English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We  investigated a reported case of stingray Dasyatis americana misidentification  not detected in a published study using the random amplified polymorphic DNA  (RAPD) technique. If the referred specimen (landed by fisheries in Ceará,  northeastern Brazil) was misidentified (as Dasyatis centroura) in the  field, why did its RAPD data fail to clarify the mistake? Was it due to limitations  of RAPD markers or perhaps to a taxonomic issue? Contrary to our initial  expectations, neither of these hindered the detection of the misidentification.  After reanalyzing the primary genetic data associated with the misidentified  specimen (PCR gel photographs and/or matrices of presence/absence of markers  for six RAPD primers), we found that the RAPD markers were sufficient to  correctly assign the misidentified specimen to its proper species identity. In  the original study, the specimen misidentification was neither noticed by the  authors nor apparent in the published article due to how their results were  interpreted and presented.

Reevaluation of RAPD markers involved in a case of stingray misidentification (Dasyatidae: Dasyatis)