| 张少秋,孔晓瑜.2022.土佐鳒鲆（Psettina tosana） ——中国大陆新记录种和丝指鳒鲆 （P. filimana）的有效性厘定.动物学杂志,57(2):269-276. |
| 土佐鳒鲆（Psettina tosana） ——中国大陆新记录种和丝指鳒鲆 （P. filimana）的有效性厘定 |
| Psettina tosana—A New Record Species of Mainland China and Study on Validity of Psettina filimana |
| 投稿时间：2021-09-06 修订日期：2022-03-09 |
| DOI：10.13859/j.cjz.202202012 |
| 中文关键词: 鲆科 鳒鲆属 同物异名 形态特征 分子条形码 |
| 英文关键词:Bothidae Psettina Synonym Morphological characters DNA barcoding |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目（No. 31872570），南方海洋科学与工程广东省实验室（广州）人才团队引进重大专项（No. GML2019ZD0404） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 320 |
| 全文下载次数: 1160 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 依据《中国动物志: 硬骨鱼纲 鲽形目》，本研究近年在中国大陆从东海至南海海域采集到14尾样品，前期鉴定为鲆科（Bothidae）鳒鲆属（Psettina）的丝指鳒鲆（P. filimana Li &Wang, 1982），但同时发现这些样品也具有土佐鳒鲆（P. tosana Amaoka, 1963）的主要特征。因此，有必要明确这些样品种名以及丝指鳒鲆和土佐鳒鲆之间的关系。为了准确的鉴定这些样品，本研究采用和模式标本形态特征比较分析以及COI分子条形码K2P遗传距离比较的方法进行鉴定。首先将采集样品的29个形态特征分别与21或25个丝指鳒鲆或土佐鳒鲆模式标本特征进行了比较，然后比较了两个模式标本的18个形态特征。结果表明，所有土佐鳒鲆原始描述的可数和可量特征均与丝指鳒鲆模式标本及本研究样品的形态特征为重叠或包含关系，描述性状为一致；同时本研究以胸鳍条长度不同这一李思忠（1987）区别两种类的特征为依据，分别选取了胸鳍条突出成丝状2尾和不显著突出成丝状3尾共5尾代表样品进行COI条形码分析，获得的这些序列的K2P遗传距离为0.000 0 ~ 0.004 7，并将这些序列与GenBank上已有的土佐鳒鲆序列进行了比对，K2P遗传距离为0.002 3 ~ 0.007 0。基于Hebert等（2003）提出的种间遗传距离通常大于0.02的物种鉴定标准，本研究的分子结果显示，前期鉴定为丝指鳒鲆的本研究样品与土佐鳒鲆不存在种间差异。因此，基于形态特征和COI分子条形码结果均支持本研究样品与丝指鳒鲆和土佐鳒鲆为同一物种，根据《国际动物命名法规》中的优先权原则，丝指鳒鲆应为土佐鳒鲆的次同物异名。土佐鳒鲆为首次在中国大陆发现，故为新记录种。同时，根据本研究11尾样品的形态特征数据并整合前人研究结果对土佐鳒鲆的形态特征进行了再描述。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| [Objectives] In this study, fourteen specimens collected from East China Sea to South China Sea (including Zhejiang, Guangzhou and Hainan province) in recent years were preliminarily identified as Psettina filimana (Li & Wang, 1982) of Psettina in Bothidae according to Fauna Sinica, Osteichthyes, Pleuronectiformes, but the specimens were also found to have the main characters of P. tosana (Amaoka, 1963). Therefore, it is necessary to identify the species of our samples and clarify the relationship between the collected specimens, P. filimana and P. tosana. [Methods] In order to accurately identify these specimens collected from three regions, comparison of morphological characteristics combined with K2P genetic distances based on COI sequences between our specimens and the two type species were used in this study. [Results] Twenty-nine morphological characters of our specimens were compared with 21 or 25 characters in the original descriptions of P. filimana and P. tosana respectively, and 18 characters of the type specimens of the latter two species were also compared to each other. The results showed that the meristic, morphometric and qualitative features of P. tosana were overlapping with, inclusive of or consistent with those of our specimen and P. filimana, respectively. Moreover, the K2P genetic distances of COI sequences of our five specimens with the third fin ray of the left pectoral fin produced to filament or not (the distinguished characters between the two species used by Li & Wang, 1982) were 0.000 0﹣0.004 7; the K2P genetic distances of our sequences aligned with those of P. tosana from GenBank were 0.002 3﹣0.007 0. Based on the criterion for species identification which the interspecific genetic distance usually is greater than 0.02 proposed by Hebert in 2003, the molecular results of this study showed that there were no interspecific differences between our specimens that tentatively identified as P. filimana and P. tosana. [Conclusion] In summary, the comparison of morphological characters and COI barcoding in this study indicated that our specimens, P. tosana and P. filimana were the same species. According to the priority principle in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, P. filimana should be the junior synonym of P. tosana. It is the first time for P. tosana to be reported along the coastal waters of the Chinese mainland, so it is a new record species. A redescription of P. tosana was given based on the data of morphological characters in this and previous studies. |
| 附件 |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
