Crossaster japonicus Fell 1958
The significance of Crossaster japonicus and Northern Hemisphere species Fell (1958) identified sufficient similarity between Crossaster multispinus and the North Pacific Crossaster japonicus (Fisher, 1911) to argue that the latter was a synonym of the former. This was met with disagreement by Rowe...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8092146 http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387E8661FFFCCFF68E48B8553FB8E |
| Summary: | The significance of Crossaster japonicus and Northern Hemisphere species Fell (1958) identified sufficient similarity between Crossaster multispinus and the North Pacific Crossaster japonicus (Fisher, 1911) to argue that the latter was a synonym of the former. This was met with disagreement by Rowe & Gates (1995) who returned the two species to their original status. O’Hara (1998) agreed with Rowe & Gates (1995) in further retaining the two species as separate. A phylogenetic treatment using mitochondrial and nuclear genes surveyed North Atlantic Crossaster papposus and Crossaster squamatus (D̂derlein, 1900), including exemplars of Southern Hemisphere Crossaster multispinus and Crossaster campbellicus in their analysis of Northern Hemisphere species (Ringvold & Moum 2020) concluding that they were closely related and possibly sister species. Crossaster japonicus was not among the species surveyed but has been historically considered as morphologically similar to Crossaster papposus (Fisher, 1911). In contrast Mah & Foltz (2011b) found Crossaster multispinus, Crossaster borealis , and Crossaster papposus on three separate clades suggesting that the northern and southern Crossaster species are very different from one another. Molecular phylogenetic reviews have shown varying results when comparing asteroid species in the same genus from northern and southern hemispheres. Porania , sensu Clark & Downey (1992) included Arctic and Antarctic species. However, following phylogenetic work by Mah & Foltz (2014) this was found to be paraphyletic, including two divergent lineages resulting in the Antarctic taxon being returned to the genus Glabraster . In contrast, a phylogenetic overview of Hippasteria species (Foltz et al . 2013; Mah et al . 2014) in northern and southern hemispheres revealed that multiple species were part of a widely distributed single species. More robust sampling of relevant Northern and Southern Hemisphere species will be necessary to more fully test relationships between ... |
|---|