Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)

Karyotype of M. curema from the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil have been reported as possessing chromosome complement with 2n=28 and FN=48, whereas specimens from Venezuela has been reported as possessing a diploid number 2n=24 and a conserved FN (48). Although at first sight this variation suggests the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mauro Nirchio, Roger Cipriano, Margarete Cestari, Alberto Fenocchio
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia
Series:Neotropical Ichthyology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252005000100006&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-939ff4a8a8ab456eaf815c53b8eafaca
record_format Article
spelling doaj-939ff4a8a8ab456eaf815c53b8eafaca2020-11-24T21:02:51ZengSociedade Brasileira de IctiologiaNeotropical Ichthyology1982-02243110711010.1590/S1679-62252005000100006S1679-62252005000100006Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)Mauro Nirchio0Roger Cipriano1Margarete Cestari2Alberto Fenocchio3Universidad de OrienteUniversidade Federal do ParanáUniversidade Federal do ParanáUniversidad Nacional de MisionesKaryotype of M. curema from the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil have been reported as possessing chromosome complement with 2n=28 and FN=48, whereas specimens from Venezuela has been reported as possessing a diploid number 2n=24 and a conserved FN (48). Although at first sight this variation suggests the presence of a chromosomal intraspecific (interpopulational) variability, the possibility that we are dealing with two different species was examined. This work revisit the karyotypes of M. curema from Venezuela and Brazil, including new data on C-banding, and NOR localization, and compares morphologic characteristics of samples from both localities. Thus, besides diploid number, the constitutive heterochromatin distribution and NORs location, mark other differences between M. curema Cytotype 1 (2n=28; FN=48) and Cytotype 2 (2n=24; NF=48). Moreover, morphologic comparison revealed differences in the scale counts and pectoral fin rays: 35 scales in the middle body line and 15 pectoral fin rays in specimens possessing the karyotype 2n=28, compared with 37-39 scales in the middle body line and 17 pectoral fin rays in specimens with the karyotype 2n=24. These differences lead us to suggest that both cytotypes are not related merely to geographic polytipic variations but could correspond to different species.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252005000100006&lng=en&tlng=enkaryotypeC-bandNOR-bandingmeristic and morphometric featuresspecies identification
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mauro Nirchio
Roger Cipriano
Margarete Cestari
Alberto Fenocchio
spellingShingle Mauro Nirchio
Roger Cipriano
Margarete Cestari
Alberto Fenocchio
Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)
Neotropical Ichthyology
karyotype
C-band
NOR-banding
meristic and morphometric features
species identification
author_facet Mauro Nirchio
Roger Cipriano
Margarete Cestari
Alberto Fenocchio
author_sort Mauro Nirchio
title Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)
title_short Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)
title_full Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)
title_fullStr Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)
title_full_unstemmed Cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among Venezuelan and Brazilian samples of Mugil curema (Teleostei: Mugilidae)
title_sort cytogenetical and morphological features reveal significant differences among venezuelan and brazilian samples of mugil curema (teleostei: mugilidae)
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia
series Neotropical Ichthyology
issn 1982-0224
description Karyotype of M. curema from the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil have been reported as possessing chromosome complement with 2n=28 and FN=48, whereas specimens from Venezuela has been reported as possessing a diploid number 2n=24 and a conserved FN (48). Although at first sight this variation suggests the presence of a chromosomal intraspecific (interpopulational) variability, the possibility that we are dealing with two different species was examined. This work revisit the karyotypes of M. curema from Venezuela and Brazil, including new data on C-banding, and NOR localization, and compares morphologic characteristics of samples from both localities. Thus, besides diploid number, the constitutive heterochromatin distribution and NORs location, mark other differences between M. curema Cytotype 1 (2n=28; FN=48) and Cytotype 2 (2n=24; NF=48). Moreover, morphologic comparison revealed differences in the scale counts and pectoral fin rays: 35 scales in the middle body line and 15 pectoral fin rays in specimens possessing the karyotype 2n=28, compared with 37-39 scales in the middle body line and 17 pectoral fin rays in specimens with the karyotype 2n=24. These differences lead us to suggest that both cytotypes are not related merely to geographic polytipic variations but could correspond to different species.
topic karyotype
C-band
NOR-banding
meristic and morphometric features
species identification
url http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252005000100006&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT mauronirchio cytogeneticalandmorphologicalfeaturesrevealsignificantdifferencesamongvenezuelanandbraziliansamplesofmugilcuremateleosteimugilidae
AT rogercipriano cytogeneticalandmorphologicalfeaturesrevealsignificantdifferencesamongvenezuelanandbraziliansamplesofmugilcuremateleosteimugilidae
AT margaretecestari cytogeneticalandmorphologicalfeaturesrevealsignificantdifferencesamongvenezuelanandbraziliansamplesofmugilcuremateleosteimugilidae
AT albertofenocchio cytogeneticalandmorphologicalfeaturesrevealsignificantdifferencesamongvenezuelanandbraziliansamplesofmugilcuremateleosteimugilidae
_version_ 1716775141795430400