Are Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and Prorocentrum belizeanum (Dinophyceae, Prorocentrales), the same species? An integration of morphological and molecular data.

The taxonomic assignment of Prorocentrum species is based on morphological characteristics; however, morphological variability has been found for several taxa isolated from different geographical regions. In this study, we evaluated species boundaries of Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and Prorocentrum belizeanum based on morphological and molecular data. A detailed morphological analysis was done, concentrating on the periflagellar architecture. Molecular analyses were performed on partial Small Sub-Unit (SSU) rDNA, partial Large Sub-Unit (LSU) rDNA, complete Internal Transcribed Spacer Regions (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2), and partial cytochrome b (cob) sequences. We concatenated the SSU-ITS-LSU fragments and constructed a phylogenetic tree using Bayesian Inference (BI) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods. Morphological analyses indicated that the main characters, such as cell size and number of depressions per valve, normally used to distinguish P. hoffmannianum from P. belizeanum, overlapped. No clear differences were found in the periflagellar area architecture. Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and P. belizeanum were a highly supported monophyletic clade separated into three subclades, which broadly corresponded to the sample collection regions. Subtle morphological overlaps found in cell shape, size, and ornamentation lead us to conclude that P. hoffmanianum and P. belizeanum might be considered conspecific. The molecular data analyses did not separate P. hoffmannianum and P. belizeanum into two morphospecies, and thus, we considered them to be the P. hoffmannianum species complex because their clades are separated by their geographic origin. These geographic and genetically distinct clades could be referred to as ribotypes: (A) Belize, (B) Florida-Cuba, (C1) India, and (C2) Australia.

Are critically endangered fish back on the menu? Analysis of U.K. fisheries data suggest post-ban landings of prohibited skates in European waters

Skates (Rajidae) have been commercially exploited in Europe for hundreds of years with some species’ abundances declining dramatically during the twentieth century. In 2009 it became “prohibited for EU vessels to target, retain, tranship or land” certain species in some ICES areas, including the critically endangered common skate and the endangered white skate. To examine compliance with skate bans the official UK landings data for 2011–2014 were analysed. Surprisingly, it was found that after the ban prohibited species were still reported landed in UK ports, including 9.6 t of common skate during 2011–2014. The majority of reported landings of common and white skate were from northern UK waters and landed into northern UK ports. Although past landings could not be validated as being actual prohibited species, the landings’ patterns found reflect known abundance distributions that suggest actual landings were made, rather than sporadic occurrence across ports that would be evident if landings were solely due to systematic misidentification or data entry errors. Nevertheless, misreporting and data entry errors could not be discounted as factors contributing to the recorded landings of prohibited species. These findings raise questions about the efficacy of current systems to police skate landings to ensure prohibited species remain protected. By identifying UK ports with the highest apparent landings of prohibited species and those still landing species grouped as'skates and rays’, these results may aid authorities in allocating limited resources more effectively to reduce landings, misreporting and data errors of prohibited species, and increase species-specific landing compliance.

Are critically endangered fish back on the menu? Analysis of U.K. fisheries data suggest post-ban landings of prohibited skates in European waters

Skates (Rajidae) have been commercially exploited in Europe for hundreds of years with some species’ abundances declining dramatically during the twentieth century. In 2009 it became “prohibited for EU vessels to target, retain, tranship or land” certain species in some ICES areas, including the critically endangered common skate and the endangered white skate. To examine compliance with skate bans the official UK landings data for 2011–2014 were analysed. Surprisingly, it was found that after the ban prohibited species were still reported landed in UK ports, including 9.6 t of common skate during 2011–2014. The majority of reported landings of common and white skate were from northern UK waters and landed into northern UK ports. Although past landings could not be validated as being actual prohibited species, the landings’ patterns found reflect known abundance distributions that suggest actual landings were made, rather than sporadic occurrence across ports that would be evident if landings were solely due to systematic misidentification or data entry errors. Nevertheless, misreporting and data entry errors could not be discounted as factors contributing to the recorded landings of prohibited species. These findings raise questions about the efficacy of current systems to police skate landings to ensure prohibited species remain protected. By identifying UK ports with the highest apparent landings of prohibited species and those still landing species grouped as'skates and rays’, these results may aid authorities in allocating limited resources more effectively to reduce landings, misreporting and data errors of prohibited species, and increase species-specific landing compliance.