Taxonomy of Gila in the lower Colorado River basin of Arizona and New Mexico
A publication by Moran et al. (2017) on species of Gila in the Gila River basin appeared after our paper was in press. The goal of their study was to test whether previously used morphological characters could differentiate G. robusta, G. intermedia, and G. nigra from one another, and if not, to discover methods that are better suited for identifying these species based on morphology. The study found that the variables proposed by Rinne (1976) and Minckley and DeMarais (2000) could not be used to identify individuals to species but that geometric morphometrics could be used to differentiate the species. The study used canonical variate analysis, which requires a priori designation of groups and maximizes differences among these groups. Because of this, and noting the clear effect of geographic location on morphological variation in Gila, the authors concluded that "it is difficult to decide if the three species should be retained as valid, recognized as a single species, or considered as subspecies." We view this study, while interesting and well conceived, as another that failed to recognize populations of G. robusta as belonging to more than one species.
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Texto biblioteca |
| Language: | eng |
| Subjects: | Gila, Peces de agua dulce, Variación morfológica, Taxonomía de peces, |
| Online Access: | http://afs.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03632415.2017.1356108 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | A publication by Moran et al. (2017) on species of Gila in the Gila River basin appeared after our paper was in press. The goal of their study was to test whether previously used morphological characters could differentiate G. robusta, G. intermedia, and G. nigra from one another, and if not, to discover methods that are better suited for identifying these species based on morphology. The study found that the variables proposed by Rinne (1976) and Minckley and DeMarais (2000) could not be used to identify individuals to species but that geometric morphometrics could be used to differentiate the species. The study used canonical variate analysis, which requires a priori designation of groups and maximizes differences among these groups. Because of this, and noting the clear effect of geographic location on morphological variation in Gila, the authors concluded that "it is difficult to decide if the three species should be retained as valid, recognized as a single species, or considered as subspecies." We view this study, while interesting and well conceived, as another that failed to recognize populations of G. robusta as belonging to more than one species. |
|---|