Alexandrium ostenfeldii (Paulsen) Balech and Tangen and A. peruvianum (Balech and B.R. Mendiola) Balech and Tangen are morphologically closely related dinoflagellates known to produce potent neurotoxins. Together with Gonyaulax dimorpha Biecheler, they constitute the A. ostenfeldii species complex. Due to the subtle differences in the morphological characters used to differentiate these species, unambiguous species identification has proven problematic. To better understand the species boundaries within the A. ostenfeldii complex we compared rDNA data, morphometric characters and toxin profiles of multiple cultured isolates from different geographic regions. Phylogenetic analysis of rDNA sequences from cultures characterized as A. ostenfeldii or A. peruvianum formed a monophyletic clade consisting of six distinct groups. Each group examined contained strains morphologically identified as either A. ostenfeldii or A. peruvianum. Though key morphological characters were generally found to be highly variable and not consistently distributed, selected plate features and toxin profiles differed significantly among phylogenetic clusters. Additional sequence analyses revealed a lack of compensatory base changes in ITS2 rRNA structure, low to intermediate ITS/5.8S uncorrected genetic distances, and evidence of reticulation. Together these data (criteria currently used for species delineation in dinoflagellates) imply that the A. ostenfeldii complex should be regarded a single genetically structured species until more material and alternative criteria for species delimitation are available. Consequently, we propose that A. peruvianum is a heterotypic synonym of A. ostenfeldii and this taxon name should be discontinued.
A recently published study analyzed the phylogenetic relationship between the genera Centrodinium and Alexandrium, confirming an earlier publication showing the genus Alexandrium as paraphyletic. This most recent manuscript retained the genus Alexandrium, introduced a new genus Episemicolon, resurrected two genera, Gessnerium and Protogonyaulax, and stated that: "The polyphyly [sic] of Alexandrium is solved with the split into four genera". However, these reintroduced taxa were not based on monophyletic groups. Therefore this work, if accepted, would result in replacing a single paraphyletic taxon with several non-monophyletic ones. The morphological data presented for genus characterization also do not convincingly support taxa delimitations. The combination of weak molecular phylogenetics and the lack of diagnostic traits (i.e., autapomorphies) render the applicability of the concept of limited use. The proposal to split the genus Alexandrium on the basis of our current knowledge is rejected herein. The aim here is not to present an alternative analysis and revision, but to maintain Alexandrium. A better constructed and more phylogenetically accurate revision can and should wait until more complete evidence becomes available and there is a strong reason to revise the genus Alexandrium. The reasons are explained in detail by a review of the available molecular and morphological data for species of the genera Alexandrium and Centrodinium. In addition, cyst morphology and chemotaxonomy are discussed, and the need for integrative taxonomy is highlighted.