8 fish bol 5

1. Barcoding Marine Fishes: A Three-Ocean Perspective

2. Barcoding All Marine Fishes – 15 000 Species
Target = 15 000 species
Barcoding All Marine Fishes

3. Recovering Barcodes from Fishes
Taxonomic Coverage
530 Species (3.5%)
317 Genera (10.5%)
130 Families (32%)
28 Orders (55%)
5’ 3’
648-bp
Fish F1
Fish F2 Fish R2
Fish R1
Fish Forward Fish Reverse

4. Distribution Map
Canada Australia South Africa Portugal
Pacific Indian Atlantic
Collection Site

5. Within Region Analysis

6. Within Region: South Africa (254 species)
Conspecific
X = 0.61 ± 0.12 %
Congeneric
X = 13.86 ± 0.22 %
97%
96%

7. Within Region: Portugal (45 species)
Conspecific
X = 0.29 ± 0.04 %
Congeneric
X = 10.92 ± 0.51 %
100%
99%

8. Within Region: Canada (52 species)
Conspecific
X = 0.48 ± 0.08 %
Congeneric
X = 3.96 ± 0.05%
96%
90%

9. COI Divergences (%)
98% Species Possessed Unique Barcodes

10. Potentially Overlooked Diversity (Within Region)
Conspecific
97%
99%
96%
X = 5.64 ± 0.07%

11. Apparent Sequence Sharing
Region % Sequence Sharing
Canada 0.84%
South Africa 1.08%
Australia 0.14%
Portugal -
Overall 0.40%
Explanations:
3)Problematic Taxonomy
4)Error
●
Laboratory
●
Misidentification
5)Identical Barcodes
●
Introgressive hybrization
●
Recently diverged taxa
E. rivulatus
E. tukula

12. Apparent Sequence Sharing
Congeneric
96%
100%
90%
E. rivulatus
E. tukula
Single Aberrant Specimen
17%

13. A
B
A
B
Morphologically Problematic Taxa - Sebastes
Sebastes crameri
Sebastes reedi
Sebastes zacentrus
Sebastes wilsoni
B

14. Specimen Vouchering
Whole Specimen
•South Africa
•Portugal
Tissue and Image
•Canada
Tissue Only
•Australia

15. Between Region Analysis

16. Potentially Overlooked Diversity (Between Regions)
•25 Species
–6 Pelagic
–19 Reef/Inshore
South Africa vs. Australia
2%

17. Offshore Pelagics
Reef Associated
Range = 0 – 0.62 %
Range = 1.95 – 16 %
16.00 ± 0.04Parupeneus heptacanthus
15.96 ± 0.09Otolithes ruber
15.71 ± 0.13Chelidonichthys kumu
14.19 ± 2.03Monodactylus argenteu
11.03 ± 0.07Platycephalus indicus
10.39 ± 0.17Parupeneus indicus
10.01 ± 0.03Rhabdosargus sarba
9.38 ± 0.05Acanthopagrus berda
9.29 ± 0.34Alopias vulpinus
5.30 ± 0.09Argyrops spinifer
5.17 ± 0Himantura gerrardi
3.55 ± 0.10Scomberomorus commerson
3.27 ± 0.12Ariomma indica
2.01 ± 0.18Cephalopholis sonnerati
1.95 ± 0.28Epinephelus rivulatus
0.62 ± 0Lampris guttatus
0.53 ± 0.04Carcharhinus tiltsoni
0.31 ± 0.05Xiphias gladius
0.09 ± 0.05Cephalopholis miniata
0.09 ± 0.03Euthynnus affinis
0.08 ± 0.02Thunnus albacares
0Carcharhinus obscurus
% Sequence Div (X ± S.E.)Species
Mean = 0.20 ± 0.03 %
Mean = 7.56 ± 0.43 %

18. Conclusions
•Highly conserved priming regions
•High species resolution within each region
•Species discovery through DNA barcodes
•Specimen vouchering

19. Collaborators
Paul Hebert Bob Ward
Allan Connell Jim Boutillier
Filipé Costa Bronwyn Innes

20. Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements
Laboratory Database
Collections
Funding &
Support
Jeremy deWaard Sujeevan Ratnasingham
Jim Boutillier
Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation
NSERC CFI OIT
Canada Research Chairs
Program
Rob Dooh
Janet Topan
Nataly Ivanova
Angela Holliss
Allan Connell
Peter Last
Pia Marquardt