pmid: 22257178
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 2;109(40):16208-12
references.pmid: 22988084
references.citation: Evolution. 2002 Jul;56(7):1431-44
references.pmid: 12206243
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Oct;23(10):564-71
references.pmid: 18722689
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 7;270 Suppl 1:S96-9
references.pmid: 12952648
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Jun 23;9:139
references.pmid: 19549324
references.citation: Science. 1989 Mar 10;243(4896):1376
references.pmid: 17808273
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Sep 21;5(9):e12885
references.pmid: 20877627
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 22;270(1513):407-15
references.pmid: 12639321
references.citation: Evolution. 2000 Dec;54(6):2014-27
references.pmid: 11209778
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2006 Aug;55(4):595-609
references.pmid: 16967577
references.citation: Zoolog Sci. 2013 Nov;30(11):985-97
references.pmid: 24199864
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2014 Jun;75:202-18
references.pmid: 24561268
references.citation: J Biogeogr. 2014 Jan;41(1):8-22
references.pmid: 25684838
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2003 Oct;52(5):696-704
references.pmid: 14530136
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009 Oct;53(1):182-9
references.pmid: 19398026
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2003 Aug 12;19(12):1572-4
references.pmid: 12912839
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2013 Nov 15;29(22):2869-76
references.pmid: 23990417
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2013 Sep;62(5):707-24
references.pmid: 23681854
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33801
references.pmid: 22457790
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Jan;19(1):101-9
references.pmid: 11752195
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2005 Oct;37(1):144-52
references.pmid: 16182152
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2011 Jun;20(11):2425-41
references.pmid: 21521392