We present a phylogenetic analysis of spiders using a dataset of 932 spider species, representing 115 families (only the family Synaphridae is unrepresented), 700 known genera, and additional representatives of 26 unidentified or undescribed genera. Eleven genera of the orders Amblypygi, Palpigradi, Schizomida and Uropygi are included as outgroups. The dataset includes six markers from the mitochondrial (12S, 16S,
The first large‐scale, total‐evidence phylogeny of the owlflies (Neuroptera, Ascalaphidae) is presented. A combined morphological and molecular dataset was analysed under several analytical regimes for 76 exemplars of Myrmeleontiformia (Psychopsidae, Nymphidae, Nemopteridae, Myrmeleontidae, Ascalaphidae), including 57 of Ascalaphidae. At the subordinal level, the families were recovered in all analyses in the form Psychopsidae + (Nymphidae + (Nemopteridae + (Myrmeleontidae + Ascalaphidae). In the DNA‐only maximum‐likelihood analysis, Ascalaphidae were recovered as paraphyletic with respect to the Myrmeleontidae and the tribe Ululodini. In both the parsimony and Bayesian total‐evidence analyses, however, the latter with strong support, traditional Ascalaphidae were recovered as monophyletic, and in the latter, Stilbopteryginae were placed as the immediate sister group. The long‐standing subfamilies Haplogleniinae and Ascalaphinae were not recovered as monophyletic in any analysis, nor were several of the included tribes of non‐ululodine Ascalaphinae. The Ululodini were monophyletic and well supported in all analyses, as were the New World Haplogleniinae and, separately, the African/Malagasy Haplogleniinae. The remaining Ascalaphidae, collectively, were also consistently cohesive, but included a genus that until now has been placed in the Haplogleniinae,
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10372576
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Zoologica Scripta
- Volume:
- 48
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 0300-3256
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 761-782
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract COI ) and nuclear (histone H3, 18S, 28S) genomes, and was analysed by multiple methods, including constrained analyses using a highly supported backbone tree from transcriptomic data. We recover most of the higher‐level structure of the spider tree with good support, including Mesothelae, Opisthothelae, Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae. Several of our analyses recover Hypochilidae and Filistatidae as sister groups, as suggested by previous transcriptomic analyses. The Synspermiata are robustly supported, and the families Trogloraptoridae and Caponiidae are found as sister to the Dysderoidea. Our results support the Lost Tracheae clade, including Pholcidae, Tetrablemmidae, Diguetidae, Plectreuridae and the family Pacullidae (restored status ) separate from Tetrablemmidae. The Scytodoidea include Ochyroceratidae along with Sicariidae, Scytodidae, Drymusidae and Periegopidae; our results are inconclusive about the separation of these last two families. We did not recover monophyletic Austrochiloidea and Leptonetidae, but our data suggest that both groups are more closely related to the Cylindrical Gland Spigot clade rather than to Synspermiata. Palpimanoidea is not recovered by our analyses, but also not strongly contradicted. We find support for Entelegynae and Oecobioidea (Oecobiidae plus Hersiliidae), and ambiguous placement of cribellate orb‐weavers, compatible with their non‐monophyly. Nicodamoidea (Nicodamidae plus Megadictynidae) and Araneoidea composition and relationships are consistent with recent analyses. We did not obtain resolution for the titanoecoids (Titanoecidae and Phyxelididae), but the Retrolateral Tibial Apophysis clade is well supported. Penestomidae, and probably Homalonychidae, are part of Zodarioidea, although the latter family was set apart by recent transcriptomic analyses. Our data support a large group that we call the marronoid clade (including the families Amaurobiidae, Desidae, Dictynidae, Hahniidae, Stiphidiidae, Agelenidae and Toxopidae). The circumscription of most marronoid families is redefined here. Amaurobiidae include the Amaurobiinae and provisionally Macrobuninae. We transfer Malenellinae (Malenella , from Anyphaenidae), Chummidae (Chumma ) (new syn. ) and Tasmarubriinae (Tasmarubrius ,Tasmabrochus andTeeatta , from Amphinectidae) to Macrobuninae. Cybaeidae are redefined to includeCalymmaria ,Cryphoeca ,Ethobuella andWillisius (transferred from Hahniidae), andBlabomma andYorima (transferred from Dictynidae). Cycloctenidae are redefined to includeOrepukia (transferred from Agelenidae) andPakeha andParavoca (transferred from Amaurobiidae). Desidae are redefined to include five subfamilies: Amphinectinae, withAmphinecta ,Mamoea ,Maniho ,Paramamoea andRangitata (transferred from Amphinectidae); Ischaleinae, withBakala andManjala (transferred from Amaurobiidae) andIschalea (transferred from Stiphidiidae); Metaltellinae, withAustmusia ,Buyina ,Calacadia ,Cunnawarra ,Jalkaraburra ,Keera ,Magua ,Metaltella ,Penaoola andQuemusia ; Porteriinae (new rank ), withBaiami ,Cambridgea ,Corasoides andNanocambridgea (transferred from Stiphidiidae); and Desinae, withDesis , and provisionallyPoaka (transferred from Amaurobiidae) andBarahna (transferred from Stiphidiidae).Argyroneta is transferred from Cybaeidae to Dictynidae.Cicurina is transferred from Dictynidae to Hahniidae. The generaNeoramia (from Agelenidae) andAorangia ,Marplesia andNeolana (from Amphinectidae) are transferred to Stiphidiidae. The family Toxopidae (restored status ) includes two subfamilies: Myroinae, withGasparia ,Gohia ,Hulua ,Neomyro ,Myro ,Ommatauxesis andOtagoa (transferred from Desidae); and Toxopinae, withMidgee andJamara , formerly Midgeeinae,new syn. (transferred from Amaurobiidae) andHapona ,Laestrygones ,Lamina ,Toxops andToxopsoides (transferred from Desidae). We obtain a monophyletic Oval Calamistrum clade and Dionycha; Sparassidae, however, are not dionychans, but probably the sister group of those two clades. The composition of the Oval Calamistrum clade is confirmed (including Zoropsidae, Udubidae, Ctenidae, Oxyopidae, Senoculidae, Pisauridae, Trechaleidae, Lycosidae, Psechridae and Thomisidae), affirming previous findings on the uncertain relationships of the “ctenids”Ancylometes andCupiennius , although a core group of Ctenidae are well supported. Our data were ambiguous as to the monophyly of Oxyopidae. In Dionycha, we found a first split of core Prodidomidae, excluding the Australian Molycriinae, which fall distantly from core prodidomids, among gnaphosoids. The rest of the dionychans form two main groups, Dionycha part A and part B. The former includes much of the Oblique Median Tapetum clade (Trochanteriidae, Gnaphosidae, Gallieniellidae, Phrurolithidae, Trachelidae, Gnaphosidae, Ammoxenidae, Lamponidae and the Molycriinae), and also Anyphaenidae and Clubionidae.Orthobula is transferred from Phrurolithidae to Trachelidae. Our data did not allow for complete resolution for the gnaphosoid families. Dionycha part B includes the families Salticidae, Eutichuridae, Miturgidae, Philodromidae, Viridasiidae, Selenopidae, Corinnidae and Xenoctenidae(new fam. , includingXenoctenus ,Paravulsor andOdo , transferred from Miturgidae, as well asIncasoctenus from Ctenidae). We confirm the inclusion ofZora (formerly Zoridae) within Miturgidae. -
more » « less
ABSTRACT Adephaga is the second largest suborder of beetles (Coleoptera) and they serve as important arthropod predators in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The suborder is divided into Geadephaga comprising terrestrial families and Hydradephaga for aquatic lineages. Despite numerous studies, phylogenetic relationships among the adephagan families and monophyly of the Hydradephaga itself remain in question. Here we conduct a comprehensive phylogenomic analysis of the suborder using ultraconserved elements (UCEs). This study presents the first in vitro test of a newly developed UCE probe set customized for use within Adephaga that includes both probes tailored specifically for the suborder, alongside generalized Coleoptera probes previously found to work in adephagan taxa. We assess the utility of the entire probe set, as well as comparing the tailored and generalized probes alone for reconstructing evolutionary relationships. Our analyses recovered strong support for the paraphyly of Hydradephaga with whirligig beetles (Gyrinidae) placed as sister to all other adephagan families. Geadephaga was strongly supported as monophyletic and placed sister to a clade composed of Haliplidae + Dytiscoidea. Monophyly of Dytiscoidea was strongly supported with relationships among the dytiscoid families resolved and strongly supported. Relationships among the subfamilies of Dytiscidae were strongly supported but largely incongruent with prior phylogenetic estimates for the family. The results of our UCE probe comparison showed that tailored probes alone outperformed generalized probes alone, as well as the full combined probe set (containing both types of probes), under decreased taxon sampling. When taxon sampling was increased, the full combined probe set outperformed both tailored probes and generalized probes alone. This study provides further evidence that UCE probe sets customized for a focal group result in a greater number of recovered loci and substantially improve phylogenomic analysis.
-
more » « less
Abstract The family Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) is a species‐rich group of aculeate wasps that occur worldwide. The higher‐level classification of the family has historically been controversial due, in part, to the extreme sexual dimorphism exhibited by these insects and their morphological similarity to other wasp taxa that also have apterous females. Modern hypotheses on the internal higher classification of Mutillidae have been exclusively based on morphology and, further, they include Myrmosinae as a mutillid subfamily. In contrast, several molecular‐based family‐level studies of Aculeata recovered Myrmosinae as a nonmutillid taxon. To test the validity of these morphology‐based classifications and the phylogenetic placement of the controversial taxon Myrmosinae, a phylogenomic study of Mutillidae was conducted using ultraconserved elements (UCEs). All currently recognized subfamilies and tribes of Mutillidae were represented in this study using 140 ingroup taxa. The maximum likelihood criterion (ML) and the maximum parsimony criterion (MP) were used to infer the phylogenetic relationships within the family and related taxa using an aligned data set of 238,764 characters; the topologies of these respective analyses were largely congruent. The modern higher classification of Mutillidae, based on morphology, is largely congruent with the phylogenomic results of this study at the subfamily level, whereas the tribal classification is poorly supported. The subfamily Myrmosinae was recovered as sister to Sapygidae in the ML analysis and sister to Sapygidae + Pompilidae in the MP analysis; it is consequently raised to the family level, Myrmosidae,
stat.nov. The two constituent tribes of Myrmosidae are raised to the subfamily level, Kudakrumiinae,stat.nov. , and Myrmosinae,stat.nov. All four recognized tribes of Mutillinae were found to be non‐monophyletic; three additional mutilline clades were recovered in addition to Ctenotillini, Mutillini, Smicromyrmini, and Trogaspidiini sensu stricto. Three new tribes are erected for members of these clades: Pristomutillini Waldren,trib.nov. , Psammothermini Waldren,trib.nov. , and Zeugomutillini Waldren,trib.nov. All three recognized tribes of Sphaeropthalminae were found to be non‐monophyletic; six additional sphaeropthalmine clades were recovered in addition to Dasymutillini, Pseudomethocini, and Sphaeropthalmini sensu stricto. The subtribe Ephutina of Mutillinae: Mutillini was found to be polyphyletic, with theEphuta genus‐group recovered within Sphaeropthalminae and theOdontomutilla genus‐group recovered as sister to Myrmillinae + Mutillinae. Consequently, the subtribe Ephutina is transferred from Mutillinae: Mutillini and is raised to a tribe within Sphaeropthalminae, Ephutini,stat.nov. Further, the taxon Odontomutillinae,stat.nov. , is raised from a synonym of Ephutina to the subfamily level. The sphaeropthalmine tribe Pseudomethocini was found to be polyphyletic, with the subtribe Euspinoliina recovered as a separate clade in Sphaeropthalminae; consequently, Euspinoliina is raised to a tribe, Euspinoliini,stat.nov. , in Sphaeropthalminae. The dasylabrine tribe Apteromutillini was recovered within Dasylabrini and is proposed as a new synonym of Dasylabrinae. Finally, dating analyses were conducted to infer the ages of the Pompiloidea families (Mutillidae, Myrmosidae, Pompilidae, and Sapygidae) and the ages of the Mutillidae subfamilies and tribes. -
more » « less
Abstract Recently discovered amber-preserved fossil Cicadellidae exhibit combinations of morphological traits not observed in the modern fauna and have the potential to shed new light on the evolution of this highly diverse family. To place the fossils explicitly within a phylogenetic context, representatives of five extinct genera from Cretaceous Myanmar amber, and one from Eocene Baltic amber were incorporated into a matrix comprising 229 discrete morphological characters and representatives of all modern subfamilies. Phylogenetic analyses yielded well resolved and largely congruent estimates that support the monophyly of most previously recognized cicadellid subfamilies and indicate that the treehoppers are derived from a lineage of Cicadellidae. Instability in the morphology-based phylogenies is mainly confined to deep internal splits that received low branch support in one or more analyses and also were not consistently resolved by recent phylogenomic analyses. Placement of fossil taxa is mostly stable across analyses. Three new Cretaceous leafhopper genera, Burmotettix gen. nov., Kachinella gen nov., and Viraktamathus gen. nov., consistently form a monophyletic group distinct from extant leafhopper subfamilies and are placed in Burmotettiginae subfam. nov. Extinct Cretaceous fossils previously placed in Ledrinae and Signoretiinae are recovered as sister to modern representatives of these groups. Eomegophthalmus Dietrich and Gonçalves from Baltic amber consistently groups with a lineage comprising treehoppers, Megophthalminae, Ulopinae, and Eurymelinae but its position is unstable. Overall, the morphology-based phylogenetic estimates agree with recent phylogenies based on molecular data alone suggesting that morphological traits recently used to diagnose subfamilies are generally informative of phylogenetic relationships within this group.
-
more » « less
Abstract Next‐generation sequencing technologies (NGS) allow systematists to amass a wealth of genomic data from non‐model species for phylogenetic resolution at various temporal scales. However, phylogenetic inference for many lineages dominated by non‐model species has not yet benefited from NGS, which can complement Sanger sequencing studies. One such lineage, whose phylogenetic relationships remain uncertain, is the diverse, agriculturally important and charismatic Coreoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Given the lack of consensus on higher‐level relationships and the importance of a robust phylogeny for evolutionary hypothesis testing, we use a large data set comprised of hundreds of ultraconserved element (UCE) loci to infer the phylogeny of Coreoidea (excluding Stenocephalidae and Hyocephalidae), with emphasis on the families Coreidae and Alydidae. We generated three data sets by including alignments that contained loci sampled for at least 50%, 60%, or 70% of the total taxa, and inferred phylogeny using maximum likelihood and summary coalescent methods. Twenty‐six external morphological features used in relatively comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of coreoids were also re‐evaluated within our molecular phylogenetic framework. We recovered 439–970 loci per species (16%–36% of loci targeted) and combined this with previously generated UCE data for 12 taxa. All data sets, regardless of analytical approach, yielded topologically similar and strongly supported trees, with the exception of outgroup relationships and the position of Hydarinae. We recovered a monophyletic Coreoidea, with Rhopalidae highly supported as the sister group to Alydidae + Coreidae. Neither Alydidae nor Coreidae were monophyletic; the coreid subfamilies Hydarinae and Pseudophloeinae were recovered as more closely related to Alydidae than to other coreid subfamilies. Coreinae were paraphyletic with respect to Meropachyinae. Most morphological traits were homoplastic with several clades defined by few, if any, synapomorphies. Our results demonstrate the utility of phylogenomic approaches in generating robust hypotheses for taxa with long‐standing phylogenetic problems and highlight that novel insights may come from such approaches.
