Limits...
Morphological identification of Lucilia sericata, Lucilia cuprina and their hybrids (Diptera, Calliphoridae).

Williams KA, Villet MH - Zookeys (2014)

Bottom Line: Discriminant function analysis of the characters successfully separated the specimens into three unambiguous groups - L. sericata, L. cuprina and hybrids.This is the first evidence that hybrids of these two species can be identified from their morphology.The usefulness of the morphological characters is also discussed and photographs of several characters are included to facilitate their assessment.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Entomology Department, Durban Natural Science Museum, Durban, South Africa.

ABSTRACT
Hybrids of Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina have been shown to exist in previous studies using molecular methods, but no study has shown explicitly that these hybrids can be identified morphologically. Published morphological characters used to identify L. sericata and L. cuprina were reviewed, and then scored and tested using specimens of both species and known hybrids. Ordination by multi-dimensional scaling indicated that the species were separable, and that hybrids resembled L. cuprina, whatever their origin. Discriminant function analysis of the characters successfully separated the specimens into three unambiguous groups - L. sericata, L. cuprina and hybrids. The hybrids were morphologically similar irrespective of whether they were from an ancient introgressed lineage or more modern. This is the first evidence that hybrids of these two species can be identified from their morphology. The usefulness of the morphological characters is also discussed and photographs of several characters are included to facilitate their assessment.

No MeSH data available.


Number of setae on ‘quadrat’ between the anterior margin and discal setae on the scutellum. Lucilia sericata (A) and Lucilia cuprina (B).
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons-attribution
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4109482&req=5

Figure 4: Number of setae on ‘quadrat’ between the anterior margin and discal setae on the scutellum. Lucilia sericata (A) and Lucilia cuprina (B).

Mentions: The number of setae on the scutellum (Table 2 and Suppl. material 1; Figure 4) in the ‘quadrat’ demarcated by the discal setae and the anterior margin of the scutellum represents the axis in the discriminant analysis that separated Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina (Holloway 1991). This character can be used even when the setae have fallen out because they have sockets that are visible and can be counted. There was overlap in the number of setae between the two species, but generally Lucilia cuprina had obviously fewer setae. The number of setae in the hybrids was not obviously different from either of the pure species. This overlap may be as a result of the challenge of counting the setae as they are not in straight rows.


Morphological identification of Lucilia sericata, Lucilia cuprina and their hybrids (Diptera, Calliphoridae).

Williams KA, Villet MH - Zookeys (2014)

Number of setae on ‘quadrat’ between the anterior margin and discal setae on the scutellum. Lucilia sericata (A) and Lucilia cuprina (B).
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons-attribution
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4109482&req=5

Figure 4: Number of setae on ‘quadrat’ between the anterior margin and discal setae on the scutellum. Lucilia sericata (A) and Lucilia cuprina (B).
Mentions: The number of setae on the scutellum (Table 2 and Suppl. material 1; Figure 4) in the ‘quadrat’ demarcated by the discal setae and the anterior margin of the scutellum represents the axis in the discriminant analysis that separated Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina (Holloway 1991). This character can be used even when the setae have fallen out because they have sockets that are visible and can be counted. There was overlap in the number of setae between the two species, but generally Lucilia cuprina had obviously fewer setae. The number of setae in the hybrids was not obviously different from either of the pure species. This overlap may be as a result of the challenge of counting the setae as they are not in straight rows.

Bottom Line: Discriminant function analysis of the characters successfully separated the specimens into three unambiguous groups - L. sericata, L. cuprina and hybrids.This is the first evidence that hybrids of these two species can be identified from their morphology.The usefulness of the morphological characters is also discussed and photographs of several characters are included to facilitate their assessment.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Entomology Department, Durban Natural Science Museum, Durban, South Africa.

ABSTRACT
Hybrids of Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina have been shown to exist in previous studies using molecular methods, but no study has shown explicitly that these hybrids can be identified morphologically. Published morphological characters used to identify L. sericata and L. cuprina were reviewed, and then scored and tested using specimens of both species and known hybrids. Ordination by multi-dimensional scaling indicated that the species were separable, and that hybrids resembled L. cuprina, whatever their origin. Discriminant function analysis of the characters successfully separated the specimens into three unambiguous groups - L. sericata, L. cuprina and hybrids. The hybrids were morphologically similar irrespective of whether they were from an ancient introgressed lineage or more modern. This is the first evidence that hybrids of these two species can be identified from their morphology. The usefulness of the morphological characters is also discussed and photographs of several characters are included to facilitate their assessment.

No MeSH data available.