ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Taxonomy based on the biological species concept: the case of the Rhodnius robustus complex (Hemiptera, Triatominae).
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRhodnius robustus is a paraphyletic taxon composed of different lineages, being lineages II and III currently described as R. montenegrensis and R. marabaensis. However, it has been suggested that two distinct clades may be associated with lineage II: R. montenegrensis and R. robustus II. Among the different species concepts, the biological concept is based mainly on interspecific reproductive isolation. Thus, we performed crosses between R. montenegrensis and R. marabaensis and between R. montenegrensis and R. robustus II, and we revisited and discussed taxonomically and evolutionarily all intra and interspecific crosses of R. robustus sensu lato (s. l.).
methodsReciprocal experimental crosses were conducted between R. montenegrensis with R. marabaensis and R. robustus II. Furthermore, intercrosses were performed up to the fourth (F4) or fifth generation (depending on the reproductive barrier). Finally, cytogenetic analyzes were performed in the gonads to evaluate the degree of pairing of the hybrids' chromosomes.
resultsHybrids were obtained in all directions of the crosses. However, crosses between R. montenegrensis females and R. marabaensis males resulted in a very low number of offspring. When intercrosses were performed, the hybrids showed high fertility, possibly resulting from heterosis. Only the F4 was unviable due to hybrid collapse. In the other direction, the hybrids were completely infertile, characterizing the hybrid sterility. Hybrids from crosses between R. montenegrensis females and R. robustus II males died before reaching adulthood (characterizing the hybrid collapse) and in the other direction, no reproductive barriers were observed.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that, on the basis of the biological species concept, R. montenegrensis and R. marabaensis are valid species and reproductively isolated. Furthermore, we observed partial isolation between R. montenegrensis and R. robustus II, highlighting the need for integrative taxonomy studies to elucidate this clade. Finally, we revisited the literature and observed that: R. robustus s. l. is reproductively isolated from R. nasutus and R. neglectus; with the exception of specimens from Amazonas, R. prolixus does not present reproductive isolation when crossed with R. robustus (from Colombia, Peru and Venezuela); and the "intraspecific" barriers of R. robustus s. l. possibly represent different species (R. montenegrensis, R. marabaensis, and/or R. barretti).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.