It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Sympatric distribution and syntopy are not common in closely related species since sporadic crosses may lead to the formation of hybrid zones disrupting the differentiation of sympatric incipient species. In Central Spain two morphologically similar species of Mediimorda Méquignon, 1946, M. batteni Plaza-Infante, 1985 and M. bipunctata (Germar, 1827) are strictly sympatric. Mediimorda batteni is endemic to the Iberian Peninsula while M. bipunctata is widely distributed in the Western Palaearctic Region. Intriguingly, sympatric distribution among closely related taxa that exhibits little morphological variation is not common. This makes us wonder if we are really facing two independent evolutionary units of Mediimorda as previously proposed or just two phenotypic morphs of a single taxon. To test for this hypothesis, we performed Bayesian and phylogeographic analyses based on mitochondrial (cox1) and nuclear (ITS2) data and estimated divergence time of clades. Additionally, a morphological revision and construction of potential distribution models were included to determine possible niche differences. Our results corroborate the existence of two lineages well differentiated, that probably diverged during the Pliocene. According to the morphology, each clade corresponds to the previously recognized M. batteni and M. bipunctata. The absence of hybridization and ecological segregation suggests that sympatric and syntopic distribution was accomplished long time after the speciation event that separated the two taxa took place. We propose that the divergence between clades was originated by allopatric speciation during the Late Pliocene subsequently followed by range shifts during the Pleistocene climatic oscillations, which resulted in the current syntopy of the two taxa.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Department of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
2 Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
3 Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain; Department of Biodiversity and Conservation, Real Jardín Botánico (RJB-CSIC), Madrid, Spain