Skip Navigation


Journal Molluscan Studies Advance Access originally published online on September 25, 2009
Journal of Molluscan Studies 2009 75(4):381-390; doi:10.1093/mollus/eyp036
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
75/4/381    most recent
eyp036v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carstensen, D.
Right arrow Articles by Held, C.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Carstensen, D.
Right arrow Articles by Held, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Malacological Society of London, all rights reserved

Genetic variability, shell and sperm morphology suggest that the surf clams Donax marincovichi and D. obesulus are one species

Daniel Carstensen1, Jürgen Laudien1, Florian Leese1,2, Wolf Arntz1 and Christoph Held1

1 Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, PO Box 120161, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany; and 2Department of Animal Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstrasse 150, D-44801 Bochum, Germany

Correspondence: D. Carstensen; e-mail: daniel.carstensen{at}awi.de


  Abstract

The taxonomy of two sympatric surf clams Donax marincovichi Coan, 1983 and Donax obesulus Reeve, 1854, inhabiting the coastal Humboldt Current Upwelling System is revisited. Because both species are exploited by artisanal fisheries, it is essential to verify that they are indeed distinct species that have to be managed separately. In this study, both taxa were sampled across their shared distributional area and specimens were indentified according to their respective morphological characteristics. Although width/height and height/length ratios revealed significant differences within sampling areas, the two morphotypes were frequently incongruent for taxonomically important morphometric parameters. In addition, they showed no significant mitochondrial genetic differentiation within or among populations and exhibited indistinguishable sperm ultrastructure. We conclude that the two morphotypes do not represent distinct species and should be included together under D. obesulus.

(Received 22 December 2008; accepted 29 April 2009)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.