Conservation Genetics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 279–292 | Cite as

Generic reclassification and species boundaries in the rediscovered freshwater mussel ‘Quadrula’ mitchelli (Simpson in Dall, 1896)

  • John M. Pfeiffer III
  • Nathan A. Johnson
  • Charles R. Randklev
  • Robert G. Howells
  • James D. Williams
Research Article

Abstract

The Central Texas endemic freshwater mussel, Quadrula mitchelli (Simpson in Dall, 1896), had been presumed extinct until relict populations were recently rediscovered. To help guide ongoing and future conservation efforts focused on Q. mitchelli we set out to resolve several uncertainties regarding its evolutionary history, specifically its unknown generic position and untested species boundaries. We designed a molecular matrix consisting of two loci (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and internal transcribed spacer I) and 57 terminal taxa to test the generic position of Q. mitchelli using Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood phylogenetic reconstruction. We also employed two Bayesian species validation methods to test five a priori species models (i.e. hypotheses of species delimitation). Our study is the first to test the generic position of Q.mitchelli and we found robust support for its inclusion in the genus Fusconaia. Accordingly, we introduce the binomial, Fusconaia mitchelli comb. nov., to accurately represent the systematic position of the species. We resolved F. mitchelli individuals in two well supported and divergent clades that were generally distinguished as distinct species using Bayesian species validation methods, although alternative hypotheses of species delineation were also supported. Despite strong evidence of genetic isolation within F. mitchelli, we do not advocate for species-level status of the two clades as they are allopatrically distributed and no morphological, behavioral, or ecological characters are known to distinguish them. These results are discussed in the context of the systematics, distribution, and conservation of F. mitchelli.

Keywords

Unionidae Species rediscovery Species delimitation Bayesian phylogenetics and phylogeography Fusconaia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2, United States Geological Survey, Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas Comptroller helped make this work possible. We thank Peter Scott and Nathan Whelan for various discussions regarding Bayesian species delimitation and reconstruction. Mark Cordova, J. Harris, M. Johnson, S. McMurray, S. Oetker, E. Tsakiris, and K. Roe helped collect specimens. Kevin Skow and T. Snelgrove assisted with mapping and GIS. We gratefully acknowledge M. Bemis, L. Groves, A. Harris, B. Hershler, J. Slapcinsky, T. Lee for their assistance with the acquisition of loan material. Harry Lee provided assistance with addressing various nomenclatural issues. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government.

References

  1. Baele G, Lemey P, Bedford T, Rambaut A, Suchard MA, Alekseyenko AV (2012) Improving the accuracy of demographic and molecular clock model comparison while accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty. Mol Biol Evol 29:2157–2167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Baele G, Li WLS, Drummond AJ, Suchard MA, Lemey P (2013) Accurate model selection of relaxed molecular clocks in Bayesian phylogenetics. Mol Biol Evol 30:239–243CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Barley AJ, White J, Diesmos AC, Brown RM (2013) The challenge of species delimitation at the extremes: diversification without morphological change in Philippine sun skinks. Evolution 67:3556–3572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyer SL, Howe AA, Juergens NW, Hove MC (2011) A DNA-barcoding approach to identifying juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) recovered from naturally infested fishes. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruenderman SA, Neves RJ (1993) Life history of the endangered fine-rayed pigtoe Fusconaia cuneolus (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Clinch River, Virginia. Am Malacol Bull 10:83–91Google Scholar
  6. Burch JB (1975) Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Burdick RC, White MM (2007) Phylogeography of the wabash pigtoe, Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque, 1820) (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J Molluscan Stud 73:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burlakova LE, Karatayev AY, Karatayev VA, May ME, Bennett DL, Cook MJ (2011) Endemic species: contribution to community uniqueness, effect of habitat alteration, and conservation priorities. Biol Conserv 144:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burlakova LE, Campbell D, Karatayev AY, Barclay D (2012) Distribution, genetic analysis and conservation priorities for rare Texas freshwater molluscs in the genera Fusconaia and Pleurobema (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Aquat Biosyst 8:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell DC, Lydeard C (2012) Molecular systematics of Fusconaia (Bivalvia: Unionidae: Ambleminae). Am Malacol Bull 30:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell DC, Serb JM, Buhay JE, Roe KJ, Minton RL, Lydeard C (2005) Phylogeny of North American amblemines (Bivalvia, Unionoida): prodigious polyphyly proves pervasive across genera. Invertebr Biol 124:131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell DC, Johnson PD, Williams JD, Rindsberg AK, Serb JM, Small KK, Lydeard C (2008) Identification of ‘extinct’ freshwater mussel species using DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 8:711–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Carstens BC, Satler JD (2013) The carnivorous plant described as Sarracenia alata contains two cryptic species. Biol J Linn Soc 109:737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carstens BC, Pelletier TA, Reid NM, Satler JD (2013) How to fail at species delimitation. Mol Ecol 22:4369–4383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clement M, Posada D, Crandall KA (2000) TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol Ecol 9:1657–1659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Coney CC, Taylor DW (1986) Systematic position of Quincuncina mitchelli (Simpson 1896) (Unionidae)(ABSTRACT). West Soc Malacol 18:12–13Google Scholar
  17. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat Methods 9:772CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. de Queiroz K (1998) The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation. In: Howard S, Berlocher S (eds) Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 57–78Google Scholar
  19. de Queiroz K (2007) Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst Biol 56:879–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Dudash MR, Eldridge MD, Fenster CB, Lacy RC, Mendelson JR III, Porton IJ, Ralls K, Ryder OA (2012) Implications of different species concepts for conserving biodiversity. Biol Conserv 153:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frierson LS (1927) A classified and annotated check list of the North American Naiades. Baylor University Press, WacoGoogle Scholar
  22. Fujita MK, Leaché AD, Burbrink FT, McGuire JA, Moritz C (2012) Coalescent-based species delimitation in an integrative taxonomy. Trends Ecol Evol 27:480–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Giarla TC, Voss RS, Jansa SA (2014) Hidden diversity in the Andes: comparison of species delimitation methods in montane marsupials. Mol Phylogen Evol 70:137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graf DL (2007) Palearctic freshwater mussel (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) diversity and the comparatory method as a species concept. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila 156:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graf DL, Cummings KS (2006) Palaeoheterodont diversity (Mollusca: Trigonioida + Unionoida): what we know and what we wish we knew about freshwater mussel evolution. Zool J Linn Soc 148:343–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graf DL, Cummings KS (2007) Review of the systematics and global diversity of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionoida). J Molluscan Stud 73:291–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graf DL, Cummings KS (2014) The Freshwater Mussels (Unionoida) of the World (and other less consequential bivalves) MUSSEL project Web Site. http://www.mussel-project.net/
  28. Graf DL, Ó Foighil D (2000) The evolution of brooding characters among the freshwater pearly mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of North America. J Molluscan Stud 66:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grobler P, Jones J, Johnson N, Beaty B, Struthers J, Neves R, Hallerman E (2006) Patterns of genetic differentiation and conservation of the slabside pearlymussel, Lexingtonia dolabelloides (Lea, 1840) in the Tennessee river drainage. J Molluscan Stud 62:65–75Google Scholar
  30. Grummer JA, Bryson RW, Reeder TW (2013) Species delimitation using bayes factors: simulations and application to the Sceloporus scalaris species group (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae). Syst Biol 63:119–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Haag WR (2009) Past and future patterns of freshwater mussel extinctions in North America during the Holocene. In: Turvey S (ed) Holocene Extinctions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haag WR, Warren ML Jr (1997) Host fishes and reproductive biology of 6 freshwater mussel species from the Mobile Basin, USA. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haag WR, Warren ML Jr (2003) Host fishes and infection strategies of freshwater mussels in large Mobile Basin streams, USA. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:78–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haag WR, Williams JD (2013) Biodiversity on the brink: an assessment of conservation strategies for North American freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia 735:1–16Google Scholar
  35. Haas F (1969) Superfamilia unionacea. Das tierreich, lief. 88. Walter de Gruyter and Co., BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Hedin M (2015) High-stakes species delimitation in eyeless cave spiders (Cicurina, Dictynidae, Araneae) from central Texas. Mol Ecol 24:346–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Heled J, Drummond AJ (2010) Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol Biol Evol 27:570–580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Hickerson MJ, Meyer CP, Moritz C (2006) DNA barcoding will often fail to discover new animal species over broad parameter space. Syst Biol 55:729–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Howells RG (1992) (1994) Preliminary distributional surveys of freshwater bivalves in Texas. Progress report for, management data series 105. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, AustinGoogle Scholar
  40. Howells RG (2001) Status of freshwater mussels of the Rio Grande, with comments on other bivalves. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries, AustinGoogle Scholar
  41. Howells RG (2002) Distributional surveys of freshwater bivalves in Texas: progress report for 2001. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, AustinGoogle Scholar
  42. Howells RG (2003) Declining status of freshwater mussels in the Rio Grande, with comments on other bivalves. Aquat Fauna North Chihuah. Desert Mus Tex Tech Univ, Spec Publ 46:59–73Google Scholar
  43. Howells RG (2006) Statewide freshwater mussel survey: final report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, AustinGoogle Scholar
  44. Howells RG (2010) False spike (Quadrula mitchelli): Summary of selected biological and ecological data for Texas. BioStudies, Kerrville, Texas Report on file with Save Our Springs Alliance, AustinGoogle Scholar
  45. Howells RG, Neck RW, Murray HD (1996) Freshwater mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Inland Fisheries Division, AustinGoogle Scholar
  46. Howells RG, Mather C, Bergmann J (1997) Conservation status of selected freshwater mussels in Texas. In: Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future proceedings of an upper mississippi river conservation committee symposium, Rock Island, Illinois, pp. 117–128Google Scholar
  47. Hudson RR, Coyne JA (2002) Mathematical consequences of the genealogical species concept. Evolution 56:1557–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2015) The IUCN red list of threatend species. Version 2014.3. http://www.iucn.org/. Accessed 25 Feb 2015
  49. Ivanova NV, Dewaard JR, Hebert PD (2006) An inexpensive, automation-friendly protocol for recovering high-quality DNA. Mol Ecol Notes 6:998–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jensen JL, Bohonak AJ, Kelley ST (2005) Isolation by distance, web service. BMC Genet 6:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnson RI (1999) Unionidae of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte) system of Texas and Mexico. Department of Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  52. Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 90:773–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C (2012) Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28:1647–1649CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. King TL, Eackles MS, Gjetvaj B, Hoeh WR (1999) Intraspecific phylogeography of Lasmigona subviridis (Bivalvia: Unionidae): conservation implications of range discontinuity. Mol Ecol 8:S65–S78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Knowles LL, Carstens BC (2007) Delimiting species without monophyletic gene trees. Syst Biol 56:887–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Knowlton N (2000) Molecular genetic analyses of species boundaries in the sea. Hydrobiologia 420:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Higgins DG (2007) Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23:2947–2948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lartillot N, Philippe H (2006) Computing bayes factors using thermodynamic integration. Syst Biol 55:195–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Leaché AD, Fujita MK (2010) Bayesian species delimitation in West African forest geckos (Hemidactylus fasciatus). Procc R Soc Biol Sci 277:3071–3077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lydeard C, Minton RL, Williams JD (2000) Prodigious polyphyly in imperilled freshwater pearly-mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae): a phylogenetic test of species and generic designations. In: Harper EM, Taylor JD, Crame JA (eds) The Evolutionary biology of the bivalvia geological society, London, Special Publications, vol 177. The Geological Society of London, London. pp. 145–158Google Scholar
  61. Mabe JA, Kennedy J (2013) Discovery of a reproducing popultaion of the critically endangered freshwater mussel Quadrula mitchelli in Central Texas. Ellipsaria, 15Google Scholar
  62. Mabe JA, Kennedy J (2014) Habitat conditions associated with a reproducing population of the critically endangered freshwater mussel Quadrula mitchelli in central Texas. Southwest Nat 59:297–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2011) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version. 2.75. http://mesquiteproject.org
  64. Manendo TJ, Campbell MA, Gilroy HH, Masteller EC (2008) Analysis of rDNA regions of five freshwater unionid mussel species in Presque Isle Bay, southeastern Lake Erie. J Great Lakes Res 34:204–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McCormack JE, Maley JM (2015) Interpreting negative results with taxonomic and conservation implications: another look at the distinctness of coastal California Gnatcatchers. Auk 132:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McKay BD, Mays HL, Wu Y, Li H, Ct Yao, Nishiumi I, Zou F (2013) An empirical comparison of character-based and coalescent-based approaches to species delimitation in a young avian complex. Mol Ecol 22:4943–4957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Metcalf A (1974) Fossil and living freshwater mussels (Unionacea) from the Pecos River, New Mexico and Texas. Bull Am Malacal Union 33:47–48Google Scholar
  68. Metcalf A (1982) Fossil unionacean bivalves from three tributaries of the Rio Grande. In: Proceedings of the symposium on recent benthological investigations in Texas and adjacent states Texas Academy of Science, Austin, pp. 43–59Google Scholar
  69. Meyer CP (2003) Molecular systematics of cowries (Gastropoda: Cypraeidae) and diversification patterns in the tropics. Biol J Linn Soc 79:401–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In: gateway computing environments workshop (GCE), 2010, pp. 1–8. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  71. Miralles A, Vences M (2013) New metrics for comparison of taxonomies reveal striking discrepancies among species delimitation methods in Madascincus lizards. Plos One 8:e68242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Murray H (1981) Unionids from Indian sites in McMullen and Live Oak counties, Texas. Bull Am Malacol Union 1981:10–11Google Scholar
  73. Neves R (1997) A national strategy for the conservation of native freshwater mussels. Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, pp.1–11Google Scholar
  74. Newton MA, Raftery AE (1994) Approximate bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J R Stat Soc B Met 8:3–48Google Scholar
  75. Niemiller ML, Graening GO, Fenolio DB, Godwin JC, Cooley JR, Pearson WD, Fitzpatrick BM, Near TJ (2013) Doomed before they are described? The need for conservation assessments of cryptic species complexes using an amblyopsid cavefish (Amblyopsidae: Typhlichthys) as a case study. Biodivers Conserv 22:1799–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nylander JAA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Luis N-AJ (2004) Baysian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst Biol 53:47–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Ó Foighil D, Li J, Lee T, Johnson P, Evans R, Burch JB (2011) Conservation genetics of a critically endangered limpet genus and rediscovery of an extinct species. Plos One 6:e20496CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Rambaut A, Drummond A (2009) Tracer: MCMC trace analysis tool. http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/
  79. Randklev CR, Johnson MS, Tsakiris ET, Rogers-Oetker S, Roe KJ, Harris JL, McMurray SE, Robertson C, Groce J, Wilkins N (2012) False spike, Quadrula mitchelli (Bivalvia: Unionidae), is not extinct: first account of a live population in over 30 years. Am Malacol Bull 30:327–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Randklev CR, Johnson MS, Tsakiris ET, Groce J, Wilkins N (2013a) Status of the freshwater mussel (Unionidae) communities of the mainstem of the Leon River, Texas. Aquat Conserv 23:390–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Randklev CR, Tsakiris ET, Howells RG, Groce J, Johnson MS, Bergmann J, Robertson C, Blair A, Littrell B, Johnson N (2013b) Distribution of extant populations of Quadrula mitchelli (false spike). Ellipsaria 15:18–21Google Scholar
  82. Randklev CR, Tsakiris ET, Johnson MS, Skorupski JA, Burlakova LE, Groce J, Wilkins N (2013c) Is False Spike, Quadrula mitchelli (Bivalvia: Unionidae), extinct? First account of a very recently deceased individual in over thirty years. Southwest Nat 58:247–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rannala B, Yang Z (2003) Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164:1645–1656PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Regnier C, Fontaine B, Bouchet P (2009) Not knowing, not recording, not listing: numerous unnoticed mollusk extinctions. Conserv Biol 23:1214–1221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 61:539–542CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Satler JD, Carstens BC, Hedin M (2013) Multilocus species delimitation in a complex of morphologically conserved trapdoor spiders (Mygalomorphae, Antrodiaetidae, Aliatypus). Syst Biol 62:805–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Serb JM, Buhay JE, Lydeard C (2003) Molecular systematics of the North American freshwater bivalve genus Quadrula (Unionidae: Ambleminae) based on mitochondrial ND1 sequences. Mol Phylogen Evol 28:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M (1999) Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol 16:1114–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Simpson CT (1900) Synopsis of the Naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Proc US Natl Mus 22:501–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Simpson CT (1914) A descriptive catalogue of the naiades or pearly freshwater mussels. Bryant Walker, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  91. Sowards B, Tsakiris ET, Libson M, Randklev CR (2013) Recent collection of a false spike (Quadrula mitchelli) in the San Saba River, Texas, with comments on habitat use. WALKERANA J Freshw Mollusk Conserv SocGoogle Scholar
  92. Stamatakis A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688–2690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312–1313CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Strecker JK (1931) The distribution of the naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels of Texas. Bayl Univ Mus Spec Publ 2:1–69Google Scholar
  95. Suchard MA, Weiss RE, Sinsheimer JS (2001) Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. Mol Biol Evol 18:1001–1013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Texas Register (2010) Threatened and endangered nongame species. Chapter 65. Wildlife subchapter G. 31 TAC § 65.175. Adopted rules. Tex Regist 35:249–251Google Scholar
  97. Turgeon DD, Bogan AE, Coan EV, Emerson WK, Lyons WG, Pratt WL, Roper CFE, Scheltema A, Thompson FG, Williams JD (1988) Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 16. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  98. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 90-day finding on petitions to list nine species of mussels from Texas as threatened or endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register, 74, 66, 260–266,271Google Scholar
  99. Whelan NV, Johnson PD, Harris PM (2012) Rediscovery of Leptoxis compacta (Anthony, 1854) (Gastropoda: Cerithioidea: Pleuroceridae). Plos One 7:e42499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. White MP, Blalock-Herod HN, Stewart PM (2008) Life history and host fish identification for Fusconaia burkei and Pleurobema strodeanum (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Am Malacol Bull 24:121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Williams JD, Bogan AE, Garner JT (2008) Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia. Mississippi and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  102. Wurtz CB (1950) Quadrula (Quincuncina) Guadalupensis Sp. Nov. (Unionidae, Pelecypoda). Not Nat 224:1–2Google Scholar
  103. Xie W, Lewis PO, Fan Y, Kuo L, Chen M-H (2011) Improving marginal likelihood estimation for bayesian phylogenetic model selection. Syst Biol 60:150–160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. Yang Z, Rannala B (2010) Bayesian species delimitation using multilocus sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 107:9264–9269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zhang C, Zhang D-X, Zhu T, Yang Z (2011) Evaluation of a bayesian coalescent method of species delimitation. Syst Biol 60:747–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Pfeiffer III
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nathan A. Johnson
    • 1
  • Charles R. Randklev
    • 3
  • Robert G. Howells
    • 4
  • James D. Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.US Geological SurveyWetland and Aquatic Research CenterGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Florida Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Renewable Natural ResourcesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  4. 4.BiostudiesKerrvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations