Loading…

Phylogeny of the subfamily L arentiinae ( L epidoptera: G eometridae): integrating molecular data and traditional classifications

Larentiinae are the second largest subfamily of G eometridae, with more than 6200 described species. Despite recent advances in molecular systematics of geometrid moths, phylogenetic relationships between the numerous subgroups of L arentiinae are poorly known. In this study we present the most comp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Systematic entomology 2016-10, Vol.41 (4), p.824-843
Main Authors: ÕUNAP, ERKI, VIIDALEPP, JAAN, TRUUVERK, ANDRO
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Larentiinae are the second largest subfamily of G eometridae, with more than 6200 described species. Despite recent advances in molecular systematics of geometrid moths, phylogenetic relationships between the numerous subgroups of L arentiinae are poorly known. In this study we present the most comprehensive attempt to date to resolve the phylogeny of L arentiinae, having sampled at least one species from all currently recognized 23 tribes. Fragments of one mitochondrial ( COI ) and eight nuclear ( EF ‐1α , WGL , GAPDH , RPS5 , IDH , MDH , CAD and 28S ) genes were sequenced, for a total of 6939 bp. Maximum likelihood and B ayesian analyses resulted in identical well‐resolved phylogenetic trees, which had maximum or near‐maximum support values at most nodes. Almost all conventionally recognized tribes represented by more than one genus were found to be monophyletic. Close to the root of L arentiinae, six tribes branch off the main lineage one after another, with D yspteridini being sister to all other members of the subfamily. The rest of larentiines are divided into two very diverse lineages, comprising eight and at least ten tribes, respectively. There were just three findings incongruent with the conventional tribal subdivision of the subfamily. First, the genera C ollix G uenée and A nticollix P rout formed a separate, previously unrecognized but well‐supported clade at the tribe level. Second, the P alaearctic genus P elurga H übner was placed apart from L arentia T reitschke and M esoleuca H übner, which were the other members of L arentiini in this analysis. Third, C ataclysmini appeared together with genera belonging to X anthorhoini, leaving the latter paraphyletic. The N eotropic genus O ligopleura H errich‐ S chäffer is shown to belong to the tribe E uphyiini ( comb.n. ) according to both molecular data and male genital morphology. The results and the tribal classification of L arentiinae are discussed with reference to the principal publications since the end of the 19th C entury. We conclude that the current tribal classification of L arentiinae is not controversial from the phylogenetic point of view and that its increasing complexity has merely reflected the accumulation of information, mainly through different methods of biosystematic study having become available for researchers. Our results indicate that diurnal lifestyle, accompanied by conspicuous coloration, has evolved independently in several subgroups of L arentiinae.
ISSN:0307-6970
1365-3113
DOI:10.1111/syen.12195