Morphology-based phylogeny of the treehopper family Membracidae (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Membracoidea)

A parsimony‐based phylogenetic analysis of eighty‐three morphological characters of adults and immatures of seventy representatives of the tribes and subfamilies of Membracidae and two outgroup taxa was conducted to evaluate the status and relationships of these taxa. Centrotinae apparently gave rise to Nessorhinini and Oxyrhachini (both formerly treated as subfamilies, now syn.n. and syn.reinst., respectively, of Centrotinae). In contrast to previous analyses, a clade comprising Nicomiinae, Centronodinae, Centrodontinae, and the unplaced genera Holdgatiella Evans, Euwalkeria Goding and Antillotolania Ramos was recovered, but relationships within this clade were not well resolved. Nodonica bispinigera, gen.n. and sp.n., is described and placed in Centrodontini based on its sister‐group relationship to a clade comprising previously described genera of this tribe. Membracinae and Heteronotinae were consistently monophyletic. Neither Darninae nor Smiliinae, as previously defined, was monophyletic on the maximally parsimonious cladograms, but constraining both as monophyletic groups required only one additional step. The monophyly of Stegaspidinae, including Deiroderes Ramos (unplaced in Membracidae), was supported on some but not all equally parsimonious cladograms. More detailed analyses of individual subfamilies, as well as morphological data on the undescribed immatures of several membracid tribes and genera, will be needed to elucidate relationships among tribes and genera. A key to the subfamilies and tribes is provided.     

Phylogeny of the bee family Megachilidae (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) based on adult morphology

Phylogenetic relationships within the bee family Megachilidae are poorly understood. The monophyly of the subfamily Fideliinae is questionable, the relationships among the tribes and subtribes in the subfamily Megachilinae are unknown, and some extant genera cannot be placed with certainty at the tribal level. Using a cladistic analysis of adult external morphological characters, we explore the relationships of the eight tribes and two subtribes currently recognised in Megachilidae. Our dataset included 80% of the extant generic‐level diversity, representatives of all fossil taxa, and was analysed using parsimony. We employed 200 characters and selected 7 outgroups and 72 ingroup species of 60 genera, plus 7 species of 4 extinct genera from Baltic amber. Our analysis shows that Fideliinae and the tribes Anthidiini and Osmiini of Megachilinae are paraphyletic; it supports the monophyly of Megachilinae, including the extinct taxa, and the sister group relationship of Lithurgini to the remaining megachilines. The Sub‐Saharan genus Aspidosmia, a rare group with a mixture of osmiine and anthidiine features, is herein removed from Anthidiini and placed in its own tribe, Aspidosmiini, new tribe . Protolithurgini is the sister of Lithurgini, both placed herein in the subfamily Lithurginae; the other extinct taxa, Glyptapina and Ctenoplectrellina, are more basally related among Megachilinae than Osmiini, near Aspidosmia, and are herein treated at the tribal level. Noteriades, a genus presently in the Osmiini, is herein transferred to the Megachilini. Thus, we recognise four subfamilies (Fideliinae, Pararhophitinae, Lithurginae and Megachilinae) and nine tribes in Megachilidae. We briefly discuss the evolutionary history and biogeography of the family, present alternative classifications, and provide a revised key to the extant tribes of Megachilinae.     

Systematic revision of Entomobryidae (Collembola) by integrating molecular and new morphological evidence

Entomobryidae, the largest collembolan family, is traditionally classified at suprageneric level using a limited set of morphological structures, such as scales, antennal segmentation. Most tribal and subfamilial delimitations appear, however, disputable in the light of recent works. Integrating molecular and morphological evidence, we propose here a revision of the systematics of the family. In addition to traditional taxonomic characters, tergal specialized chaetae (S‐chaetae) are newly introduced, and their patterns are shown to be diversified at all levels from species to subfamilies. S‐chaetotaxic pattern on phylogenetic tree shows that evolution of S‐chaetae is not parallel between the different terga and that their patterns coincide well with the known molecular phylogeny, providing a powerful tool for the systematics of Entomobryidae. Orchesellinae sensu Soto‐Adames et al. (Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 101, 2008, 501); is divided into three subfamilies: Orchesellinae s. s., Bessoniellinae and Heteromurinae, the latter two upgraded from the original tribal level. Entomobryinae sensu Szeptycki (Morpho‐Systematic Studies on Collembola. IV. Chaetotaxy of the Entomobryidae and its Phylogenetical Significance, 1979), is no longer divided into scaled and unscaled tribes, and Lepidosira‐group is transferred from Seirinae to Entomobryinae. A key to subfamilies and tribes and a comparison with previous classifications of the Entomobryidae are provided. This study greatly improves the understanding of primary and secondary characters and erects the fundamental framework for the taxonomy of Entomobryidae.     

An assessment of the status of Polycirridae genera (Annelida: Terebelliformia) and evolutionary transformation series of characters within the family

A phylogenetic analysis was performed to determine the monophyly of non‐monotypic genera of the terebelliform family Polycirridae, i.e. Polycirrus, Amaeana, Lysilla, and Hauchiella, and the evolution of characters among members of this clade. The monotypic genera, Enoplobranchus and Biremis, were also included, together with members of both known species in Hauchiella. Representative species were included for remaining genera: 14 species of Polycirrus, six species of Amaeana, and six species of Lysilla. Out‐groups consisted of representatives of Spionidae, Cirratulidae, and Sabellariidae, as well as several species of Telothelepodidae. A total of 40 in‐ and out‐group species were coded for 50 subjects (‘characters’) and 117 subject–predicate relationships (‘states’). Although results are consistent with recent phylogenetic studies within Terebelliformia that suggest Polycirridae monophyly, only Hauchiella was found to be monophyletic, albeit part of the more inclusive clade comprising remaining polycirrid genera. Evolutionary transformation series are discussed for selected characters in relation to the non‐monophyly of Polycirrus, Lysilla, and Amaeana. Implications for the use of supraspecific taxa as ‘taxonomic surrogates’ are highlighted. The definition of Polycirridae is emended. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London     

Reconsideration of anopheline mosquito phylogeny (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae) based on morphological data

The phylogeny of anopheline mosquitoes (Culicidae: Anophelinae) is re‐examined using morphological data derived from adults, fourth‐instar larvae and pupae. Based on the data set of Sallum et al. (2000), we add some previously missing data and simplify and recode characters to eliminate ambiguities and more accurately reflect homologies, with special emphasis on characters of the male genitalia that provide the main criteria for the subgeneric classification of genus Anopheles. The principal aim of the study is to assess objectively the phylogenetic relationships and classification of two taxa not included by Sallum et al. (2000): Anopheles corethroides, a representative of the Australasian Stigmaticus Group, and An. kyondawensis, an unusual Oriental species whose adult and pupal stages were only recently discovered. The revised data set consists of 167 characters for 66 species representing the three traditionally recognised genera of Anophelinae, the six traditionally accepted subgenera of genus Anopheles and all informal series and most species groups of subgenera Anopheles, Cellia and Nyssorhynchus. The data are analysed using equal weighting (EW) and implied weighting (IW). Analysis under EW generates a strict consensus tree with principal lineages consistent with those reported by Sallum et al. (2000). Analysis under IW supports the monophyly of Anophelinae, the basal position of Chagasia, the monophyly of subgenera Cellia, Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus, and the sister relationship of Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus, but otherwise yields relationships that differ significantly in one respect or another from those obtained in all previous analyses of both morphological and molecular data. Subgenus Anopheles is arrayed as a polyphyletic lineage basal to a monophyletic clade comprising the Neotropical Kerteszia + Nyssorhynchus and the Old World Cellia in a sister‐group relationship. Bironella, Lophopodomyia and Stethomyia are firmly nested within subgenus Anopheles, which would nevertheless still be paraphyletic if these taxa were subsumed within it. Anopheles kyondawensis is well supported as the sister group of Bironella + all other Anopheles. Bironella, Stethomyia, An. corethroides and several other Anopheles clades are each strongly supported in a pectinate series of relationships, terminating in the clade comprising subgenera Cellia, Kerteszia and Nyssorhynchus. These relationships and other aspects of the phylogeny are discussed in relation to the formal and informal classification of genus Anopheles.     

Trilobite monophyly revisited

Fortey's and Whittington's recent refutation of Lauterbach's hypothesis of a paraphyletic Trilobita is supported. However, much of the character evidence raised by Fortey and Whittington to substantiate the monophyly of the Trilobita (including, inter alia, "Olenellinae”; and Agnostoidea) is ambiguous. Of seven proposed synapomorphies, only one (dorsal cuticle calcification) may be maintained at that node after testing within a cladistic framework. The other six characters are either constrained by calcification or define nodes up or down the cladogram. As positioned by Fortey's and Whittington's characters, Agnostoidea could be regarded either as the most primitive trilobites, or as being outside that clade. Lauterbach's support for an “olenelline"‐chelicerate clade is found to include interdependent characters which are reduced here to two testable derived similarities. Only one of these may conform to general criteria indicative of homology, such as detailed similarity and topology. It is, however, rejected on the basis of parsimony. We emphasize that resolution of the chelicerate‐"olenelline"‐trilobite three‐taxon problem must be based on recognition of homologies among each of these taxa. Nectaspida are excluded from Trilobita as defined by cuticle calcification, but as ingroup “Arachnata”; (sensu Lauterbach) they are important for determining character generality in this clade.     

Phylogenetic relationships of Combretoideae (Combretaceae) inferred from plastid,nuclear gene and spacer sequences

Phylogenetic relationships of the subfamily Combretoideae (Combretaceae) were studied based on DNA sequences of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions, the plastid rbcL gene and the intergenic spacer between the psaA and ycf3 genes (PY-IGS), including 16 species of eight genera within two traditional tribes of Combretoideae, and two species of the subfamily Strephonematoideae of Combretaceae as outgroups. Phylogenetic trees based on the three data sets (ITS, rbcL, and PY-IGS) were generated by using maximum parsimony (MP) and maximum likelihood (ML) analyses. Partition-homogeneity tests indicated that the three data sets and the combined data set are homogeneous. In the combined phylogenetic trees, all ingroup taxa are divided into two main clades, which correspond to the two tribes Laguncularieae and Combreteae. In the Laguncularieae clade, two mangrove genera, Lumnitzera and Laguncularia, are shown to be sister taxa. In the tribe Combreteae, two major clades can be classified: one includes three genera Quisqualis, Combretum and Calycopteris, within which the monophyly of the tribe Combreteae sensu Engler and Diels including Quisqualis and Combretum is strongly supported, and this monophyly is then sister to the monotypic genus Calycopteris; another major clade includes three genera Anogeissus, Terminalia and Conocarpus. There is no support for the monophyly of Terminalia as it forms a polytomy with Anogeissus. This clade is sister to Conocarpus. Electronic Publication     

Higher‐level phylogeny of diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) based on larval characters

A comprehensive higher‐level phylogeny of diving beetles (Dytiscidae) based on larval characters is presented. Larval morphology and chaetotaxy of a broad range of genera and species was studied, covering all currently recognized subfamilies and tribes except for the small and geographically restricted Hydrodytinae, where the larva is unknown. The results suggest several significant conclusions with respect to the systematics of Dytiscidae including the following: monophyly of all currently recognized subfamilies, although Dytiscinae when considered in a broad context is rendered paraphyletic by Cybistrinae; currently recognized tribes are monophyletic except for Agabini, Hydroporini and Laccornellini; inter‐subfamily and inter‐tribe relationships generally show weak support, except for a few well supported clades; three distinct clades are recognized within Dytiscinae [Dytiscini sensu lato (i.e. including the genera Dytiscus Linnaeus and Hyderodes Hope), Hydaticini sensu lato, and Cybistrini]; and recognition of Pachydrini as a distinct tribe. Other less robust results include: Methlini sister to the rest of Hydroporinae; relative basal position of Laccornini, Hydrovatini and Laccornellini within Hydroporinae; close relationship of Agabinae and Copelatinae; Matinae nested deep within Dytiscidae, as sister to a large clade including Colymbetinae, Coptotominae, Lancetinae and Dytiscinae sensu lato; the sister‐group relationship of Agabetini and Laccophilini is confirmed. The results presented here are discussed and compared with previous phylogenetic hypotheses based on different datasets, and the evolution of some significant morphological features is discussed in light of the proposed phylogeny. All suprageneric taxa are diagnosed, including illustrations of all relevant synapomorphies, and a key to separate subfamilies and tribes is presented, both in traditional (paper) format and as an online Lucid interactive identification key.     

Basal ischnoceran louse phylogeny (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera: Goniodidae and Heptapsogasteridae)

A phylogenetic analysis of generic relationships for avian chewing lice of families Goniodidae and Heptapsogasteridae (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) is presented. These lice, hosted by galliform, columbiform and tinamiform birds are reputedly basal in the phylogeny of Ischnocera. A cladistic analysis of sixty‐two adult morphological characters from thirty‐one taxa revealed thirty equally parsimonious cladograms. The phylogeny is well resolved within Heptap‐sogasteridae and supports the monophyly of subfamily Strongylocotinae (sensu Eichler 1963 ). Resolution within Goniodidae is lower but suggests that the genera hosted by Columbiformes are largely monophyletic. Mapping host taxonomy on to the phylogeny of the lice reveals a consistent pattern which is largely congruent down to the rank of host family, although at lower taxonomic levels the association appears to be more complex. The inclusion of more louse taxa may help considerably to unravel the coevolutionary history of both the hosts and their parasites.     

Molecular phylogenetics and generic assessment in the tribe Morindeae (Rubiaceae–Rubioideae): How to circumscribe Morinda L. to be monophyletic?

Most of the species of the family Rubiaceae with flowers arranged in head inflorescences are currently classified in three distantly related tribes, Naucleeae (subfamily Cinchonoideae) and Morindeae and Schradereae (subfamily Rubioideae). Within Morindeae the type genus Morinda is traditionally and currently circumscribed based on its head inflorescences and syncarpous fruits (syncarps). These characters are also present in some members of its allied genera, raising doubts about the monophyly of Morinda. We perform Bayesian phylogenetic analyses using combined nrETS/nrITS/trnT-F data for 67 Morindeae taxa and five outgroups from the closely related tribes Mitchelleae and Gaertnereae to rigorously test the monophyly of Morinda as currently delimited and assess the phylogenetic value of head inflorescences and syncarps in Morinda and Morindeae and to evaluate generic relationships and limits in Morindeae. Our analyses demonstrate that head inflorescences and syncarps in Morinda and Morindeae are evolutionarily labile. Morinda is highly paraphyletic, unless the genera Coelospermum, Gynochthodes, Pogonolobus, and Sarcopygme are also included. Morindeae comprises four well-supported and morphologically distinct major lineages: Appunia clade, Morinda clade (including Sarcopygme and the lectotype M. royoc), Coelospermum clade (containing Pogonolobus and Morinda reticulata), and Gynochthodes–Morinda clade. Four possible alternatives for revising generic boundaries are presented to establish monophyletic units. We favor the recognition of the four major lineages of Morindeae as separate genera, because this classification reflects the occurrence of a considerable morphological diversity in the tribe and the phylogenetic and taxonomic distinctness of its newly delimited genera.     

On the thoracic anatomy of the Madagascan Heterogyrus milloti and the phylogeny of Gyrinidae (Coleoptera)

Gyrinidae is a group of beetles with a unique specialization of swimming on the water surface. Heterogyrus milloti Legros (Heterogyrinae) from Madagascar is a species with various preserved plesiomorphic features. The information on the morphology and biology was very limited until recently, and the thoracic anatomy remained largely unknown. Consequently, the aim of the present study is to describe external and internal thoracic features of Heterogyrus Legros in detail and to interprete them with respect to their phylogenetic and functional significance, with a special focus on the unusual flight apparatus of Gyrinidae. Characters documented with innovative techniques are compared to conditions found in other gyrinid genera and other groups of Adephaga, including characters of other body parts and larvae. A data matrix with 144 characters of adults, larvae and eggs was compiled and analysed cladistically. Gyrinidae excluding Spanglerogyrus Folkers (Heterogyrinae + Gyrininae) is supported by many apomorphies, mainly by a unique locomotor apparatus with paddle‐like middle and hind legs. The results confirm Heterogyrus as the earliest diverging branch in Gyrinidae except Spanglerogyrus, implying a sister‐group relationship between this genus and Gyrininae, a clade comprising Gyrinini, Dineutini and Orectochilini. The presence of an opening between the mesanepisternum and elytra, reduction of the lateral metafurcal arms, loss of the metathoracic M. furcacoxalis lateralis, and modifications of the head, including the dorsal shift of the upper subcomponent of the compound eyes, are synapomorphies of the three tribes. The monophyly of Gyrinini is moderately well‐supported, whereas Orectochilini is strongly supported by different characters including a highly simplified but functioning flight apparatus. A clade comprising Orectochilini and the dineutine genera is suggested by synapomorphies of adults and larvae. The monophyly of Dineutini was supported in a recent study, but not by the characters analysed here. Features of adults, larvae and eggs indicate that Gyrinidae are the sister group to the remaining adephagan families, as suggested in some earlier morphology‐based studies and recent analyses of large molecular datasets.     

A total‐evidence phylogenetic analysis of Hormaphidinae (Hemiptera: Aphididae), with comments on the evolution of galls

A phylogenetic analysis of Hormaphidinae is presented based on a total‐evidence approach. Four genes (two mitochondrial, COI and CytB, and two nuclear, EF‐1α and LWO) are combined with 65 morphological and seven biological characters. Sixty‐three hormaphidine species representing three tribes and 36 genera as well as nine outgroups are included. Parsimony and model‐based approaches are used, and several support values and implied weighting schemes are explored to assess clade stability. The monophyly of Hormaphidinae and Nipponaphidini is supported, but Cerataphidini and Hormaphidini are not recovered as monophyletic. Based on the parsimony hypothesis from the total‐evidence analysis, the phylogenetic relationships within Hormaphidinae are discussed. Cerataphidini is re‐delimited to exclude Doraphis and Tsugaphis, and Hormaphidini is redefined to include Doraphis. Ceratocallis Qiao & Zhang is established as a junior synonym of Ceratoglyphina van der Goot, syn. nov. Lithoaphis quercisucta Qiao, Guo & Zhang is transferred to the genus Neohormaphis Noordam as Neohormaphis quercisucta (Qiao, Guo & Zhang) comb. nov. Galls have evolved independently within three tribes of Hormaphidinae. In Cerataphidini, pseudogalls are ancestral, both single‐cavity and multiple‐cavity galls have evolved once, and galls appear to have evolved towards greater complexity. Galling on secondary hosts has evolved twice in hormaphidines.     

The interrelationships of Placodontia

Five terminal taxa (at the generic level) of Placodontia are recognized; the status of Psephosaurus remains problematical. A cladistic analysis of the interrelationships of Placodontia, based on 30 characters, results in two equally parsimonious trees. The Placodontia comprise two major subclades, the Placodontoidea and the Cyamodontoidea. Within the Placodontoidea, Paraplacodus is the sister‐taxon of Placodus. Within the Cyamodontoidea, Henodus is the most basal clade in one tree, a crown‐group cyamodontoid (the sister‐taxon of Placochelys) in the second tree. Cyamodus is the sister‐taxon of a clade comprising Placochelys and Psephoderma in the first tree, and is the most basal cyamodontoid clade in the second tree. The second tree is provisionally accepted because of the late appearance of Henodus in the fossil record of placodonts. The significance of these findings for the reconstruction of the paleobiogeographical history of the group is discussed.     

Monophyly of Euaesthetinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): phylogenetic evidence from adults and larvae,review of austral genera,and new larval descriptions

Abstract We develop a morphological dataset for the rove beetle subfamily Euaesthetinae comprising 167 morphological characters (135 adult and 32 larval) scored from 30 terminal taxa including 25 ingroup terminals (from subfamilies Euaesthetinae and Steninae) and five outgroups. Four maximum parsimony analyses using different sets of terminals and character sets were run to test the monophyly of (1) Euaesthetinae, (2) Steninae, (3) Euaesthetinae + Steninae, (4) euaesthetine tribes Austroesthetini, Alzadaesthetini, Euaesthetini, Fenderiini and Stenaesthetini, and (5) the ten currently known austral endemic genera together. Analyses of adult and larval character sets separately and in combination recovered the monophyly of Euaesthetinae, Steninae, and both subfamilies together, with strong support. Analysis of 13 ingroup terminals for which complete data were available suggests that monophyly of Euaesthetinae is supported by 19 synapomorphies (13 adult, six larval), of Steninae by 23 synapomorphies (14 adult, nine larval), and of both subfamilies together by 24 synapomorphies (21 adult, three larval). Within Euaesthetinae, only the tribe Stenaesthetini was recovered as monophyletic based on adult characters, and in no analyses were the ten austral endemic genera recovered as a monophyletic group. Phylogenetic relationships among euaesthetine genera were weakly supported, although analyses including adult characters supported monophyly of Octavius and Protopristus separately, and of Octavius + Protopristus, Austroesthetus + Chilioesthetus and Edaphus + Euaesthetus. Steninae may include a third genus comprising two undescribed species probably possessing a ‘stick–capture’ method of prey capture, similar to that in Stenus. These two species formed a strongly supported clade recovered as the sister group of Stenus based on adult characters. Diagnoses and a key to adults are provided for the 15 euaesthetine genera currently known from the austral region (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and southern South America). Euaesthetine larvae previously were known only for Euaesthetus, and we describe the larvae of nine more genera and provide the first larval identification key for genera of Euaesthetinae.     

Morphological characters add support for some members of the basal grade of Asteraceae

Recent molecular studies in Asteraceae have divided tribe Mutisieae (sensu Cabrera) into 13 tribes and eight subfamilies. Each of the major clades is well supported but the relationships among them are not always clear. Some of the new taxa are easily characterized by morphological data but others are not, chief among the latter being three subfamilies (Stifftioideae, Wunderlichioideae and Gochnatioideae) and the tribe Hyalideae. To understand evolution in the family it is critical to investigate potential morphological characters that can help to evaluate the basal lineages of the Asteraceae. The data for this study were taken from 52 species in 24 genera representing the basal groups in the family. Many characters were examined but most of the useful ones were from reproductive structures. Several apomorphies supported a few of the clades. For instance, members of subfamily Wunderlichioideae (Hyalideae and Wunderlichieae) share predominantly ten‐ribbed achenes and members of Wunderlichioideae + Stifftioideae share two synapomorphies: 100–150 (200) pappus elements, arranged in (three) four or five series. These apomorphies can be viewed as an indication of a sister‐group relationship between the two subfamilies as the placement of Stifftieae was not well resolved by the molecular data. Members of Wunderlichieae are characterized by having a paleaceous receptacle, style branches that are strongly papillose above and below the bifurcation, and a pappus of scales. Hyalis and Ianthopappus (Hyalideae) share venation type and an apiculate anther appendage but these are also found in Gochnatieae. Other clades have fewer supporting characters. These characters are just a beginning. Cladograms with morphology characters plotted, illustrations and a key to the basal grade of Asteraceae are provided. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London     

Family ties: molecular phylogeny of crab spiders (Araneae: Thomisidae)

The first quantitative phylogenetic analysis of three sequenced genes (16S rRNA, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, histone 3) of 25 genera of crab spiders and 11 outgroups supports the monophyly of Thomisidae. Four lineages within Thomisidae are recovered. They are informally named here as the Borboropactus clade, Epidius clade, Stephanopis clade and the Thomisus clade, pending detailed morphology based cladistic work. The Thomisus clade is recovered as a strongly supported monophyletic group with a minimal genetic divergence. Philodromidae previously widely considered a subfamily of Thomisidae do not group within thomisids and is excluded from Thomisidae. However, Aphantochilinae previously generally considered as a separate family falls within the Thomisus clade and is included in Thomisidae. The recently proposed new family Borboropactidae is rejected, as it is paraphyletic. © The Willi Hennig Society 2008.     

Phragmoplastins,the Trentepohliales,and the Evolution of the Cytokinesis in Green Plants

Representatives of the monophyletic Trentepohliales are widely distributed in the tropics, subtropics, and temperate regions worldwide. They grow in soil, or are epilithic, epiphytic or endophytic. The family comprises approximately 70 species placed in at least four genera (Trentepohlia, Cephaleuros, Phycopeltis and Stomatochroon), with Trentepohlia sensu lato (including Printzina and Physolinum) accounting for half of the species in this family. PCR amplification and sequencing of the 18 SSU rDNA of 18 isolates of the Trentepohliaceae were used to assess the monophyly of the genus Cephaleuros and to determine the phylogenetic relationships among species of Trentepohlia sensu lato. Distance, Parsimony, and Maximum Likelihood analyses indicate that Trentepohlia sensu lato is basal and includes two species recently transferred to Phycopeltis (P. umbrina) and Printzina (P. lagenifera). In contrast, Cephaleuros is a derived monophyletic clade. Analysis of isolates of C. virescens, from the USA, Taiwan, and South Africa indicate that this taxon may consist of different species sharing a convergent morphology. The results of this study have implications for the taxonomy of the genera.     

PHYLOGENY OF CARTERIA (CHLOROPHYCEAE) INFERRED FROM MOLECULAR AND ORGANISMAL DATA1

Comparative ultrastructural data have shown that at least two distinct groups exist within Carteria. Similarly, interpretations of variation in gross morphological features have led to the discovery of morphologically distinct groups within the genus. Partial sequences from the nuclear-encoded small- and large-subunit ribosomal RNA molecules of selected Carteria taxa were studied as a means of 1) testing hypotheses that distinct groups of species exist within the genus and 2) assessing monophyly of the genus. Parsimony analysis of the sequence data suggests that three Carteria species, C. lunzensis, C. crucifera, and C. olivieri, form a monophyletic group that is the basal sister group to all other ingroup flagellate taxa (including species of Chlamydomonas, Haematococcus, Stephanosphaera, Volvox, and Eudorina). Two other Carteria taxa, C. radiosa and Carteria sp. (UTEX isolate LB 762), form a clade that is the sister group to a clade that includes Haematococcus spp., Chlamydomonas spp., and Stephanosphaera. Thus, the sequence data support the interpretations of ultrastructural evidence that described two distinct Carteria lineages. Moreover, the sequence data suggest that these two Carteria groups do not form a monophyletic assemblage. Parsimony analysis of a suite of organismal (morphological, ultra-structural, life history, and biochemical) character data also suggest two distinct lineages among the five Carteria taxa; however, the organismal data are ambiguous regarding monophyly of these Carteria taxa. When the two independent data sets are pooled, monophyly of Carteria is not supported; therefore, the weight of available evidence, both molecular and organismal, fails to support the concept of Carteria as a natural genus.