Scientia Marina, Vol 76, No 2 (2012)

A contribution to the understanding of phylogenetic relationships among species of the genus Octopus (Octopodidae: Cephalopoda)


https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.03365.03B

María Soledad Acosta-Jofré
Cátedra de Ecología Marina, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina

Ricardo Sahade
Cátedra de Ecología Marina, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina

Jürgen Laudien
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany

Marina B. Chiappero
Cátedra de Genética de Poblaciones y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina

Abstract


Many species of the genus Octopus are important resources for fisheries worldwide. Its approximately 200 species show a strong similarity in structural morphology and a wide diversity in skin coloration and patterning, behaviour and life strategies that have hampered the study of phylogenetic relationships. We used a Bayesian approach to estimate as yet unknown phylogenetic relationships among O. tehuelchus from the southwestern Atlantic, new specimens of O. mimus (Chile and Peru) and other Octopus species, and used Bayes factors to test phylogenetic hypotheses. O. tehuelchus was more closely related to the genera Callistoctopus, Grimpella and Macroctopus than to Octopus, and therefore its generic placement may need a revision. O. vulgaris specimens from Costa Rica (Pacific Ocean) and O. oculifer grouped with O. mimus. Bayes factors showed positive evidence in favor of this grouping and therefore these individuals could have been misidentified, being in fact O. mimus. O. vulgaris specimens from the Costa Rican Caribbean were more related to O. mimus than to other O. vulgaris and could represent a cryptic species. The remaining O. vulgaris clustered with O. tetricus. Bayes factors found strong evidence against the monophyly of O. vulgaris as currently defined, giving statistical support to the monophyly of an O. vulgaris s. str. + O. tetricus group proposed previously by other authors.

Keywords


Octopus mimus; Octopus tehuelchus; phylogeny; cytochrome oxidase subunit III; Bayes factors

Full Text:


PDF

References


Akasaki T., Nikaido M., Tsuchiya K., Segawa S., Hasegawa M., Okada N. 2006. Extensive mitochondrial gene arrangements in coleoid Cephalopoda and their phylogenetic implications. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 38: 648-658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.10.018 PMid :16442311

Allcock A., Strugnell J., Prodöhl P., Piatkowski U., Vecchione M. 2007. A new species of Pareledone (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) from Antarctic Peninsula Waters. Polar Biol. 30: 883-893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0248-9

Barriga Sosa I.A., Beckenbach K., Hartwick B., Smith M.J. 1995. The molecular phylogeny of five eastern north Pacific Octopus species. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 4: 163-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1995.1016

Bonnaud L., Boucher-Rodoni R., Monnerot M. 1997. Phylogeny of cephalopods inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7 (1): 44-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1996.0366 PMid :9007019

Cardoso F., Villegas P., Estrella C. 2004. Observaciones sobre la biología de Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) en la costa peruana. Rev. Peru. Biol. 11: 45-50.

Carlini D.B., Young R.E., Vecchione M. 2001. A Molecular Phylogeny of the Octopoda (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) Evaluated in Light of Morphological Evidence. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21 (3): 388-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mpev.2001.1022 PMid :11741381

Edgar R.C. 2004. MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. Bioinformatics 5: 113-131. http://www.drive5.com/muscle. PMid :15318951    PMCid:517706

Guerra A., Cortez T., Rocha F. 1999. Redescripción del pulpo de los changos, Octopus mimus Gould, 1835, del litoral chileno-peruano (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Iberus 17(2): 37-57.

Guerra A., Roura A., González A.F., Pascual S., Cherel Y., Pérez-Losada M. 2010. Morphological and genetic evidence that Octopus vulgaris (Couvier, 1797) inhabits Amsterdam and Saint Paul Islands (southern Indian Ocean). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67: 1401-1407.

Guzik M.T., Norman M.D., Crozier R.H. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the benthic shallow-water octopuses (Cephalopoda: Octopodinae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37:235-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.05.009 PMid :16009571

Hochberg F.G., Nixon M., Toll R.B. 1992. Order Octopoda Leach, 1818. In: Sweeney M.J., Roper C.F.E., Mangold K.M., Clarke M.R., Boletzky S.V. (eds), “Larval” and Juvenile Cephalopods: A Manual for Their Identification. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 513, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 213-280.

Iribarne O.O. 2009. Life history and distribution of the small south-western Atlantic octopus, Octopus tehuelchus (d’Orbigny). J. Zool. 223: 459-565.

Jassoud, A.F.J. 2010. Genetic differentiation of eastern and western Atlantic Octopus vulgaris. MSc. thesis, University of Puerto Rico, 34 pp.

Kass R., Raftery A. 1995. Bayes factors and model uncertainty. JASA 90: 773-795.

Leite T.S., Haimovici M., Molina W., Warnke K. 2008. •Morphological and genetic description of Octopus insularis, a new cryptic species in the Octopus vulgaris complex (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) from the tropical Southwestern Atlantic. J. Molluscan Stud. 74: 63-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eym050

Maniatis T., Fritsh E.F., Sambrook J. 1982. Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 545 pp.

McCarthy C. 1998. Chromas ver. 1.45. School of Health Science, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. http://www.technelysium.com.au/chromas.html

Newton M.A., Raftery A.E. 1994. Approximate Bayesian inference by the weighted likelihood bootstrap (with discussion). J. R. Statist. Soc. B 56: 3-48.

Norman M.D., Hochberg F.G. 2005. The current state of Octopus taxonomy. Phuket Mar. Biol. Cent. Res. Bull. 66: 127-154.

Nylander J.A. 2004. MrModeltest. Program distributed by the author. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University.

Nylander J.A., Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P., Nieves-Aldrey J.L. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53: 47-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150490264699 PMid :14965900

Ó Foighil D.O., Smith M.J. 1995. Evolution of asexuality in the cosmopolitan marine Lasaea. Evolution 49: 140-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2410300

Robson G.C. 1929. A monograph of the Recent Cephalopoda. Part I, Octopodinae. Order of the Trustees of the British Museum, London, pp. 236.

Rocha F., Vega M.A. 2003. Overview of cephalopod fisheries in Chilean waters. Fish. Res. 60: 151-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00080-2

Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19: 1572-1574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 PMid :12912839

Roper C.F.E., Hochberg F.G. 1988. Behavior and systematics of cephalopods from Lizard Island, Australia, based on color and body patterns. Malacologia 29: 153-194.

Söller R., Warnke K., Saint-Paul U., Blohm D. 2000. Sequence divergence of mitochondrial DNA indicates cryptic biodiversity in Octopus vulgaris and supports the taxonomic distinctiveness of Octopus mimus (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae). Mar. Biol. 136: 29-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002270050004

Strugnell J., Norman M., Jackson J., Drummond A.J., Cooper A. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of coleoid cephalopods (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) using a multigene approach; the effect of data partitioning on resolving phylogenies in a Bayesian framework. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37: 426-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.03.020 PMid :15935706

Strugnell J., Voight J.R., Collins P.C., Allcock A.L. 2009. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of a known and a new hydrothermal vent octopod: their relationships with the genus Benthoctopus (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae). Zootaxa 2096: 442-459.

Tavaré S. 1986. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lec. Math. Life Sci. 17: 57-86.

Teske P.R., Oosthuizen A., Papadopoulos I., Baker N.P. 2007. Phylogeographic structure of Octopus vulgaris in South Africa revisited: identification of a second lineage near Durban harbour. Mar. Biol. 151: 2119-2122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00227-007-0644-x

Voight J.R. 1994. Morphological variation in shallow-water octopuses (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). J. Zool. 232: 491-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1994.tb01590.x

Warnke K., Söller R., Blohm D., Saint-Paul U. 2004. A new look at geographic and phylogenetic relationships within the species group surrounding Octopus vulgaris (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): indications of very wide distribution from mitochondrial DNA sequences. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 306-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2004.00277.x




Copyright (c) 2012 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Contact us scimar@icm.csic.es

Technical support soporte.tecnico.revistas@csic.es