Journal article

Publication year: 2004

Pages: 835-840

Journal: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volume number: 30

Issue number: 3

ISSN: 1055-7903

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2003.08.008

Publisher: Elsevier

Abstract: 

Recently, Hausdorf et al. (2003) studied the origin of rissooidean freshwater snails endemic to Lake Baikal utilizing partial COI, 12S rDNA, and 16S rDNA sequences. They used the latter two fragments to calibrate the molecular clock for the two superfamilies Littorinoidea and Rissooidea based on a single species-level split in the genus Littorina (see node 4 in Fig. 1A). However, the number of taxa studied appears to be very low for estimating divergence times in two superfamilies and their results are partially in contrast to studies of mainly fossil-based divergence times (e.g., Reid et al., 1996; Riedel et al., 2001). Therefore, I will evaluate some of the results presented by Hausdorf et al. with respect to (1) the molecular clock calibration point, (2) the validity of the molecular clock hypothesis, and (3) the sampling design. In addition, I will use an independent marker and a different calibration point to (4) propose an alternate divergence time for one of the groups studied by Hausdorf et al. Unless otherwise stated, I will focus in my reply on Hausdorf et al.’s 16S fragment as most of the issues outlined below might, in principle, apply to their 12S fragment as well.

Harvard Citation style: Wilke, T. (2004) How dependable is a non-local molecular clock? A reply to Hausdorf et al. (2003), Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 30(3), pp. 835-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2003.08.008

APA Citation style: Wilke, T. (2004). How dependable is a non-local molecular clock? A reply to Hausdorf et al. (2003). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 30(3), 835-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2003.08.008