Cited by 6Bat Biology and Ecology StudiesGenetic diversity and population structureDiptera species taxonomy and behavior

Comment on “Population genetics reveal Myotis keenii (Keen’s myotis) and Myotis evotis (long-eared myotis) to be a single species”

Open access
Morales, Ariadna E., Fenton, M. Brock, Carstens, Bryan C., Simmons, Nancy B.·2021·Canadian Journal of Zoology

Abstract

Genetic exchange and hybridization appear common among the western long-eared bats from North America. Multiple sources of evidence indicate that lineages within this group are evolving independently, despite genetic exchange. However, evidence of gene flow raises questions about the species-level status of some lineages. C.L. Lausen et al. (2019. Can. J. Zool. 97(3): 267–279) proposed that Myotis evotis (H. Allen, 1864) (long-eared myotis) and Myotis keenii (Merriam, 1895) (Keen’s myotis) are one species, not two. This conclusion is based on analyses of cytochrome b and microsatellite data suggesting gene flow between these taxa. Microsatellites are not reliable markers for identifying species because homoplasy can be a major confounding factor, which appears to be true in this case. We reanalyzed the dataset of C.L. Lausen et al. (2019) and show that it is not reliable to distinguish between gene flow or homoplasy, and that these data do not support the conclusion that M. evotis and M. keenii represent a single species. Previous morphological and genomic studies indicate that these are separate species despite previous genetic exchange between them. Failing to recognize that gene flow can occur between independently evolving lineages is counterproductive for conservation because it can lead to neglect of important independent lineages, and likewise failing to use proper tools to delimit species is counterproductive to efforts to quantify biodiversity and design conservation strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/cjz-2020-0048

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many mammal taxa lack sufficient geographic and taxonomic sampling to identify and interpret such hybridization histories (e.g., in the case of M. keenii and M. evotis).

    “Many mammal taxa lack sufficient geographic and taxonomic sampling to identify and interpret such hybridization histories (e.g., in the case of M. keenii and M. evotis; Lausen et al. 2019, 2021; Morales et al. 2021; Upham et al. 2022b).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morales, A. E., Fenton, M. B., Carstens, B. C., & Simmons, N. B.
Affiliations
  • American Museum of Natural History (US)
  • Western University (CA)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Published
2021-05
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
415-422
ISSN
  • 0008-4301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1480-3283
OpenAlex
W3160730304
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Gerstner Family Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Diptera species taxonomy and behavior
Keywords
Myotis keenii, Myotis evotis, long-eared myotis, species delimitation, gene flow, hybridization, homoplasy, microsatellite markers, cytochrome b, bat conservation

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