Saveng Ith1,2,3, Sara Bumrungsri2, Neil M Furey3,4, Paul Jj Bates5, Monwadee Wonglapsuwan6, Faisal Ali Anwarali Khan7, Vu Dinh Thong8, Pipat Soisook9, Chutamas Satasook2, Nikky M Thomas5. 1. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Confederation of Russia Boulevard, Phnom Penh 12150, Cambodia. 2. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Karnjanavanich Street, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand. 3. Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Faculty of Science, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Room 415, Confederation of Russia Boulevard, Phnom Penh 12150, Cambodia. 4. Fauna & Flora International, Cambodia Programme, PO Box 1380#19, Street 360, Boeng Keng Kong 1, Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh 12300, Cambodia. 5. Harrison Institute, Bowerwood House, St. Botolph's Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3AQ, UK. 6. Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Karnjanavanich Street, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand. 7. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Resource Science and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak 94300, Malaysia. 8. Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam, Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay District, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam. 9. Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Natural History Museum, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Karnjanavanich Street, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rhinolophusaffinis sensu lato isdistributed throughout Southeast Asia. The taxonomic status of forms attributed to the species is unclear due to the limited sample size with incomplete datasets and the taxa have high variation in morphology and echolocation call frequency. The aim of the study was to evaluate the distribution and taxonomic status of the subspecific forms of R. affinis in mainland Southeast Asia using large sample size with multiple datasets, including morphological, acoustic, and genetic data, both to elucidate taxonomic relationships and to test for congruence between these datasets. RESULTS: Three morphological forms were confirmed within the region; two concur with previously recognized taxa, namely R.affinis macrurus andR.affinis superans,and are strongly supported by morphological and genetic data. The third form is morphologically distinct, but its taxonomic status remains unclear. It is probable that this third form represents a distinct taxonomic entity; however, more data are required to confirm this. R. a. macrurus is known from the north of peninsular Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam (Indochinese subregion); R. a. superans is found throughout the Thai-Malay Peninsula (Sundaic subregion); whilst the third form is presently known from east central Myanmar (Shan state) and lower northern Vietnam (Nghe An Province). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that at least three morphological forms occur in mainland Southeast Asia including one form which appears to be new to science. Echolocation call data for R. affinis are not a robust taxonomic tool as it shows a significant degree of variation which is not explained or supported by genetic and morphological findings. This study highlights significant levels of morphological variation in mainland Southeast Asia and provides an essential basis for further studies aiming to understand the population genetics, phylogeography, and taxonomy of the species.
BACKGROUND:Rhinolophusaffinis sensu lato isdistributed throughout Southeast Asia. The taxonomic status of forms attributed to the species is unclear due to the limited sample size with incomplete datasets and the taxa have high variation in morphology and echolocation call frequency. The aim of the study was to evaluate the distribution and taxonomic status of the subspecific forms of R. affinis in mainland Southeast Asia using large sample size with multiple datasets, including morphological, acoustic, and genetic data, both to elucidate taxonomic relationships and to test for congruence between these datasets. RESULTS: Three morphological forms were confirmed within the region; two concur with previously recognized taxa, namely R.affinis macrurus andR.affinis superans,and are strongly supported by morphological and genetic data. The third form is morphologically distinct, but its taxonomic status remains unclear. It is probable that this third form represents a distinct taxonomic entity; however, more data are required to confirm this. R. a. macrurus is known from the north of peninsular Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam (Indochinese subregion); R. a. superans is found throughout the Thai-Malay Peninsula (Sundaic subregion); whilst the third form is presently known from east central Myanmar (Shan state) and lower northern Vietnam (Nghe An Province). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that at least three morphological forms occur in mainland Southeast Asia including one form which appears to be new to science. Echolocation call data for R. affinis are not a robust taxonomic tool as it shows a significant degree of variation which is not explained or supported by genetic and morphological findings. This study highlights significant levels of morphological variation in mainland Southeast Asia and provides an essential basis for further studies aiming to understand the population genetics, phylogeography, and taxonomy of the species.