Spotting mistakes: Reappraisal of Spotted Drum Stellifer punctatissimus (Meek & Hildebrand, 1925) (Teleostei: Sciaenidae) reveals species misidentification trends and suggests latitudinal sexual dimorphism.

A major part of the described species is understudied, falling into the Linnean shortfall. This is a major concern for cryptic species, which require integrative approaches to better evaluate their diversity. We conducted morphological analyses using specimens of Stellifer punctatissimus, S. gomezi, and S. menezesi to reassess their taxonomical identity. We evaluated the allometric and sexual components of the morphology of the Stellifer punctatissimus species complex, and tested and discussed species hypotheses. The combined evidence of our work and previous studies agrees with the current morphological hypothesis of three species, as opposed to the two-lineage molecular hypothesis. However, as cryptic species, they overlap in most their traits, especially females and juveniles. Previously unaccounted variation of allometric and sexually dimorphic characters in this species complex revealed a confounding effect that might explain past and current taxonomic errors. Taxonomical practice of using body depth as a diagnostic character had led to juveniles and females being, respectively, described as a different species or wrongfully identified. Hence, taxonomical studies demand better assessment of allometric and sexual dimorphism components. Herein, we present new characters in a key to the Atlantic species of Stellifer, which disclose size and sexual variation unnoticed in previous studies. The contrasting growth patterns among these species could imply distinct habitat use. As a result, it could be suggested that such species are under different threats, which highlights the need of differential management and conservation strategies.

Species delimitation by DNA barcoding reveals undescribed diversity in Stelliferinae (Sciaenidae).

Stelliferinae is the third most speciose subfamily of Sciaenidae, with 51 recognized species arranged in five genera. Phylogenies derived from both morphological and molecular data support the monophyly of this subfamily, although there is no general consensus on the intergeneric relationships or the species diversity of this group. We used the barcoding region of the cytochrome oxidase C subunit I (COI) gene to verify the delimitation of Stelliferinae species based on the Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD), Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescence (GMYC), and Bayesian Poisson Tree Process (bPTP) methods. In general, the results of these different approaches were congruent, delimiting 30-32 molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs), most of which coincided with valid species. Specimens of Stellifer menezesi and Stellifer gomezi were attributed to a single species, which disagrees with the most recent review of this genus. The evidence also indicated that Odontoscion xanthops and Corvula macrops belong to a single MOTU. In contrast, evidence also indicates presence of distinct lineages in both Odontoscion dentex and Bairdiella chrysoura. Such results are compatible with the existence of cryptic species, which is supported by the genetic divergence and haplotype genealogy. Therefore, the results of the present study indicate the existence of undescribed diversity in the Stelliferinae, which reinforces the need for an ample taxonomic review of the fish in this subfamily.

Phylogeny of the subfamily Stelliferinae suggests speciation in Ophioscion Gill, 1863 (Sciaenidae: Perciformes) in the western South Atlantic.

Phylogenies based on morphological and molecular data confirm the monophyly of the subfamily Stelliferinae; however, there is no consensus on the intergeneric and interspecific relationships in the group. Previous studies suggested the non-monophyly of Ophioscion and Stellifer, and possible cryptic species in Ophioscion punctatissimus. Therefore, we used mitochondrial (16S rDNA and COI) and nuclear (Rhodopsin, EGR1, and RAG1) regions to examine phylogenetic relationships among species of this subfamily. Our results confirmed the monophyly of Stelliferinae and supports the close relationship among Bardiella, Corvula and Odontoscion, which form a sister group to Stellifer and Ophioscion. Notwithstanding, all the results support the non-monophyly of Stellifer and Ophioscion and we suggest that a taxonomic revision should consider Ophioscion as a junior synonym of Stellifer. Moreover, O. punctatissimus was grouped into two clades, with the O. punctatissimus lineage I (LI) being closer to O. scierus from the eastern Pacific than to the O. punctatissimus lineage II (LII). The most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the O. scierus and O. punctatissimus LI and O. punctatissimus LII clade dates from 7.2 (HPD: 4.3-10.5) Ma, whereas TMRCA for the O. scierus and O. punctatissimus LI clade dates from 5.3 (HPD: 2.4-8.6) Ma, indicating that speciation processes may be related to the rise of the Isthmus of Panama. Phylogeographic analyses corroborate the hypothesis of speciation in O. punctatissimus. These results suggest that lineages of O. punctatissimus originated from distinct ancestors and, by morphological similarity, were considered the same taxon. A taxonomic revision should be performed to validate the species status of such lineages.