A rebuttal to the letter to the editor concerning 'Defining species boundaries in the genus Phytophthora: The case of Phytophthora andina

Description: In their letter to the Editor in this issu e of Plant Pathology,Ca?rdenas et al. (2012) used the paper of Oliva et al.(2010) on the species desc ription of Phytophthora andinaas an example to discuss the criteria used for species desig-nation in the genus Phytophthora, and suggest that thecurrent species desc ription of P. andina ?cannot yet beconsidered as accurate?. Ca?rdenas et al. (2012) contendedthat Oliva et al. (2010) did not provide sufficient phyloge-netic evidence to support designation of P. andina as anew species, and that the data indicate that P. andina isnot monophyletic. We agree that, in addition to morpho-logical data, robust phylogenetic and genealogical analy-ses are important when a new species is described.However, we also believe that Oliva et al. (2010) and sev-eral other reports have provided sufficient data to estab-lish P. andina as a new species. Here, we assess theevidence for species designation of P. andina, commenton the polyphyleti c nature of P. andina, and suggest areaswhere future res earch is needed.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02560.x/epdf

Get full text: http://repositorio.educacionsuperior.gob.ec/handle/28000/2529