Controlled experiment
Neocaridina identity evidence
Bai et al., 2026. BMC Genomics 27: 535.
Source taxon as published: Purchased red, yellow and blue Neocaridina denticulata strains without reported voucher, diagnostic identity method, trade names or ancestry
Study shape: Pigment-pathway homologs were identified from public BioProjects and unpublished laboratory genomic and transcriptomic data. Six adult tissues and whole juveniles were compared by 18S-normalized qPCR with three biological samples and technical triplicates. CRCN abundance was compared by western blot, and fluorescence at 380/450 nm was measured after separate cephalothorax and abdomen extraction with hepatopancreas and intestine removed.
Experimental unit: Three biological samples per strain and endpoint were reported, but the number and sex of shrimp per sample, pooling, molt state, independent source-tank history, number of culture tanks and strain-to-tank allocation were not defined; technical triplicates are subsamples
Environment: Purchased red, yellow and blue strains held in 29 x 18 x 15 cm transparent recirculation-system tanks at 26 +/- 2 C and pH 7.2 to 7.5, with the number of tanks and strain-to-tank allocation unreported
Endpoints: candidate pigment-pathway homologs and phylogenies, adult-tissue and whole-juvenile relative gene expression, CRCN western-blot band intensity relative to tubulin, body-region relative fluorescence used as a pteridine proxy.
What it can support: The tested red, yellow and blue source strains differed in selected tissue and juvenile transcript levels, CRCN western-blot abundance and body-region relative fluorescence. These cross-sectional associations identify candidate carotenoid and pteridine pathways for follow-up; the tested blue strain had higher normalized CRCN band intensity than the red and yellow strains.
What it cannot support: The study did not manipulate candidate genes, cross strains, measure inheritance, quantify a standardized visible-colour phenotype, identify or quantify individual pteridine compounds, assay carotenoid composition, assign diets or validate seller lines. Its red, yellow and blue labels were not connected to named aquarium morphs, vouchers, diagnostic species confirmation, ancestry or pedigrees. Three biological samples per endpoint, unresolved animal pooling and tank history, an unreported calibrator for 2^-delta-delta-Ct comparisons, relative fluorescence without reported tissue-mass normalization, unpublished sequence inputs and low-powered distribution tests at n = 3 limit causal or reproducible pathway ranking. The work cannot provide a genotype test, dominance chart, feed or carotenoid prescription, colour-grade prediction, ancestry claim or commercial trade-line pedigree.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Neocaridina identity evidence
Li et al., 2026. BioTech 15(1): 15.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
Study shape: Expression was compared across colour strains and stages; RNA interference and sampled SNP associations were examined.
Experimental unit: Embryo group or biological sample, depending on endpoint
Environment: Laboratory expression, association and RNA-interference study
Endpoints: NinaB-like expression, red pigment deposition, SNP association.
What it can support: Functional involvement and sampled genetic associations for body-colour regulation in the source taxon.
What it cannot support: The candidate SNPs do not certify Blue Dream, Sunkist, purity, relatedness or a universal named-morph genotype.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Field observation
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Sidorovskyi, 2026. Fisheries Science of Ukraine 1(75): 98-114.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Hydrobiological dip-net collections at two coordinates were preserved in 96 percent ethanol and identified by stereomicroscopy; later visits were used to report non-detection after the initial records.
Experimental unit: Field collection event at either of two Kharkiv water bodies; sampling frequency, effort and detection probability were not reported
Environment: Two urban water bodies in Kharkiv, Ukraine, surveyed between June 2020 and December 2025
Endpoints: specimen occurrence, body length, sex count, ovigerous-female count, later non-detection, site context.
What it can support: The article documents 10 and 6 shrimp at one site in 2020 and 2021, seven at a second site in 2024, ovigerous females in every positive collection and later non-detection at both sites.
What it cannot support: Later non-detection does not prove extinction because sampling effort and detectability were not reported. Identification was described as stereomicroscopy without diagnostic character results or a molecular confirmation. The end of warm runoff was not an assigned temperature treatment, and no released source stock was traced. The observations do not establish a thermal threshold, prove release causation or make any climate release-safe.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Kusmintarsih et al., 2025. E3S Web of Conferences 609: 02003.
Source taxon as published: Market-labeled Neocaridina denticulata and Neocaridina palmata; no host-identification method reported
Study shape: One hundred market-labeled N. denticulata and 100 market-labeled N. palmata were transported in market aquarium water. Gill and cephalothorax material was scraped onto slides and examined by microscopy for organisms reported as sessile bdelloid rotifers, Vorticella sp. and Zoothamnium sp.
Experimental unit: Individual examined shrimp, clustered within an unreported number of sampled aquariums from one seller and one claimed river source
Environment: Two hundred shrimp sampled across more than eight aquariums operated by the only ornamental-shrimp seller at one fish market in Purbalingga, Central Java, Indonesia
Endpoints: presence of reported organism group, host label, reported sex, gill or cephalothorax location.
What it can support: In this one-seller sample, the authors reported at least one of the three organism groups on 156 of 200 examined shrimp, including 78 of 100 under each market species label.
What it cannot support: Aquarium identities and sample counts, collection dates, host-species identification, sexing method, microscope magnification, diagnostic key, stain, image vouchers, molecular confirmation, examiner blinding, confidence intervals and the named statistical test were not reported. The two market labels were reportedly kept together, and the analysis did not account for aquarium clustering. No tissue damage, respiration, behaviour, growth, reproduction, mortality, transmission, treatment or causal disease endpoint was measured. The 78 percent result is not a trade-wide prevalence estimate, does not validate a home diagnosis, does not prove every detected organism was parasitic or harmful and does not establish a treatment indication.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Bochini et al., 2024. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 50: e849.
Source taxon as published: One adult female identified by the source as Neocaridina davidi and deposited as voucher CCDB 6963
Study shape: Three double-bottom shrimp-boat trawls on one coastal sampling date yielded the single specimen. It was frozen, preserved in 100 percent ethanol, measured, compared with published morphology methods and sequenced at mitochondrial COI and 16S plus nuclear 18S and H3 loci. COI entered a maximum-likelihood analysis with a model selected by Bayesian information criterion and 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates; the other loci were used as identity checks.
Experimental unit: One collected and vouchered adult female for morphology and all four molecular markers; one site, one date and three incompletely quantified trawls for the occurrence observation
Environment: One coastal sampling event on 14 February 2022 at Candeias beach, Pernambuco, Brazil, where three double-bottom shrimp-boat trawls recovered one live specimen among filamentous algae
Endpoints: voucher identity, carapace length, morphological identification, COI phylogenetic placement and genetic distance, 16S sequence, 18S sequence, H3 sequence.
What it can support: The source documents one vouchered adult female identified as N. davidi from a Brazilian coastal marine trawl. Its COI sequence was reported at zero genetic distance from selected Polish and Canadian N. davidi sequences, and the authors deposited reported COI, 16S and 18S sequence accessions.
What it cannot support: One animal establishes a specimen occurrence, not an established or reproducing Brazilian population. The study did not report ambient salinity, temperature, depth, capture duration, animal condition after capture, residence time, physiological measurements, osmoregulation, survival, reproduction, abundance, repeated sampling or sampling of the nearby lagoon and estuary. Diagnostic morphological character states were not tabulated, and only COI had a comparative phylogeny; identical short mitochondrial sequences cannot trace a European source, aquarium seller, release event, ancestry or route. The reported H3 identifier SUB14399993 is a submission identifier rather than a standard GenBank accession. An aquarium-trade origin was proposed as the most plausible hypothesis but was not directly tested. This record cannot establish marine tolerance, a salinity acclimation method, South American distribution, population impact, parasite transfer, a trade-line identity or permission to release aquarium animals.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Field observation
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Prati et al., 2024. Biological Invasions 26: 2499-2523.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Feral occurrence, environmental conditions and intracellular parasite relationships were investigated.
Experimental unit: Field population, site and sampled animal, depending on endpoint
Environment: European feral populations with field sampling and molecular parasite work
Endpoints: feral occurrence, range expansion, microsporidian detection, environmental context.
What it can support: Feral populations and intracellular parasite associations exist in the sampled locations.
What it cannot support: One site value is not a care boundary, and field parasite detection is not a prevalence estimate for the aquarium trade.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Shih et al., 2024. Zoological Studies 63: 18.
Source taxon as published: Eight Neocaridina species or provisional lineages from Japan
Study shape: COI DNA barcoding, morphology and geographic context were combined to identify native, non-native and provisional Neocaridina lineages.
Experimental unit: Collected specimen and locality, with sequences interpreted within the sampled phylogeny
Environment: Museum-deposited specimens from eighteen sites in Kyushu and southern Honshu
Endpoints: morphological characters, COI haplotypes, species delimitation, geographic occurrence.
What it can support: Integrative evidence distinguished several co-occurring Neocaridina lineages and exposed limits of a single barcode or character.
What it cannot support: The Japanese field result does not identify a commercial colour line, establish ancestry from a photograph or resolve every competing species treatment.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Yang et al., 2024. Current Issues in Molecular Biology 46: 12279-12298.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi, N. denticulata and N. heteropoda complex
Study shape: Morphological characters, mitogenomes, genetic distances and phylogeny were compared across three forms.
Experimental unit: Examined specimen and sequence
Environment: Integrative specimen study from the Baiyangdian drainage area
Endpoints: morphological differentiation, mitogenomic distance, phylogenetic placement.
What it can support: A published proposal to combine several named forms under Neocaridina denticulata.
What it cannot support: The current DecaNet authority has not adopted that proposal, and the paper does not identify aquarium stock from colour.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Kusmintarsih et al., 2023. Biodiversitas 24(7): 3766-3773.
Source taxon as published: Market-sourced ornamental shrimp reported as Neocaridina denticulata from Purbalingga, Central Java; no voucher-based identification was reported
Study shape: Abdominal tissue from ten visibly labelled market samples was extracted. A custom primer designed from a Neocaridina denticulata mitochondrial reference amplified an approximately 545-base-pair CO1 fragment. Bidirectional sequences were assembled, compared with one primary BLAST reference and placed in a neighbour-joining tree with selected GenBank sequences and one distant outgroup.
Experimental unit: One destructive tissue sample per visible colour entry, with ten sequence entries in the result tables; the paper does not report vouchers, specimen IDs, seller or aquarium clustering, replicate extractions, independent PCR confirmation or public accession numbers for the new sequences
Environment: Shrimp collected in August 2019 from the Purbalingga ornamental fish market and transported to a laboratory; seller, source farm, number of source aquaria and prior breeding history were not reported
Endpoints: CO1 PCR band, assembled fragment length, BLAST identity, neighbour-joining placement, reported pairwise genetic distance.
What it can support: Within this market sample and assay, the ten sequence entries labelled dark red, bright red, black, white, blue-black combinations or yellow were reported at 98.24 to 99.29 percent identity to the same Chinese N. denticulata mitochondrial reference, and the study reported zero pairwise distance among its sampled sequences. Visible colour labels therefore did not separate those sampled entries into different reported CO1 groups.
What it cannot support: This is a ten-specimen convenience sample from one market, not a survey of named global trade lines, farms, sellers or source populations. Collection wording does not resolve whether specimens came from one seller, aquarium, brood or colony. No morphological key, sex-based diagnostic structures, voucher deposition, extraction blank, PCR negative control, replicate extraction or new sequence accession is reported, so the specimen identity and sequence audit cannot be independently reconstructed from the article. The blue lane in Figure 2 has no band, the figure numbers lanes 1 to 10 while the text refers to samples 2 to 11, and Table 2 reports ten sequence entries without a standalone blue entry. The methods and Figure 3 describe a Jukes-Cantor tree, while Table 3 is labelled Kimura 2 parameter. The article reports 0.00 distance among the study entries even though their BLAST identities to the same reference vary from 98.24 to 99.29 percent, and its new sequences are not shown as deposited accessions. Low branch support appears across several reference relationships, the outgroup is a tunicate rather than a closer atyid, and the selected reference labels include disputed or inconsistent Neocaridina names. A short mitochondrial fragment records one maternally inherited locus; it cannot establish nuclear ancestry, pedigree, relatedness, genetic purity, line stability, inheritance, hybrid status or the species identity of another shrimp based on colour or a matching seller label.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Kakui and Komai, 2022. Aquatic Animals 2022: AA2022-1.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina sp. aff. davidi
Study shape: Associated worms and host shrimp were examined for a regional record and taxonomic identification.
Experimental unit: Collected host or associated worm specimen
Environment: Field-collected host and associated worm specimens from Hokkaido, Japan
Endpoints: worm identification, host association, regional occurrence.
What it can support: A method-based record of Scutariella japonica associated with the source host identification.
What it cannot support: Occurrence does not establish aquarium prevalence, severity, treatment efficacy or identification from a distant white shape.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Onuki and Fuke, 2022. Conservation Genetics 23: 967-980.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina denticulata and invasive Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Genome-wide SNPs, mitochondrial data and morphology were combined across sites.
Experimental unit: Field-collected specimen nested within site
Environment: Nineteen field sites around Lake Biwa
Endpoints: species assignment, population structure, site occurrence.
What it can support: Native and invasive lineages can require combined genetic and morphological evidence to distinguish.
What it cannot support: Colour or a seller label cannot reproduce the identification, and occurrence does not create aquarium care limits.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Zhou et al., 2021. Ecology and Evolution 11: 10502-10514.
Source taxon as published: Freshwater shrimp including Neocaridina davidi and Neocaridina denticulata
Study shape: Male morphology, COI barcodes and several molecular-delimitation methods were compared across freshwater shrimp samples.
Experimental unit: Collected specimen and sequence, nested within sampling locality
Environment: About 1,200 field specimens from forty-six sites in Henan Province
Endpoints: morphological identification, COI haplotype, molecular operational taxonomic unit, genetic distance.
What it can support: Morphological variation and molecular partitions did not reduce to one simple visual species rule in the sampled freshwater shrimp.
What it cannot support: The survey does not authenticate aquarium trade names, grades, purity or lineage, and a COI similarity threshold is not a universal species test.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
System observation or method study
Neocaridina identity evidence
Huang et al., 2020. Marine Biotechnology 22: 772-785.
Source taxon as published: Supplier-sourced super red shrimp and chocolate shrimp labelled Neocaridina denticulata, plus a native black-shell strain used in marker development; no voucher or diagnostic identity method was reported
Study shape: RNA from three young super red and three young chocolate shrimp supplied one aggregate sequencing result per phenotype on an Illumina HiSeq 2000. Transcriptome SSR candidates were screened by PCR, sixteen amplified, and five polymorphic loci were reported across offspring from super red, chocolate and reciprocal crosses. Supplementary Figure S4 reports the largest eight females and males from each source strain as parents and three families per cross group.
Experimental unit: The transcriptome comparison appears to contain one pooled library per phenotype rather than independent biological libraries. The paper states 50 offspring in each of four cross groups, but Table 6 frequencies for both reciprocal hybrids occur in eighths and no individual genotype file, missing-call denominator, family allocation or family-aware analysis is supplied.
Environment: Separate supplier strains maintained in a flow-through breeding system at 22 to 25 C, pH 6.5 to 7.0 and GH 3 to 4; tank count, strain allocation and family history before the reported crosses were not defined
Endpoints: assembled transcriptome and annotation, phenotype-group expression counts, SSR discovery and PCR feasibility, allele and genotype counts, heterozygosity and polymorphic information content, genotype frequencies across four cross groups.
What it can support: The study developed five polymorphic transcriptome-derived SSR loci and found different genotype-frequency patterns among its sampled Larmax super red, chocolate and reciprocal-cross groups. The loci are candidates for population and cross validation within the sampled breeding material.
What it cannot support: One apparent pooled RNA library per phenotype cannot support replicated differential-expression inference. The study did not report standardized colour measurements, individual phenotypes, complete genotype denominators, parent-to-offspring assignments, Mendelian segregation, linkage, causal variants, blind classification or an independent validation population. The stated 200-offspring method conflicts with hybrid frequencies in eighths, and the claimed 4.31 percent single-marker and 0.0018 percent combined-marker misrecognition rates are not derived in the article or supplements and were not measured on a held-out test set. Multiple genotype tests were reported without a multiplicity correction and p values were printed as 0.000. These loci do not certify purity, pedigree, ancestry, diversity, Blue Dream, Sunkist, Bloody Mary or any other seller line, and super red is not evidence for equivalence to a current red trade name.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Neocaridina identity evidence
Han et al., 2019. BMC Genetics 20: 86.
Source taxon as published: Four Neocaridina species or provisional lineages from Taiwan
Study shape: COI sequences, phylogeographic structure and demographic models were used to infer species boundaries and colonization histories.
Experimental unit: Collected specimen, haplotype and sampled locality depending on analysis
Environment: Four hundred seventy-nine specimens from thirty-five Taiwanese localities
Endpoints: COI lineage, haplotype structure, species delimitation, colonization-time inference.
What it can support: The sampled Taiwanese Neocaridina contained multiple geographically structured lineages with different inferred histories.
What it cannot support: Phylogeographic inference does not establish the ancestry, relatedness, purity or species of a commercial colour morph.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Shih, Cai and Chiu, 2019. ZooKeys 817: 11-23.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina fonticulata Shih, Cai and Chiu, 2019, described from type and additional material collected at Sheding, Kenting, southern Taiwan
Study shape: The authors described a holotype, multiple paratype lots and additional field material using external morphology and drawings, compared material of Neocaridina ikiensis, measured five eggs from each of four ovigerous females, and analyzed a 658-base-pair mitochondrial COI segment from four Sheding specimens with Bayesian and maximum-likelihood phylogenetic methods and pairwise distances.
Experimental unit: Individual deposited specimen for morphology, four source shrimp for COI that yielded one reported haplotype, and 20 eggs nested within four ovigerous females for egg measurements
Environment: A leaf-litter layer in a small, slow-flowing headwater stream beside a spring outlet on a limestone hill at Sheding, Kenting; the paper reports about 25 C water, pH 7.06 to 7.16 and dissolved oxygen 7.33 to 7.70 mg/L at the collection site, while examined specimens were preserved in 70 to 95 percent ethanol
Endpoints: type locality and deposited material, rostrum and appendage diagnostic characters, male first and second pleopod morphology, egg dimensions, live colour description, COI haplotype and phylogenetic placement, pairwise mitochondrial distance.
What it can support: The combined type material, comparative morphology and sampled COI evidence support recognizing N. fonticulata as a distinct Neocaridina species in the reviewed 2019 treatment. Diagnostic evidence includes the rostrum, pereiopods and male first and second pleopods. The four sequenced shrimp produced one 658-base-pair COI haplotype, LC427866, and the smallest reported K2P distances to sampled N. ketagalan and N. saccam were 5.42 and 5.43 percent.
What it cannot support: The species was then known only from one Sheding locality, so the report does not establish its complete distribution, population size, seasonal habitat range or conservation status; the authors prediction that it may occur in eastern Taiwan was not a sampled result. Several diagnostic characters require an adult male, dissection and specialist comparison, so body colour or one aquarium photograph cannot identify the species or distinguish it from a trade morph. The molecular result used four shrimp, one mitochondrial haplotype and no nuclear locus, cross, genomic ancestry test or blind identification validation. Mitochondrial separation in this sample does not authenticate a seller label, certify a colour line, prove reproductive isolation or identify another animal by appearance. Site temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen are locality observations without temporal replication or an assigned comparison, not aquarium optima, tolerances or care targets. Aquarium-held photographs were for observation after collection, not a husbandry experiment.
Related source material: GenBank COI accession LC427866
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Field observation
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Jablonska et al., 2018. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 419: 14.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi identified by morphology and a 610-base-pair COI fragment
Study shape: Qualitative hydrobiological hand-net samples collected field shrimp in July 2003, November 2013 and June 2017. Morphology was compared with published descriptions. COI sequences from field and amateur-aquarium animals were aligned with five Taiwan and Hawaii reference sequences, assigned to haplotypes and placed in a neighbour-joining tree.
Experimental unit: Collected animal nested within three field collection events and one aquarium comparison source. Only June 2017 reports standardized effort: one square metre sampled for approximately 15 minutes. The 2003 formaldehyde-preserved sample was unavailable for COI analysis.
Environment: A roughly 4.5 km artificial canal connected to the lower River Oder near Gryfino, Poland, receiving heated Dolna Odra Power Station cooling water, with fine sand and mud substrate, partial concrete banks and submerged vegetation
Endpoints: field occurrence by year, sex and ovigerous status, body length and diagnostic morphology, 610-base-pair COI sequence, haplotype assignment, neighbour-joining placement.
What it can support: Fifteen field shrimp were found in three positive collection years spanning 2003 to 2017, including one ovigerous female in November 2013. Morphology and seven field COI accessions supported N. davidi identity. The seven field and six amateur-aquarium sequences generated by the study shared one COI haplotype, supporting close mitochondrial similarity within that comparison.
What it cannot support: The three positive years were not continuous monitoring, and qualitative sampling with mostly unreported effort cannot estimate abundance, density, occupancy, population trend or detection probability. One ovigerous female supports reproductive condition, not observed hatching, recruitment or proof that local reproduction maintained the records. The authors explicitly retained repeated yearly introductions as an alternative. The canal was artificially heated; the paper reports 27 to 29 C in June-July and 15 C in November but no winter minimum, winter sample, thermal time series or comparison site. It cannot establish cold tolerance, winter survival, a home temperature range or a 27 to 28 C breeding optimum. A shared short mitochondrial haplotype does not trace an aquarium source, seller, release event, nuclear ancestry or transfer direction. The study measured no survival, growth, water chemistry beyond temperature, ecological impact, pathogen transfer or control outcome. Failure to find a threat is not proof of no impact, and field occurrence never makes release safe.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Field observation
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Mitsugi and Suzuki, 2018. Crustacean Research 47: 9-16.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Monthly field samples were used for morphology, size-frequency cohorts and inferred life history.
Experimental unit: Monthly river sample
Environment: Tomoe River, eastern Japan, sampled monthly for one year
Endpoints: body and carapace length, sex characters, cohort structure, inferred lifespan.
What it can support: Defined measurement landmarks and field cohort estimates for the sampled population.
What it cannot support: Individuals were not marked from hatch to death, and the inferred lifespan is not an aquarium average or guarantee.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Field observation
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Schoolmann and Arndt, 2018. Limnologica 71: 1-7.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Repeated field sampling described population structure, reproduction and dispersal.
Experimental unit: Field samples from one invaded stream system
Environment: Thermally affected German stream followed for 27 months
Endpoints: size-frequency structure, ovigerous females, population persistence, dispersal.
What it can support: A reproducing feral population persisted and dispersed under the recorded field conditions.
What it cannot support: Field estimates do not establish aquarium lifespan, a species temperature optimum or a release-safe climate.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Neocaridina identity evidence
Kenny et al., 2014. Marine Drugs 12(3): 1419-1437.
Source taxon as published: Commercially sourced red-patched animals identified as Neocaridina denticulata denticulata; no voucher, morphology or molecular host-identification method reported
Study shape: One adult supplied a 100-base-pair paired-end Illumina HiSeq2000 library with 364,013,140 reads. ABySS assembly used k-mer 51 and an assumed approximately 3-gigabase genome. A separate method experiment tested ten adults at each of five MS-222 concentrations from 1000 to 3000 mg/L and varied bath duration from 10 to 40 minutes.
Experimental unit: One commercially sourced adult for the nuclear and mitochondrial sequence resource. Individual adults were the anaesthesia units, but duration cells shown in Figure 8 contained only one to five recoverable animals and some concentration-duration combinations were omitted after insufficient induction or mortality.
Environment: Laboratory stock held in a recirculating freshwater aquarium at about 25 C; one starved and dissected adult supplied genomic DNA, while separate adults entered aerated MS-222 bath trials
Endpoints: draft contig metrics, core eukaryotic gene hits, mitochondrial genome recovery, candidate developmental gene-family hits, Daphnia protein-sequence matches, anaesthesia induction, first movement, complete recovery, three-day mortality follow-up.
What it can support: The short-read resource recovered a 15,565-base-pair mitochondrial genome and recognizable hits for 455 of 458 CEGMA core genes at the stated threshold. It also demonstrates that MS-222 concentration and bath duration changed induction and recovery under the tested laboratory method.
What it cannot support: The 99.3 percent result is a core-gene hit rate, not 99.3 percent whole-genome completeness. The draft contained 3,346,358 contigs, an N50 of 400 base pairs and 1.284 gigabases of assembled sequence against an assumed approximately 3-gigabase genome; the authors explicitly described poor recovery of non-coding regions and manually removed three bacterial-like contigs. One unvouchered seller animal cannot establish population variation, named-line ancestry, pedigree, purity, phenotype prediction or a consumer genetic test. The 3,750 putatively crustacean-specific matches depend on database content and an E-value cutoff and do not establish unique function. The anaesthesia cells were small, some animals died at 3000 mg/L and one of three died after 30 minutes at 2000 mg/L, so the protocol is not a home treatment, transport method, euthanasia instruction or general welfare guarantee.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Naruse, Shokita and Cai, 2006. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 119(1): 25-31.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina iriomotensis Naruse, Shokita and Cai, 2006, described from the upper reaches of Nishifunatsuki in the Nakama River, Iriomote Island, Japan
Study shape: The listed material contains one male holotype, 41 paratypes and 49 non-type specimens collected on seven dates from November 1999 through June 2000. Only specimens above 4 mm carapace length were used for the description. Characters were drawn with a camera lucida and measured to 0.01 mm; proportional summaries report medians, ranges and varying sample sizes from 73 to 83. The treatment compared the new species with published N. anhuiensis and topotypic N. ishigakiensis morphology.
Experimental unit: Individual field specimen for morphological ratios and qualitative seasonal comparison; the paper does not report the female or egg denominator underlying its egg-size and 21-to-82 clutch ranges
Environment: Field-collected from the lower part of a headwater reach in the upper Nakama River, described as about 5 to 10 m wide, approximately 1 m deep and slow-flowing, where shrimp occurred on aquatic vegetation and tree roots with Macrobrachium shokitai; no water chemistry or temperature was reported
Endpoints: deposited type and non-type material, rostrum armature and length, pterygostomian spine, pereiopod proportions, season-associated third-pereiopod form, male first and second pleopod morphology, egg dimensions and reported clutch range, habitat and distribution description.
What it can support: The 2006 morphological treatment supports recognizing N. iriomotensis within its stated species concept and distinguishes its sampled material from N. anhuiensis and N. ishigakiensis using combinations of rostrum, pterygostomian-spine, pereiopod and male pleopod characters. It also documents that the third pereiopod showed sex-associated form in summer specimens but no sexual difference in winter specimens, demonstrating that season can affect the availability of an identification character.
What it cannot support: All listed material came from one named upper-reach locality in the Nakama River, and qualitative wording that the shrimp was common lacks sampling effort and a population denominator. No molecular analysis was included; proposed headwater ecomorph populations had intermediate rostrum lengths and were retained only tentatively pending molecular and ecological study. Published comparisons relied partly on earlier descriptions rather than a balanced multi-population validation, character sample sizes varied because not every specimen contributed every ratio, and no blind key-performance test was conducted. Egg and clutch ranges lack female, clutch and egg denominators. The paper reports no water temperature, pH, hardness, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen measurements, diet, culture comparison or aquarium outcome. It cannot identify an aquarium animal from colour or one photograph, authenticate a seller line, prove genetic separation or reproductive isolation, map the complete species range, establish population abundance, or supply a care target, breeding forecast or seasonal aquarium rule.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Morphology or taxonomy
Adjacent biological evidence
Cai and Ng, 1999. Journal of Natural History 33(11): 1603-1638.
Source taxon as published: Caridina serrata species group, including Lam Tsuen material previously reported as Neocaridina serrata
Study shape: Published descriptions, neotypes and re-examined material were compared using rostral formula, stylocerite, pereiopod, pleopod and other morphological characters across the Caridina serrata group.
Experimental unit: Examined specimen and collection lot; the Lam Tsuen conclusion used later material from the same river population, including Dudgeon-collected lots, rather than a reported re-examination of every animal sampled for the 1985 population study
Environment: Museum and field-collected freshwater shrimp material from southern China, including Lam Tsuen River and other Hong Kong localities
Endpoints: taxonomic diagnosis, genus placement, species reassignment, morphological distinction, locality record.
What it can support: The Lam Tsuen population published by Dudgeon in 1985 and 1987 as Neocaridina serrata was reassigned to Caridina cantonensis. The revision also concluded that neither C. cantonensis nor C. serrata belongs in Neocaridina because the distal half of the male first pleopod lacks the Neocaridina condition.
What it cannot support: The revision does not make every aquarium animal sold as C. cantonensis taxonomically verified, resolve all later Caridina species-group relationships or convert Dudgeon field results into captive care guidance. It did not re-run the 1985 population study, and its reassignment does not establish temperature, lifespan, maturity, clutch or abundance rules for N. davidi.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.