Genic variation and genetic similarities among eleven species of the subfamily Acheilognathinae (Cyprinidae) were analysed, by means of starch gel electrophoresis, in order to estimate their phylogenetic relationships and to estimate the degree of gen...
Genic variation and genetic similarities among eleven species of the subfamily Acheilognathinae (Cyprinidae) were analysed, by means of starch gel electrophoresis, in order to estimate their phylogenetic relationships and to estimate the degree of genic variation in each species.
A sum of 222 individuals from 10 geographic areas representing 24 population was used in this experiment. Among 222 specimens, 5 specimens of each species were used for species comparison and rest were used for the estimation of degree of genic variation in each population.
The results are as follows :
1. Rogers' genetic similarity coefficients (S) between Rhodeus suigensis and R. atermius was S=0.961. Therefore it is assumed that these two species are conspecific and probably R. atremius was misidentified, i.e. R. atremius is R. suigensis, as suggested by Kim(1982).
2. Acheilognathus signifer and A. limbata were treated as synonym by kim(1982) based on morphological similaritics but the present data show that they might be two good species since S value between these two is S=0.687 and this value is low enough to treat as two independent species (Avise and Smith, 1977).
3. Dendrogram of eleven species of the Acheilognathinae fish shows three species groups based on the genetic level. Therfore we suggest the following tentative classification.
Genus Acanthorhodeus qracilis
Genus Acheilognathus intermedia
limbata
signifer
Genus Rhodeus suigensis
uyekii
ocellatus
rhombea
yamatsutae
asmussi
However, further intensive survey would be required to verify this classification since we had no adequate sample size to convince this result.
4. Dgree of genic variation of the subfamily Acheilognathinae, expressed by % polymorphism and heterozygosity, was very low compare to other fish groups (Selander, 1976).
Probable causes of this are not known but partially it may be due to the small sample size invetigated.