Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES BOUNDARIES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE MONTASTRAEA ANNULARIS COMPLEX BASED ON MOLECULAR AND MORPHOLOGICAL MARKERS

Fukami, Hironobu, Budd, Ann F., Levitan, Don R., Jara, Javier, Kersanach, Ralf, Knowlton, Nancy·2004·Evolution

Abstract

The three members of the Montastraea annularis complex (M. annularis, M. franksi, and M. faveolata) are dominant reef builders in the western Atlantic whose species status has been controversial for over a decade. Although differences in colony morphology and reproductive characteristics exist, interspecific fertilizations are possible in the laboratory and genetic differentiation is slight. Here we compare the three taxa genetically and morphologically in Panama and the Bahamas, widely separated locations spanning most of their geographic ranges. In Panama, analyses of three AFLP loci, a noncoding region of the mitochondrial genome, and ITS sequences reveal that M. faveolata is strongly differentiated genetically. Discriminant function analysis also indicates no overlap with the other two species in the fine structure of the corallites that comprise the colony. Genetic analyses of larvae from interspecific crosses between M. faveolata and the other two taxa confirmed the hybrid status of the larvae, but no examples of the most probable F1 genotype were observed in the field. Although M. annularis and M. franksi were more similar, they also exhibited strong frequency differences at two AFLP loci and in the mitochondrial noncoding region, as well as distinct corallite structure. In the Bahamas, in contrast, the three taxa exhibited overlapping morphologies. Montastraeafranksi and M. annularis were indistinguishable genetically, and M. faveolata was distinct at fewer genetic loci. Once again, however, the most probable F1 genotype involving M. faveolata was not observed. Geographic differences between Panama and the Bahamas explain why past studies have come to different conclusions concerning the status of the three species. In general, the genetic and morphological data suggest a north to south hybridization gradient, with evidence for introgression strongest in the north. However, reproductive data show no such trend, with intrinsic barriers to gene flow comparable or stronger in the north.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01648.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Fukami, H., Budd, A. F., Levitan, D. R., Jara, J., Kersanach, R., & Knowlton, N.
Venue
Evolution
Published
2004-02
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
324-337
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2173288910
Cited by
256
References
1
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES BOUNDARIES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE MONTASTRAEA ANNULARIS COMPLEX BASED ON MOLECULAR AND MORPHOLOGICAL MARKERS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01648.x
The paper
Fukami, H., Budd, A. F., Levitan, D. R., Jara, J., Kersanach, R., & Knowlton, N. (2004). GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES BOUNDARIES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE MONTASTRAEA ANNULARIS COMPLEX BASED ON MOLECULAR AND MORPHOLOGICAL MARKERS. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01648.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.