Genetic assessment of the variation and distribution of the species of Salinator (Panpulmonata: Amphibolidae) in south-eastern Australia

Donald Colgan; Hugo Lumsdaine

doi:10.3897/BDJ.8.e54724

Biodiversity Data Journal : Research Article

PDF

Research Article

Genetic assessment of the variation and distribution of the species of Salinator (Panpulmonata: Amphibolidae) in south-eastern Australia

Donald Colgan^‡, Hugo Lumsdaine^‡

‡ The Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding author: Donald Colgan (don.colgan@austmus.gov.au)

Academic editor: Cristian Altaba

Received: 26 May 2020 | Accepted: 16 Sep 2020 | Published: 29 Oct 2020

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation: Colgan D, Lumsdaine H (2020) Genetic assessment of the variation and distribution of the species of Salinator (Panpulmonata: Amphibolidae) in south-eastern Australia. Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e54724. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e54724

Abstract

Amphibolidae is one of the most abundant families of gastropods in estuarine environments of south-eastern Australia. However, the range limits of the species of Salinator, one of the family’s two genera in the region, remain unclear partly due to uncertainty of identifications based solely on shell morphology. Insufficient data have been collected to address questions regarding the genetic variability of any of the species of Salinator. Here, DNA sequences from a segment of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and 28S ribosomal RNA genes were collected to investigate the distribution and variation of the three Salinator species in the region, these being S. fragilis, S. rhamphidia and S. tecta. The results demonstrate a large range extension in S. rhamphidia and suggest that S. tecta may have limited distribution in Tasmania. In contrast to previously-studied estuarine Mollusca in the south-eastern coasts of the mainland and Tasmania, S. rhamphidia has regional differentiation. There is evidence of genetic disequilibrium within S. fragilis, suggesting that it may presently comprise contributions from two distinct sets of populations.

Keywords

28S ribosomal RNA, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, Salinator fragilis, Salinator rhamphidia, Salinator tecta, Tasmania

Introduction

The two genera of mudflat snails of the family Amphibolidae Gray, 1840 in southern and eastern Australia include some of the most abundant molluscs of estuarine environments in the region (Golding et al. 2007). These two genera, Salinator Hedley, 1900 and Phallomedusa Golding, Ponder & Byrne, 2007, are apparently endemic, although the former has previously been used to include a number of species from other countries that do not actually belong to it (Golding 2012). Phylogeographic studies of Phallomedusa (Golding et al. 2011) have confirmed the genetic differentiation of its two species and revealed the presence of two deeply-divergent intra-specific clades within P. solida that are both found in most of the species’ range from Tasmania to northern New South Wales. There has been no comparable study of genetic variation in any of the three Salinator species, S. fragilis (Lamarck, 1822), S. rhamphidia Golding, Ponder & Byrne, 2007 and S. tecta Golding, Ponder & Byrne, 2007, occurring in the region. Published molecular data are limited to only a few specimens of each species although, notably, the complete mitochondrial DNA of S. rhamphidia has been sequenced (White et al. 2011).

The morphologies of S. fragilis, S. rhamphidia and S. tecta are similar and the shell characters potentially distinguishing them are limited to the height of the spire and shell size (Golding et al. 2007). Salinator rhamphidia is smaller than the other two species. Golding et al. (2007) did not remark on any shell characters diagnostic for S. fragilis and S. tecta, which are primarily distinguished by pigmentation patterns on the animals’ heads and the structure of the spermovipositor. Golding et al. (2007) found S. rhamphidia only in a restricted range near Sydney, surmising that it has a wider distribution. Subsequent collection has suggested that the species occurs in Queensland (Golding, unpublished Australian Museum Malacology collection identification). Golding has also identified a lot (AMS C.445407) comprising four dead, worn shells collected in 1975 from Pambula Lake in southern New South Wales as belonging to this species. No genetic identification has been made of any specimen outside the Sydney region, although a sequence from a specimen of an unidentified Salinator species collected in southern Queensland (Dinapoli et al. 2011) apparently belongs to this taxon (see below).

This study was conducted to clarify the distribution and variation of the three south-eastern Australian Salinator species, S. fragilis, S. rhamphidia and S. tecta, using genetic data. The study utilised newly-collected sequences from the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) and the nuclear 28S ribosomal RNA (28S rRNA) genes and available COI sequences from GenBank.

Materials and Methods

Materials

Specimens were collected by hand and stored at -80°C or in 95% ethanol until use. Specimens were morphologically identified using a stereomicroscope according to the body pigmentation criteria specified in Golding et al. (2007).

Abbreviations

AMS: Australian Museum Malacology collection.

MAL#: designation of Australian Museum Malacology collection locality

CASIZ: California Academy of Sciences Invertebrate Zoology collection

New collection localities and population designations

See Fig. 1

Figure 1.

Map of collection localities of Salinator specimens. Details of named locations are provided in the text. Localities indicated by filled squares are represented by genetic data. Those with unfilled squares were examined using the morphology of the animal and those with open circles only conchologically. The numbers of specimens of each species’ sequences at a site are indicated next to the species name.

New South Wales:

N1: Port Jackson, Exile Bay, Bayview Park (MAL# 88194), 33°50'37'' S, 151°6'54'' E, 8 Sept 2005.

N2: Cuttagee Lake, estuary to west of the road bridge (MAL#88542), 36°29'16" S, 150°03'04" E, 19/08/2009.

Pittwater, Careel Bay, (MAL# 88529), 33°37'21'' S, 151°19'56'' E, 8/03/2007 (outgroup only)

Tasmania:

T1: Tamar River, west bank, mudflats at Deviot (MAL# 72693), 41°15' S, 146°56' E, 4 April 2007.

T2: Henderson Lagoon, south bank at Falmouth (MAL# 76559), 41°30' S, 148°16' E, 3 April 2007

T3: Snug, mudflats, estuary immediately S of town, upstream of bridge (MAL# 76557), 43°4'23'' S, 147°15'22'' E, 2 April 2007.

GenBank Accessions

S. tecta: JF439218 (Golding et al. 2011) Victoria, Aireys Inlet, 38°27'54" S, 144°5'38" E

S. fragilis: JQ228488: C.472898 (Golding 2012) (see details above for MAL# 76559); JQ228489: C.472900 (Golding 2012), from MAL# 72693 (details above).

S. rhamphidia: JN620539 (White et al. 2011), NSW, Church Point, 33°39'10"S, 151°17'12"E (CASIZ 180470, lot of 18 specimens); HQ660003 (Dayrat et al. 2011), NSW Church Point 33°39'10"S, 151°17'12"E; JX680976 (Colgan and Da Costa 2013a), (MAL# 72693); GU331961, (Dinapoli et al. 2011), Australia, Queensland, Dunwich; JQ228487 (Golding 2012) Australia, New South Wales, Careel Bay, Pittwater, 33°37' S, 151°19' E (AMS C.472894).

S. rosacea: JQ228476 (AMS C.463440) and JQ228475 (AMS C.472902) both from Golding (2012), Australia, Northern Territory; EF489381 (Klussmann-Kolb et al. 2008), Australia, Northern Territory.

Methods

DNA was extracted using the QIAGEN DNeasy Blood and Tissue Extraction kit following the manufacturer’s instructions. PCR amplifications generally followed the procedures in Golding et al. (2011) except that the QIAGEN TopTaq kit was used. Reactions were performed in 50 µl of a solution comprising 25 µl Top Taq master mix (with 1.25 units of TopTaq DNA polymerase), 18.75 µl water, 5 µl 10x concentrate of CoralLoad, 0.125 µl of each primer (at 100 pM/µl) and 1 µl DNA.

Data were collected from parts of the COI and 28S rRNA genes. COI was amplified using the universal primers of Folmer et al. (1994) at an annealing temperature of 43–45°C. The 28S rRNA fragment was amplified using the 28SAF primer (Colgan et al. 2007) and the reverse complement of primer 28S D6 of Colgan et al. (2007) at an annealing temperature of 50°C. The reaction products were treated with ExoSAP-IT (USB Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio) in preparation for sequencing at Macrogen (Geumchun-Gu, Korea) which was conducted in both directions using the original primers singly.

Chromatograms were examined in Sequencher version 5.4.5 (Gene Codes Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI). The dataset, comprising new sequences and GenBank data, was aligned in ClustalX (Thompson et al. 1997). BioEdit (Hall 1999) was used for visual examination of data.

Various phylogenetic analyses were conducted, although only the Maximum Likelihood (ML) analyses are reported in detail below. These were performed on the CIPRES data portal (Miller et al. 2008) using the RAxML Blackbox (Stamatakis et al. 2008) with default assumptions (not using empirical data frequencies, no invariable sites). The numbers of required rapid bootstrap replicates were calculated by the majority rules extended (“MRE”) bootstopping criterion (Pattengale et al. 2010) with the cutoff threshold of 0.03 recommended by Stamatakis (2016). Trees were examined using Figtree v. 1.4.2. (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/).

Net pairwise Kimura 2-parameter genetic distances (Kimura 1980) between groups or species were calculated in MEGA 7 (Kumar et al. 2016). The rate variation amongst sites was modelled with a gamma distribution (shape parameter = 1). All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair. DnaSP ver. 5.10.01 (Librado and Rozas 2009) was used to calculate measures of genetic variability including haplotype and nucleotide diversity and Tajima's D and Fu's Fs statistics. The probability of obtaining observed values of the D statistic was reported directly by DnaSP and that of the Fs statistic was estimated by coalescent simulation in DNaSP using 1000 replicates.

Statistical parsimony analyses of the COI data were conducted with TCS 1.21 (Clement et al. 2000) using version 1.7 of the PopART interface (Leigh and Bryant 2015). Alignment positions (62) having more than five percent of sequences missing data were excluded from the analysis.

Data Resources

The GenBank accession numbers for the newly-collected sequences are MT356194 – MT356226 for COI and MT348593 – MT348598 for 28S rRNA.

Suppl. material 1: COI_aligned_fas.fas

The alignment of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I sequences used here. Sequences are identified by the Australian Museum registration number or GenBank accession number.

Suppl. material 2: 28SA_aligned_names.fas

The alignment of the 28S ribosomal sequences used here. Sequences are identified by the Australian Museum registration number or GenBank accession number.

Results

The alignment of COI sequences (Suppl. material 1) had a length of 655 bases, of which 481 were invariable within the group comprising S. fragilis, S. rhamphidia and S. tecta and 174 variable, including 164 that were parsimony informative. The RAxML analysis of these data was conducted for 708 rapid bootstraps as determined by the bootstopping criterion and the resultant topology (Fig. 2) had a ln Likelihood of -2531.90. Each of the three species received 100% bootstrap support in the analysis. Although S. fragilis and S. tecta were shown as sister groups, there was not strong support for any interspecific grouping within Salinator. Some structure was apparent within the three species. The sequences from the two populations of S. tecta which were sampled, were resolved as sister groups, with strong bootstrap support. The mainland samples of S. rhamphidia comprised a strongly-supported clade that did not include Tasmanian specimens. The latter did not form a clade in the analysis, although they are clearly more closely related to each other than to any of the mainland sequences, with a maximum Kimura 2-parameter distance of 0.011 between Tasmanian sequences compared to a minimum distance from these to mainland sequences of 0.022. The placement of the GenBank accession GU331961 (which was not assigned to a species in the database) strongly supported this specimen to belong to the species S. rhamphidia.

Figure 2.

Maximum Likelihood phylogeny of the relationships between Salinator species from the RAxML analysis. Bootstrap percentages above 70% are shown above or below branches. Lines to the right of the sequence names specify groups 1 and 2, the two major sub-networks recovered amongst S. fragilis in the TCS analysis of the data. Sequences are identified by the GenBank accession number followed by a geographic locator. Sequences collected here are identified by N1 (see Materials and Methods for details) for individuals from Exile Bay, N2 for those from Cuttagee Lake, T1 from Deviot, T2 from Falmouth and T3 from Snug. Sequences from localities in other studies are located by an abbreviation of the name of the relevant State.

There was no geographic pattern of variation within S. fragilis, but there was one large clade within the species that received considerable bootstrap support (85%). TCS analysis revealed two large sub-networks in the species that were separated by three mutational changes (Fig. 3). These were designated as Group 1 and Group 2, the latter corresponding to the bootstrap-supported ML clade. Each of these two Groups had only one haplotype that was found in multiple individuals. Each of these two haplotypes were associated with multiple, closely-related haplotypes. Both Groups 1 and 2 were found in all Tasmanian populations. The sequence of AMS C.583662.001 (accession MT356211) was related to Group 1, but we have not included it in the Group as it was indirectly joined through a vertex that linked S. fragilis to the remainder of the network. The TCS analysis was also notable for the large number of mutational steps (minimum 11) between the mainland and Tasmanian samples of S. rhamphidia.

Figure 3.

TCS analysis of the COI sequences prepared by the PopART graphical interface. The figures beside branches specify the number of mutational steps between network elements. Branches lacking figures represent one step. The provenance of sequences is colour-coded according to the legend. Abbreviations in parentheses in the legend indicate the newly-collected localities, detailed in the Materials and Methods. The numbers of occurrences of a haplotype is proportional to the size of the circle representing it. All but three haplotypes occurred only once. The specimens with a haplotype found in multiple individuals (shown by larger circles) are indicated by the accession numbers in the box nearest their symbol.

Average pairwise distances within species were similar for S. tecta and S. rhamphidia, but somewhat lower for S. fragilis (Table 1). The average distance between Tasmanian S. rhamphidia was 0.007 ± 0.003 which was similar to the level in S. fragilis. The average distance between mainland and Tasmanian samples of S. rhamphidia was 0.024 ± 0.006 and, within mainland specimens, it was 0.003 ± 0.001. Within S. tecta, the average distance between the samples from NSW and Victoria was 0.022 ± 0.006.

Table 1.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Estimates of pairwise genetic distance within species and net pairwise genetic distance between species. Analyses were conducted using the Kimura 2-parameter model. Standard error estimates are shown above the diagonal for inter-species comparisons and after the distance measure for intra-species comparisons.

Species	S. fragilis	S. rhamphidia	S. tecta	S. rosacea	P. solida
S. fragilis	0.007 ± 0.002	0.244	0.021	0.028	0.027
S. rhamphidia	0.028	0.014 ± 0.004	0.025	0.027	0.028
S. tecta	0.203	0.225	0.012 ± 0.003	0.024	0.024
S. rosacea	0.251	0.268	0.221	0.011 ± 0.003	0.025
P. solida	0.224	0.243	0.206	0.212	0.055 ± 0.01

The genetic diversity measures (Table 2) suggest that it might be considered whether S. fragilis and S. tecta have more haplotypes and less nucleotide variability than would be expected under neutral models of molecular evolution. However, the values of Tajima’s D statistic were not significant for either species, nor was Fu’s Fs statistic significant for S. tecta. In contrast, this statistic did indicate significant departures from neutrality for S. fragilis.

Table 2.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Measures of genetic variability in Salinator species from south-eastern Australia. The columns specify the number of sequences from the species, the number of distinct haplotypes amongst these, the haplotype diversity (Hd) and the nucleotide diversity (Nd). The final two columns show the values of the Tajima’s D and Fu’s Fs statistics, with the probability that these values conform to the expectations of selective neutrality.

Species	n	Number of haplotypes	Hd	Nd	Tajima’s D	Fu’s Fs
S. fragilis	26	19	0.976	0.00757	-1.77465 0.10 > P > 0.05	-15.274 P = 0.000
S. rhamphidia	11	7	0.818	0.01436	0.23394 P > 0.10	0.893 P = 0.684
S. tecta	5	5	1.000	0.01063	-1.22485 P > 0.10	-0.875 P = 0.15246

The same sequence of the ribosomal RNA fragment (Suppl. material 2) was seen in both S. tecta (one sequence from AMS C.583693.001) and S. rhamphidia (two specimens from Exile Bay: AMS C.583655.001 and AMS C.583656.001 and two from Snug: AMS C.583660.001 and AMS C.583661.001). Small differences from this sequence were observed in S. fragilis. Two Group 2 specimens (AMS C.583675.001 and AMS C.583676.001) differed only in having a single base insert, which was heterozygous in the former and homozygous in the latter and which was not seen in any other sequences. The other four specimens of S. fragilis (including members of both Groups 1 and 2) differed from the S. tecta/S. rhamphidia sequence only at one polymorphic base.

Discussion

The DNA sequencing results provide novel insights into the distribution of Salinator taxa in south-eastern Australia and confirm the unexpected presence of S. rhamphidia in Tasmania, representing a considerable extension of the species’ confirmed range. The strongly-supported inclusion of the unidentified GenBank sequence (GU331961) from Queensland in S. rhamphidia also represents a large extension of the genetically-confirmed range of the species. There is genetic divergence between Tasmania and mainland specimens of the species. This contrasts with previous comparisons of specimens of estuarine gastropods from Tasmania and the Australian mainland which have not identified regionally-restricted clades. The comparisons include studies of Austrocochlea constricta (Lamarck, 1822) (Colgan and Schreiter 2011, Colgan 2019a), Ophicardelus ornatus (Férussac, 1821) and Pleuroloba quoyi (H. Adams & A. Adams, 1855) (Colgan and Da Costa 2013b) and Phallomedusa solida (Martens, 1878) (Golding et al. 2011) in which, notably, both of its deeply divergent clades are found commonly in both Tasmania and the mainland’s east coast. The differences between S. rhamphidia specimens from Tasmania and the mainland suggest that regional partitioning of genetic variation can occur despite the homogenising effects of the East Australia Current (Murray-Jones and Ayre 1997, Colgan 2016).

Sympatry at the local level was observed for S. tecta and S. rhamphidia by Golding et al. (2007). The results here show that S. rhamphidia and S. fragilis are widely sympatric in Tasmania. The distributions of S. fragilis and S. tecta do overlap (Golding et al. 2007), but it is not confirmed that the taxa occur sympatrically. The true abundance of S. tecta in Tasmania cannot yet be assessed. No specimens were found amongst those sequenced here. Only one Tasmanian individual referred to as the species (AMS C.446515) has been investigated anatomically by Golding et al. (2007). Previous genetic evidence of the species presence in the State is based on a misidentification, as the sequence (JX680976) of the specimen (AMS C.467074), previously supposed to represent S. tecta (Colgan and Da Costa 2013a), is shown here to belong to S. rhamphidia.

There is considerable genetic diversity within each of the three species of Salinator. Statistical tests show that, at least for S. fragilis, this differs significantly from the expectations of neutral evolution. The negative value of the Fu’s Fs statistic for this species suggests that it has undergone recent population expansion. Such a situation has also been observed in other Mollusca in south-eastern Australia (Golding et al. 2011, Colgan and Da Costa 2013b, Colgan 2019b). One possible explanation is the isolating effect of the landbridge formation across Bass Strait at glacial maxima (Waters et al. 2005). The variation of both COI and 28S rRNA genes within Salinator fragilis is consistent with the suggestion that the species presently comprises genetic contributions from two or more differentiated sets of populations. This is supported by the separation of the members of the species in the TCS analysis into two star-like sub-networks. There is, however, no direct evidence as to whether the three mutational steps between the haplotypes at the centre of each "star" reflect haplotype loss during glacially-induced isolation.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Tina Reutelshöfer and Pam Da Costa for technical assistance. We also thank Tina for fieldwork and collection assistance.

Hosting institution

The Australian Museum

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest

References

Clement M, Posada D, Crandall K (2000)

TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies

Molecular Ecology

1657

‑

1659

. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01020.x

Colgan DJ, Ponder WF, Beacham E, Macaranas J (2007)

Molecular phylogenetics of Caenogastropoda (Gastropoda: Mollusca)

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

717

‑

737

. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.009

Colgan DJ, Schreiter S (2011)

Extrinsic and intrinsic influences on the phylogeography of the Austrocochlea constricta species group

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

3971

‑

. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2010.11.003

Colgan DJ, Da Costa P (2013a)

Possible drivers of biodiversity generation in the Siphonaria of southeastern Australia

Marine Biodiversity

‑

. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-012-0127-2

Colgan DJ, Da Costa P (2013b)

Recent evolutionary dynamism in three pulmonate gastropods from southeastern Australia

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

128

‑

. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.04.016

Colgan DJ (2016)

Marine and estuarine phylogeography of the coasts of south-eastern Australia

Marine and Freshwater Research

1597

‑

1610

. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF151

Colgan DJ (2019a)

Inter-boundary comparison between Bass Strait and southeastern Tasmania reveals taxon-specific effects of phylogeographic determinants in marine Mollusca

Regional Studies in Marine Science

10449

. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2018.100449

Colgan DJ (2019b)

Population genetic instability and the phylogeography of the mussel Austromytilus rostratus (Dunker, 1857) (Bivalvia: Mytilidae)

Marine Biodiversity

887

‑

896

. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-018-0872-y

Dayrat B, Conrad M, Balayan S, White TR, Albrecht C, Golding R, Gomes SR, Harasewych MG, de Frias Martins AM (2011)

Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of pulmonate gastropods (Mollusca) New insights from increased taxon sampling

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

425

‑

437

. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.02.01

Dinapoli A, Zinssmeister C, Klussmann-Kolb A (2011)

New insights into the phylogeny of the Pyramidellidae (Gastropoda)

Journal of Molluscan Studies

‑

. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyq027

Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994)

DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates

Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology

294

‑

299

Golding RE, Ponder WF, Byrne M (2007)

Taxonomy and anatomy of Amphiboloidea (Gastropoda: Heterobranchia: Archaeopulmonata)

Zootaxa

1476

‑

. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1476.1.1

Golding RE, Colgan DJ, Nelmes G, Reutelshöfer T (2011)

Sympatry and allopatry in the deeply divergent mitochondrial DNA clades of the estuarine pulmonate gastropod genus Phallomedusa (Mollusca, Gastropoda)

Marine Biology

158

1259

‑

1269

. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1646-2

Golding RE (2012)

Molecular phylogenetic analysis of mudflat snails (Gastropoda: Euthyneura: Amphiboloidea) supports an Australasian centre of origin

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

‑

. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.12.016

Hall TA (1999)

BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT

Nucleic Acids Research Symposium Series

‑

Kimura M (1980)

A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences

Journal of Molecular Evolution

111

‑

120

. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731581

Klussmann-Kolb A, Dinapoli A, Kuhn K, Streit B, Albrecht C (2008)

From sea to land and beyond new insights into the evolution of euthyneuran Gastropoda (Mollusca)

BMC Evolutionary Biology

. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-8-57

Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016)

MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 70 for bigger datasets

Molecular Biology and Evolution

1870

‑

1874

. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054

Leigh JW, Bryant D (2015)

PopART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

(

1110

‑

1116

. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12410

Librado P, Rozas J (2009)

DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data

Bioinformatics

1451

‑

1452

. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187

Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2008)

Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees.

In: Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (Ed.)

Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop

New Orleans

14 Nov 2010

pp. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129

Murray-Jones SE, Ayre DJ (1997)

High levels of gene flow in the surf bivalve Donax deltoides (Bivalvia: Donacidae) on the east coast of Australia

Marine Biology

128

‑

. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270050071

Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds OR, Moret BM, Stamatakis A (2010)

How many bootstrap replicates are necessary?

Journal of Computational Biology

337

‑

354

. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb20090179

Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J (2008)

A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web-servers

Systematic Biology

758

‑

771

. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802429642

Stamatakis A (2016)

The RAxML v8.2.X Manual.

Accessed 18 August 2020

. URL: https://cme.h-its.org/exelixis/resource/download/NewManual.pdf

Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997)

The CLUSTAL X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools

Nucleic Acids Research

4876

‑

4882

. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.24.4876

Waters JM, King TM, O'Loughlin PM, Spencer HG (2005)

Phylogeographical disjunction in abundant high dispersal littoral gastropods

Molecular Ecology

2789

‑

280

. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02635.x

White TR, Conrad MM, Tseng R, Balayan S, Golding R, de Frias Martins AM, Dayrat BA (2011)

Ten new complete mitochondrial genomes of pulmonates (Mollusca: Gastropoda) and their impact on phylogenetic relationships

BMC Evolutionary Biology

295

. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-295

Supplementary materials

Suppl. material 1: COI_aligned_fas.fas

Authors: Donald Colgan and Hugo Lumsdaine

Data type: DNA sequence alignment

Brief description:

The alignment of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I sequences used here. Sequences are identified by Australian Museum registration number or GenBank accession number.

Download file (30.21 kb)

Suppl. material 2: 28SA_aligned_names.fas

Authors: Donald Colgan and Hugo Lumsdaine

Data type: DNA squence alignment

Brief description:

The alignment of the 28S ribosomal sequences used here. Sequences are identified by Australian Museum registration number or GenBank accession number.

Download file (5.65 kb)

Endnotes