基于线粒体12S rRNA和ND5基因序列的中国飞蝗属3亚种系统发育关系研究

对分布于中国的飞蝗Locusta migratoria Linnaeus 3亚种的线粒体12SrDNA(487bp)和ND5(451bp)基因的部分序列进行测定,与已知全线粒体基因组全序列的非洲飞蝗亚种进行序列比较,并在此基础上对ND5基因,以斑腿蝗科瘤喉蝗Parapodisma mikado为外群,重建MP树。基于序列长度的限制,将两基因联合分析重建了1棵最简约无根树。在对准的4个亚种共有的481bp的12SrDNA和451bp的ND5片断序列比较中,AT含量明显高于GC含量。由序列差异来看,哑洲飞蝗和东亚飞蝗序列相似度高,非洲飞蝗和西藏飞蝗相似度高,ND5基因的MP树和联合树也支持这个结论。由于大陆漂移和青藏高原隆起的特殊地质事件,正好解释了非洲飞蝗和西藏飞蝗的相似性,支持西藏飞蝗为单独1亚种,与非洲飞蝗为同一起源地,与其它2亚种相区别。     

中国散居型飞蝗地理种群数量性状变异的分析

本文用模糊聚类分析、系统聚类分析和主成分分析的方法对中国21个散居型飞蝗Locusta migratoria L.Phase Solitaria地理种群的形态测量数据进行了数值分析.这3种分析方法所得的结果是相似的.结果较好地说明了我国21个飞蝗地理种群的地理变异、种群相互关系及亚种的地位.初步确定了我国飞蝗三个亚种的自然地理分界线.陕北的地理种群与陕中、南和华北平原的地理种群非常接近,应认为是东亚飞蝗 L. m. manilensis(Meyen)的一个地理种群.发生基地的散居型飞蝗与一般发生区或扩散区的飞蝗形态特征存在明显差异,作者认为,这是由于发生基地种群密度和生存条件经常处于不稳定状态的结果.主成分分析说明,内蒙古西部的地理种群是介于亚洲飞蝗L. m. migratoria L.和东亚飞蝗L. m. manilensis(Meyen)之间的过渡性种群,但更接近新疆和甘肃的亚洲飞蝗.作者还将E/F、F/C和P/C 3个比值投入运算,这不仅输入了体形的信息,而且也起到给前翅长E、后足股节长F和头宽C加权的作用.作者认为,当在空间和时间上大量连续取样的情况下,飞蝗形态测量学的方法对于确定亚种的地位是比较困难的,这是因为该种固有的多变性和散居型飞蝗在水平和垂直分布上的连续性所造成的.但对于分析地理种群的相互关系方面则显示出优越性.     

分子生态学研究揭示中国飞蝗种群的进化关系

飞蝗是一种重要农业害虫,具有很强的迁飞能力,其分布区比任何其他蝗虫都更广阔,几乎覆盖了东半球的整个温、热带地区。然而,基于生物学或形态学差异,飞蝗仅在中国就鉴定出了3个亚种,而在世界范围内则存在至少9个亚种———这跟其迁飞能力是相矛盾的,学术界对此也一直存留争议。张德兴教授的研究团队（中国科学院动物研究所分子生态学和进化研究组）运用分子生态学的研究手段,从多个独立微卫星DNA位点对覆盖飞蝗中国分布区的25个样点的1300多个标本进行综合分析。他们发现,尽管飞蝗具有很强的迁飞扩散能力,中国的飞蝗确实分为北方种群、南方种群和西藏种群3个具有显著遗传差别的种群,但是与传统认识不同的是,广布于中国中、东部的飞蝗并非东亚飞蝗,而是应隶属于亚洲飞蝗亚种。该研究成果一方面验证了飞蝗经典分类的一些结论,另一方面则指出对由Boris Petrovitch Uvarov（1889~1970）（被学界誉为“蝗虫之父”）在20世纪30年代建立的关于东亚飞蝗的有关权威观点进行修正的必要性。该研究团队还进一步分析飞蝗在中国形成和维持3个具有显著遗传差别的种群的原因,指出：历史生物地理学因素可能是导致形成这3个地理种群的关键原因,特别是更...     

飞蝗(Locusta migratoria)地理种群在中国的遗传分化

随机扩增多态DNA(RAPD)的方法被用于研究中国飞蝗11个地理种群的遗传分化、种群间相互关系以及空间隔离在种群分化中的作用. AMOVA对所有种群变异分析说明包含在种群内的变异(79.55%)显著高于种群间的(20.45%), 种群间分化程度显著; 所有种群划分成四个大的地区组, 组内的变异占总变异的82.99%, 显著高于包含在组间的(17.01%), 地区间的种群分化显 著. 对四个组进行两两比较, 保留在组内的变异都极显著高于组间的变异, 说明这些组间的种群分化显著. 其中, 组间种群差异最大的是海南和西藏种群, 变异约是组内种群间的7倍; 差异最小的是海南与新疆和内蒙古地区, 组间仅是组内种群间的0.5倍. 用遗传距离和空间距离进行Mantel测验发现它们存在极显著的相关性(P<0.01), 说明地理隔离在飞蝗地理种群分化的过程中起重要的作用, 飞蝗地理种群的分化与地理隔离关系密切. 飞蝗种群聚类分成由黄淮平原、新疆和内蒙古、西藏和海南种群组成的四大分支. 主成分分析发现11个种群明显聚集成4簇: 黄淮 平原种群、新疆和内蒙古种群、海南种群和西藏种群. 所有个体聚类则分成5个分支: 黄淮平原种群、海南种群、新疆和内蒙古种群、新疆哈密种群和西藏种群. 飞蝗在中国东部呈明显的连续和梯度变异特点, 进一步划分亚种既不实际也无必要. 对中国主要飞蝗地理种群的亚种地位进行了讨论.     

基于mtCoI基因序列分析秦岭地区耶屁步甲(鞘翅目:步甲科)的谱系地理结构

为揭示秦岭地区耶屁步甲(Pheropsophus jessoensis Morawitz)种群的谱系地理结构,对秦岭2个地理区内25个耶屁步甲地理种群的184个个体的线粒体细胞色素氧化酶亚基Ⅰ (mtCoI)基因部分序列进行了分析.在879 bp个碱基中,共检测到55个变异位点,定义了67个单倍型.单倍型多样性(Hd=0.9550)较高,核苷酸多样性(Pi=0.0049)较低.东、西秦岭地区间和25个地理种群间的平均Kimura 2-parameter (K2P)遗传距离都很小,介于0.0026 ～0.0072.分子变异(AMOVA)和嵌套进化枝谱系地理学分析(NCPA)表明,耶屁步甲的分子变异主要来源于种群内个体间,而东、西两个地区间没有明显的谱系地理结构.错配分布和中性检验分析表明,单倍型之间存在一定的地理关联,距离隔离的限制性基因流以及快速或持续的种群扩张是造成该种目前遗传特征的主要因素.对秦岭地区的耶屁步甲进行种群动态推断,最近一次扩张时间发生0.05 ～ 0.23 Ma,处于更新世晚期,认为可能是第四纪冰期气候的反复变化导致了耶屁步甲现今的遗传格局.     

黑腹滨鹬亚种分类研究进展

黑腹滨鹬Calidris alpina因繁殖季节其腹部有黑斑而得名,是北半球最常见的鸻形目鸟类之一.黑腹滨鹬历史上共命名过11个亚种,经过2次主要的系统厘定后,目前认为分化有10个亚种.亚种间除在量度性状、体色性状和地理分布有区别外,还在换羽模式、线粒体谱系组成等方面有所不同,从而使其成为研究种群分化的理想对象之一.本文介绍了黑腹滨鹬的亚种分类性状、分类修订以及亚种分类系统,并就非繁殖期的相关研究作了概述.由于混群,非繁殖地的亚种鉴定与繁殖地的亚种鉴定在性状的使用侧重上有很大的不同.非繁殖地亚种的划分,以环志回收结果和线粒体DNA谱系组成为主,其它性状为辅.中国究竟有几个亚种分布还需要进一步研究后才能确定.     

欧亚大陆广布物种的谱系地理研究:现状与发展趋势

广布物种的地理分布范围涉及欧亚大陆地区,主要分为4种模式:全球分布模式、全北区分布模式、欧亚大陆中高纬度分布模式以及欧亚大陆中低纬度分布模式.通过比较近年来欧亚大陆广布种的谱系地理学的研究结果,总结得出三种谱系地理格局:(ⅰ)"单一组分"格局;(ⅱ)"东-西组分"格局;(ⅲ)"边域组分"格局.本研究分析了欧亚大陆广布种的谱系地理格局形成的成因,主要包括以下三个方面:(ⅰ)物种本身较强的环境耐受力和扩散能力,以及受到人类的贸易、运输、驯养活动的影响;(ⅱ)东-西相异的更新世冰期气候和内陆干旱带来的影响:欧洲在冰期期间大部分区域被冰盖覆盖,物种退到避难所,间冰期物种从避难所向适宜生存的区域扩张,扩张时间大致在末次冰盛期后;亚洲大部分地区的冰期气候相对较为温和,尤其是亚洲东部并没有被大范围冰川覆盖,冰期对这些地区生物的分布格局影响相对较小;此外,由于更新世青藏高原的快速隆升及亚洲夏季风的增强,促进了欧亚大陆内陆干旱带的形成,从而起到长期生态隔离的作用;(ⅲ)边域种化的影响:种群扩散至分布边缘新环境,由于地理或新环境隔离,遗传漂变在小的隔离种群中固定下来,种群间产生遗传分化.通过分析欧亚大陆广布物种在相同地理、地质历史事件下的应对机制的独特性与一致性规律,有助于深入了解广布种在欧亚大陆的地理种群演化及种系发生的形成机制,能够更好地总结、完善整个欧亚大陆生物物种的谱系地理格局的多样性和普遍规律.最后,从大规模核基因组标记的应用和基于物种的生活史特征的预测谱系地理学两个方面对欧亚大陆广布物种的谱系地理学研究提出了展望.     

基于cyt b基因的长江中上游大鳞马口鱼遗传多样性及谱系生物地理学过程分析

以线粒体cyt b基因为分子标记,对长江上游干流及汉江等9条支流13个地理种群的大鳞马口鱼Opsariichthys macrolepis Yang et Huang进行遗传多样性及种群历史动态分析,并探讨其谱系生物地理学过程。结果显示,414尾大鳞马口鱼样本中共检测到79个单倍型,整体的单倍型多样性(h=0.930 1)和核苷酸多样性(π=0.129 421)均较高。基于单倍型构建的最大似然树和贝叶斯树显示,所有单倍型分为2个谱系(A和B),谱系A分布于中游支流汉江、清江,谱系B分布于长江上游干支流及沅江,表现出东-西方向的空间差异。分子钟估算显示,2个谱系于早更新世(～1.34 Ma)分化。不同地理种群间的遗传分化指数为-0.016 24～0.998 27,除个别种群外,多数地理种群呈现高度分化,说明种群间存在显著的遗传隔离。空间分子方差分析显示,大鳞马口鱼种群具有一定的遗传结构,特别是老鹤河、任河、清江地理种群分化显著。贝叶斯天际线分析显示,大鳞马口鱼各地理种群的扩张和收缩时间为0.01～0.04 Ma,可能与冰期-间冰期旋回有一定关联。推测青藏高原的隆升以及更新世冰期的更迭对长江中上游大鳞马口鱼的遗传分化以及种群动态产生了重大影响。     

新疆博乐和伊犁河谷敏麻蜥的种下分类地位探讨

敏麻蜥Eremias arguta是麻蜥属Eremias在欧亚大陆分布最广的物种之一,主要栖息在欧洲东部和亚洲中部,从罗马尼亚到蒙古国和中国西部的干旱草原和半荒漠中。先前认为敏麻蜥有6个亚种,我国分布有2个亚种,由于种群间形态变异较大,一些亚种的分类地位尚有争议。本研究采用形态比较和基于线粒体细胞色素b基因序列的分子系统发育分析,对新疆博乐和伊犁河谷的敏麻蜥4个种群28号样本进行种下分类地位探讨。联合GenBank中的敏麻蜥细胞色素b基因序列,采用最大简约法、最大似然法和贝叶斯推断法构建系统发育树进行亚种界定。采用贝叶斯因子,通过比较限制性和非限制性贝叶斯树的拓扑结构检验有关敏麻蜥亚种分类的几种相互竞争的假设。结果表明,博乐种群的形态特征与伊犁河谷支系一致,雄性的背侧在繁殖季节有醒目的蓝色或绿色眼点。系统进化树也表明,来自博乐的单倍型属于伊犁河谷支系,为一个尚未描述的分类群Eremias arguta ssp.。以往有关伊犁河谷种群属于指名亚种E.a.arguta或东方亚种E.a.potanini或乌兹别克斯坦亚种E.a.uzbekistanica的观点均被显著拒绝。伊犁河谷支系最有可能与乌兹别克斯坦亚种和伊塞克湖亚种E.a.darevskii二者构成的支系形成姐妹群,但并没有强的证据拒绝备择假说,即伊犁河谷支系位于树的基础位置,与其余支系形成姐妹群。此外,重建的系统发育树中指名亚种与东方亚种形成了交互单系,尽管自展支持率很低且后验概率不高;其备择假设,即东方亚种嵌在指名亚种支系中,也没有很强的证据拒绝。总之,博乐种群不属于东方亚种,而属于一个单独的伊犁河谷支系,同时,这也是伊犁河谷支系在准噶尔盆地有分布的新纪录;伊犁河谷支系不应该被划分为指名亚种、东方亚种或乌兹别克斯坦亚种,而是属于尚未描述的新亚种;伊犁河谷支系的系统发育位置还不明确,需要采用整合分类学的方法澄清。此外,结合形态变异,本研究还讨论了东方亚种的有效性。     

甘肃仓鼠的分类地位

自1928年Allen发表采自甘肃卓尼的甘肃仓鼠(Cansumys canus)以来,对其分类地位的争论就没有停止,不同学者从形态学和生态学方面研究得出了不同的结论。为了确认Allen所命名的甘肃仓鼠的分类地位,本研究利用形态性状和遗传性状,比较研究了甘肃、宁夏标本(包括模式产地标本)与华北、东北大仓鼠标本共计169只。结果显示:甘肃、宁夏地区标本身体及头骨量度与大仓鼠指名亚种、东北亚种间大多无显著性差异;地理分布连续,其间无隔离,也无地理重叠;生态特征与华北、东北的大仓鼠相似;基于线粒体DNA D-loop区序列的遗传变异分析表明,甘肃、宁夏地区种群与大仓鼠东北亚种种群关系较大仓鼠东北亚种种群与指名亚种种群关系更近;单倍型演化关系显示,指名亚种种群和东北亚种种群分别独立地由甘肃种群单倍型衍生而来,并且三个种群单倍型之间的分歧较浅,没有形成种上的分歧程度。据此,甘肃、宁夏地区“甘肃仓鼠”应为大仓鼠甘肃亚种[Cricetulus triton canus(Allen),1928]。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor