Major lineages of Nolidae (Lepidoptera,Noctuoidea) elucidated by molecular phylogenetics

To elucidate the evolutionary relationships of the major lineages within the moth family Nolidae, we analysed a molecular dataset comprising eight independent gene regions (6.4 kbp), cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) from the mitochondrial genome, and elongation factor‐1α (EF‐1α), ribosomal protein S5 (RpS5), carbamoylphosphate synthase domain protein (CAD), cytosolic malate dehydrogenase (MDH), glyceraldehyde‐3‐phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) and wingless genes from the nuclear genome, using parsimony and model‐based evolutionary methods (maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference). Our analyses revealed a well‐resolved phylogenetic hypothesis, again recovering the six previously recognized families within Noctuoidea (i.e. Oenosandridae, Notodontidae, Euteliidae, Erebidae, Nolidae and Noctuidae), and monophyly of the quadrifid Noctuoidea (i.e. Euteliidae, Erebidae, Nolidae and Noctuidae). The family Nolidae is diagnosed and characterized by two synapomorphies from morphology: construction of a ridged boat‐shaped cocoon that bears a vertical exit slit at one end; and two other morphological character states: elongation of the forewing retinaculum into a bar‐like or digitate condition and possession of a postpiracular counter‐tympanal hood. We present a new phylogenetic hypothesis for Nolidae consisting of eight strongly supported subfamilies, two of which are erected here: Diphtherinae, Risobinae, Collomeninae subfam. nov., Beaninae subfam. nov., Eligminae, Westermanniinae, Nolinae and Chloephorinae. Where we are able, each monophyletic lineage is diagnosed by morphological autapomorphies and within each subfamily, monophyletic tribes and subtribes are circumscribed, most of which are also diagnosable by morphological apomorphies. We also describe two new taxa: Gelastocerini trib. nov. and Etannina subtrib. nov. The Neotropical subfamily Diphtherinae, here newly circumscribed, is considered to be the plesiomorphic sister lineage to the rest of Nolidae. Diphtherinae are characterized by loss of the proximal pair of metatibial spurs in males and by the presence of a frontal tubercle, which is presumably associated with a derived strategy of emergence from the cocoon.     

Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae (Lepidoptera,Noctuoidea)

As a step towards understanding the higher‐level phylogeny and evolutionary affinities of quadrifid noctuoid moths, we have undertaken the first large‐scale molecular phylogenetic analysis of the moth family Erebidae, including almost all subfamilies, as well as most tribes and subtribes. DNA sequence data for one mitochondrial gene (COI) and seven nuclear genes (EF‐1α, wingless, RpS5, IDH, MDH, GAPDH and CAD) were analysed for a total of 237 taxa, principally type genera of higher taxa. Data matrices (6407 bp in total) were analysed by parsimony with equal weighting and model‐based evolutionary methods (maximum likelihood), which revealed a well‐resolved skeleton phylogenetic hypothesis with 18 major lineages, which we treat here as subfamilies of Erebidae. We thus present a new phylogeny for Erebidae consisting of 18 moderate to strongly supported subfamilies: Scoliopteryginae, Rivulinae, Anobinae, Hypeninae, Lymantriinae, Pangraptinae, Herminiinae, Aganainae, Arctiinae, Calpinae, Hypocalinae, Eulepidotinae, Toxocampinae, Tinoliinae, Scolecocampinae, Hypenodinae, Boletobiinae and Erebinae. Where possible, each monophyletic lineage is diagnosed by autapomorphic morphological character states, and within each subfamily, monophyletic tribes and subtribes can be circumscribed, most of which can also be diagnosed by morphological apomorphies. All additional taxa sampled fell within one of the four previously recognized quadrifid families (mostly into Erebidae), which are now found to include two unusual monobasic taxa from New Guinea: Cocytiinae (now in Erebidae: Erebinae) and Eucocytiinae (now in Noctuidae: Pantheinae).     

Molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial and tribal classification and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)

We present a molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae based on thirty ingroup taxa representing eight of the ten currently recognized subfamilies. Approximately 10 K base pairs from seven loci (12S, 16S, 18S, 28S, COI, COII and H3) were used for the phylogenetic reconstruction. The phylogeny supports the following main conclusions: (i) Cybocephalidae are formally recognized as a distinct family not closely related to Nitidulidae and its constituent taxa are defined; (ii) Kateretidae are sister to Nitidulidae; (iii) Cryptarchinae are monophyletic and sister to the remaining nitidulid subfamilies; (iv) subfamily Prometopinae stat. res. is reinstated and defined, to accommodate taxa allied to Axyra Erichson, Prometopia Erichson and Megauchenia MacLeay; (v) Amphicrossinae, Carpophilinae and Epuraeinae are shown to be closely related taxa within a well‐supported monophyletic clade; (vi) tribal affinities and respective monophyly within Nitidulinae are poorly resolved by our data and must be more rigorously tested as there was little or no support for prior morphologically based tribes or genus‐level complexes; (vii) Nitidulinae are found to be paraphyletic with respect to Cillaeinae and Meligethinae, suggesting that they should either be subsumed as tribes, or Nitidulinae should be divided into several subfamilies to preserve the status of Cillaeinae and Meligethinae; (viii) Teichostethus Sharp stat. res. is not a synonym of Hebascus Erichson and the former is reinstated as a valid genus. These conclusions and emendations are discussed in detail and presented within a morphological framework.     

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.     

Molecular phylogeny of Lymantriinae (Lepidoptera,Noctuoidea, Erebidae) inferred from eight gene regions

To understand the evolutionary history of Lymantriinae and test the present higher‐level classification, we performed the first broad‐scale molecular phylogenetic analysis of the subfamily, based on 154 exemplars representing all recognized tribes and drawn from all major biogeographical regions. We used two mitochondrial genes (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and 16S ribosomal RNA) and six nuclear genes (elongation factor‐1α, carbamoylphosphate synthase domain protein, ribosomal protein S5, cytosolic malate dehydrogenase, glyceraldehyde‐3‐phosphate dehydrogenase and wingless). Data matrices (in total 5424 bp) were analysed by parsimony and model‐based evolutionary methods (maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference). Based on the results of the analyses, we present a new phylogenetic classification for Lymantriinae composed of seven well‐supported tribes, two of which are proposed here as new: Arctornithini, Leucomini, Lymantriini, Orgyiini, Nygmiini, Daplasini trib. nov. and Locharnini trib. nov. We discuss the internal structure of each of these tribes and address some of the more complex problems with the genus‐level classification, particularly within Orgyiini and Nygmiini.     

Molecular phylogeny of the ant tribe Myrmicini (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

The interrelationships within ant subfamilies remain elusive, despite the recent establishment of the phylogeny of the major ant lineages. The tribe Myrmicini belongs to the subfamily Myrmicinae, and groups morphologically unspecialized genera. Previous research has struggled with defining Myrmicini, leading to considerable taxonomic instability. Earlier molecular phylogenetic studies have suggested the nonmonophyly of Myrmicini, but were based on limited taxon sampling. We investigated the composition of Myrmicini with phylogenetic analyses of an enlarged set of taxa, using DNA sequences of eight gene fragments taken from 37 representatives of six of the seven genera (Eutetramorium, Huberia, Hylomyrma, Manica, Myrmica, and Pogonomyrmex), and eight outgroups. Our results demonstrate the invalidity of Myrmicini as currently defined. We recovered sister‐group relationships between the genera Myrmica and Manica, and between Pogonomyrmex and Hylomyrma. This study illustrates that to understand the phylogeny of over 6000 myrmicine species, comprehensive taxon sampling and DNA sequencing are an absolute requisite. © 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2010, 160 , 482–495.     

A SURVEY OF FLORAL ANATOMY IN ARACEAE

Flowers of 23 species representing six subfamilies of Araceae were studied by means of serial cross sections, special attention being given to vascular patterns and to taxa of supposed phylogenetic importance. Floral structure is shown to be extremely diverse with no unifying pattern common to all subfamilies. Conclusions include the following: (1) Lysichiton has a specialized gynoecial vascular pattern which differs from others encountered in the survey and which weighs against the primitive position attributed to this genus by Hutchinson. (2) Philodendron, with its multiple stylar canals, cannot have originated from subfamily Pothoideae, as Engler's phylogenetic concept would require of all Araceae; instead, it appears that several syncarpous evolutionary lines have evolved independently from extinct apocarpous members of the family. (3) In Acorus, stamens are introrse and dorsal carpellary bundles are lacking; these characters and others justify the recognition of Acorus as a separate subfamily Acoroideae. In addition, the survey revealed a peculiar deterioration of the inner ovary wall and the septa in several taxa, apparently a normal feature of floral development. Spathiphyllum solomonense Nicolson is described in an appendix.     

Phylogeny and systematics of the subfamily Bryocorinae based on morphology with emphasis on the tribe Dicyphini sensu Schuh,

The classification of the hyperdiverse true bug family Miridae is far from settled, and is particularly contentious for the cosmopolitan subfamily Bryocorinae. The morphological diversity within the subfamily is pronounced, and a lack of explicit character formulation hampers stability in the classification. Molecular partitions are few and only a handful of taxa have been sequenced. In this study the phylogeny of the subfamily Bryocorinae has been analysed based on morphological data alone, with an emphasis on evaluating the tribe Dicyphina sensu Schuh, 1976, within which distinct groups of taxa exist. A broad sample of taxa was examined from each of the bryocorine tribes. A broad range of outgroup taxa from most of the other mirid subfamilies was also examined to test for bryocorine monophyly, ingroup relationships and to determine character polarity. In total a matrix comprising 44 ingroup, 15 outgroup taxa and 111 morphological characters was constructed. The phylogenetic analysis resulted in a monophyletic subfamily Bryocorinae sensu Schuh (1976, 1995), except for the genus Palaucoris, which is nested within Cylapinae. The tribe Dicyphini sensu Schuh (1976, 1995) has been rejected. The subtribe Odoniellina is synonymized with the subtribe Monaloniina and the subtribes Dicyphina, Monaloniina and Eccritotarsina are now elevated to tribal level, with the Dicyphini now restricted in composition and definition. The genus Felisacus is highly autapomorphic and a new tribe – the Felisacini – is erected for the included taxa. This phylogeny of the tribes of the Bryocorinae comprises the following sister‐group relationships: Dicyphini ((Bryocorini + Eccritotarsini)(Felisicini + Monaloniini)).     

Molecular phylogenetics of Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea), based on multiple nuclear genes,and implications for classification

This study examined subfamilial relationships within Braconidae, using 4 kb of sequence data for 139 taxa. Genetic sampling included previously used markers for phylogenetic studies of Braconidae (28S and 18S rDNA) as well as new nuclear protein‐coding genes (CAD and ACC). Maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference of the concatenated dataset recovered a robust phylogeny, particularly for early divergences within the family. This study focused primarily on non‐cyclostome subfamilies, but the monophyly of the cyclostome complex was strongly supported. There was evidence supporting an independent clade, termed the aphidioid complex, as sister to the cyclostome complex of subfamilies. Maxfischeria was removed from Helconinae and placed within its own subfamily within the aphidioid complex. Most relationships within the cyclostome complex were poorly supported, probably because of lower taxonomic sampling within this group. Similar to other studies, there was strong support for the alysioid subcomplex containing Gnamptodontinae, Alysiinae, Opiinae and Exothecinae. Cenocoeliinae was recovered as sister to all other subfamilies within the euphoroid complex. Planitorus and Mannokeraia, previously placed in Betylobraconinae and Masoninae, respectively, were moved to the Euphorinae, and may share a close affiliation with Neoneurinae. Neoneurinae and Ecnomiinae were placed as tribes within Euphorinae. A sister relationship between the microgastroid and sigalphoid complexes was also recovered. The helconoid complex included a well‐supported lineage that is parasitic on lepidopteran larvae (macrocentroid subcomplex). Helconini was raised to subfamily status, and was recovered as sister to the macrocentroid subcomplex. Blacinae was demoted to tribal status and placed within the newly circumscribed subfamily Brachistinae, which also contains the tribes Diospilini, Brulleiini and Brachistini, all formerly in Helconinae.     

Molecular phylogeny of flat‐footed flies (Diptera: Platypezidae): main clades supported by new morphological evidence

The molecular phylogeny of flat‐footed flies is inferred from analysis of DNA sequence data from the five mitochondrial genes 12S, 16S, COI, COII and CytB, and the nuclear gene 28S and discussed with the recent systematics based on morphological features. The Bayesian inference, maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony analyses included 42 species of 18 genera, representing all four extant subfamilies (Microsaniinae, Melanderomyiinae, Callomyiinae and Platypezinae) and all known genera except one (Metaclythia). Representatives of the brachycerous taxa Lonchopteridae, Phoridae, Sciadocerinae (Phoridae) and Opetiidae are used as outgroups, and Lonchoptera was used to root the trees. Our results show Platypezidae consisting of two well‐supported clades, the first with the subfamilies Melanderomyiinae + Callomyiinae and the second formed by subfamily Platypezinae. Genus Microsania was resolved as a separate lineage distant from Platypezidae which clustered with Opetiidae as its sister group, both together forming a sister group to Platypezidae. At the generic level, the genus Agathomyia proved not to be monophyletic in any of the analyses. The species Chydaeopeza tibialis is sister to Agathomyia sexmaculata, and consequently, the genus Chydaeopeza Shatalkin, 1992 is a new junior synonym of Agathomyia Verrall, 1901. Bifurcated setae on legs of adult Platypezidae are documented as a new synapomorphy of the family, exclusive of Microsania. Outstretched wings and only a small overlap of their surfaces at resting position are considered a new synapomorphy for the subfamily Platypezinae. Other phylogenetically important characters defining main clades are documented, and their relevance/validity in phylogenetic studies is discussed. The current systematic concept of Platypezidae is discussed, and new phylogenetic hypotheses are proposed.     

Anchored hybrid enrichment provides new insights into the phylogeny and evolution of longhorned beetles (Cerambycidae)

Cerambycidae is a species‐rich family of mostly wood‐feeding (xylophagous) beetles containing nearly 35 000 known species. The higher‐level phylogeny of C erambycidae has never been robustly reconstructed using molecular phylogenetic data or a comprehensive sample of higher taxa, and its internal relationships and evolutionary history remain the subjects of ongoing debate. We reconstructed the higher‐level phylogeny of C erambycidae using phylogenomic data from 522 single copy nuclear genes, generated via anchored hybrid enrichment. Our taxon sample (31 C hrysomeloidea, four outgroup taxa: two C urculionoidea and two C ucujoidea) included exemplars of all families and 23 of 30 subfamilies of C hrysomeloidea (18 of 19 non‐chrysomelid C hrysomeloidea), with a focus on the large family C erambycidae. Our results reveal a monophyletic C erambycidae s.s. in all but one analysis, and a polyphyletic C erambycidae s.l. When monophyletic, C erambycidae s.s. was sister to the family D isteniidae. Relationships among the subfamilies of C erambycidae s.s. were also recovered with strong statistical support except for C erambycinae being made paraphyletic by Dorcasomus A udinet‐S erville (D orcasominae) in the nucleotide (but not amino acid) trees. Most other chrysomeloid families represented by more than one terminal taxon – C hrysomelidae, D isteniidae, V esperidae and O rsodacnidae – were monophyletic, but M egalopodidae was rendered paraphyletic by Cheloderus G ray (O xypeltidae). Our study corroborates some relationships within C hrysomeloidea that were previously inferred from morphological data, while also reporting several novel relationships. The present work thus provides a robust framework for future, more deeply taxon‐sampled, phylogenetic and evolutionary studies of the families and subfamilies of C erambycidae s.l. and other C hrysomeloidea.     

A phylogenetic analysis of relationships among genera of Conopidae (Diptera) based on molecular and morphological data

Members of the family Conopidae (Diptera) have been the focus of little targeted phylogenetic research. The most comprehensive test of phylogenetic support for the present subfamily classification of Conopidae is presented here using 66 specimens, including 59 species of Conopidae and seven outgroup taxa. Relationships among subfamily clades are also explored. A total of 6824 bp of DNA sequence data from five gene regions (12S ribosomal DNA, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, cytochrome b, 28S ribosomal DNA and alanyl‐tRNA synthetase) are combined with 111 morphological characters in a combined analysis using both parsimony and Bayesian methods. Parsimony analysis recovers three shortest trees. Bayesian analysis recovers a nearly identical tree. Five monophyletic subfamilies of Conopidae are recovered. The rarely acknowledged Zodioninae is restored, including the genera Zodion and Parazodion. The genus Sicus is removed from Myopinae. Morphological synapomorphies are discussed for each subfamily and inter‐subfamily clade, including a comprehensive review of the character interpretaions of previous authors. Included are detailed comparative illustrations of male and female genitalia of representatives of all five subfamilies with new morphological interpretation.     

Phantoms of Gondwana?—phylogeny of the spider subfamily Mynogleninae (Araneae: Linyphiidae)

This is the first genus‐level phylogeny of the subfamily Mynogleninae. It is based on 190 morphological characters scored for 44 taxa: 37 mynoglenine taxa (ingroup) representing 15 of the 17 known genera and seven outgroup taxa representing the subfamilies Stemonyphantinae, Linyphiinae (Linyphiini and Micronetini), and Erigoninae, and a representative of the family Pimoidae, the sister‐group to Linyphiidae. No fewer than 147 of the morphological characters used in this study are new and defined for this study, and come mainly from male and female genitalia. Parsimony analysis with equal weights resulted in three most parsimonious trees of length 871. The monophyly of the subfamily Mynogleninae and the genera Novafroneta, Parafroneta, Laminafroneta, Afroneta, Promynoglenes, Metamynoglenes, and Haplinis are supported, whereas Pseudafroneta is paraphyletic. The remaining seven mynoglenine genera are either monotypic or represented by only one taxon. Diagnoses are given for all genera included in the analysis. The evolution of morphological traits is discussed and we summarize the diversity and distribution patterns of the 124 known species of mynoglenines. The preferred topology suggests a single origin of mynoglenines in New Zealand with two dispersal events to Africa, and does not support Gondwana origin.     

Morphology reinforces proposed molecular phylogenetic affinities: a revised classification for Gelechioidea (Lepidoptera)

Gelechioidea are one of the most species rich and least studied superfamilies of Lepidoptera. We examine the interrelationships within the superfamily using the densest taxon sampling to date, combined with the most extensive ever morphological and molecular character data. We perform partitioned and combined analyses using maximum likelihood, Bayesian and parsimony approaches. The combined dataset consists of 155 exemplar species of Gelechioidea, representing nearly all subfamilies recognized in recent classifications. Parsimony analyses are performed with a dataset including 28 additional terminal taxa with only morphological data available. We use eight genes with a total of 6127 bp, and morphological data with 253 characters derived from larval, pupal, and adult morphology. The analyses of combined data yield more resolved trees and significantly better‐supported groupings than either dataset when analysed alone. The recurrent monophyletic groupings in all our model‐based analyses support a revision of the family classification. Deeper relationships vary between analyses and data partitions, leaving them ambiguous. The place of the root remains a challenge for future research. We propose a revised classification and suggest the division of Gelechioidea into 16 families. We redefine Depressariidae Meyrick, 1883 for a monophylum that includes Acriinae, Aeolanthinae, Cryptolechiinae, Depressariinae, Ethmiinae, Hypercalliinae, Hypertrophinae, Peleopodinae, Oditinae, Stenomatinae, Carcina, and a diversity of predominantly New World taxa previously excluded from Lypusidae (Amphisbatidae s. authors) but left without family position. A monophyletic Oecophoridae s. s., including Deuterogoniinae and Pleurotinae, is obtained for the first time with significant support. Elachistidae s. l. is found to be polyphyletic, and Elachistidae is restricted to comprise Agonoxeninae, Elachistinae, and Parametriotinae. Batrachedridae are polyphyletic, with several genera pending further study. Apart from the core Batrachedra, the taxa previously included in this family are grouped in an expanded Pterolonchidae, together with Coelopoetinae and Syringopainae. Lypusidae s. s. and Chimabachidae form a monophylum; Chimabachinae is united with Lypusidae as a subfamily, stat. n. Our results contradict the subfamily classifications of several families, notably Lecithoceridae and Autostichidae, but due to insufficient sampling of taxa we refrain from comprehensive taxonomic conclusions on the subfamily level, and encourage focused studies to resolve these groups.     

Phylogeny of harvestmen family Gonyleptidae inferred from a multilocus approach (Arachnida: Opiliones)

Gonyleptidae is the second most diverse harvestmen family and the most studied in terms of morphology, behaviour, and ecology. Despite this, few phylogenetic studies have focused on gonyleptids, and those are based on a very limited number of taxa. We addressed this gap by constructing a phylogenetic hypothesis of the family using 101 taxa from all 16 gonyleptid subfamilies and four mitochondrial and nuclear loci (COI, 28S rRNA, 12S rRNA, and 16S rRNA). These were analysed under parsimony and likelihood optimality criteria (and using direct optimization for the former). Relationships among Gonyleptoidea and within each subfamily of Gonyleptidae were largely congruent between parsimony and maximum‐likelihood approaches. Taxonomic actions from our phylogeny include the following: Tricommatidae, new status, is restored as a family; Metasarcidae, new status, is recognized as a family and considered sister to the Cosmetidae; and Cranainae and Manaosbiinae are suggested as members of Gonyleptidae, restoring Roewer's concept of the family. Within Gonyleptidae, the “K92” group—composed of Sodreaninae, Caelopyginae, Hernandariinae, Progonyleptoidellinae, and Gonyleptinae—forms a clade, although the latter two subfamilies are not monophyletic. The genus Parampheres is here transferred to Caelopyginae, and “Multumbo” dimorphicus to Gonyleptinae. Gonyleptidae is characterized by the presence of a ventral process on the penis glans and a bifid apophysis on the male coxa IV. The long‐legged Mitobatinae can be considered monophyletic only if some short‐legged pachylines are included, or if we assume that elongate legs arose twice independently (in the true mitobatine genera and in Longiperna). Pachylinae, the most diverse gonyleptid subfamily, represents several distinct lineages. We further conclude that the traditional use of a small set of morphological characters in the systematics of Gonyleptidae is unable to explain the complex evolution of the family.     

Phylogenetic utility of the first two introns of the S7 ribosomal protein gene in African electric fishes (Mormyroidea: Teleostei) and congruence with other molecular markers

A series of recent molecular systematic studies of the African electric fishes (Mormyroidea) have challenged many aspects of their traditional taxonomy and precladistic hypotheses of their phylogeny. However, poor resolution of some interrelationships within the subfamily Mormyrinae in these studies highlights the need for additional data and analyses. Here we evaluate the phylogenetic information content of nucleotide sequences from the first two introns of the low‐copy nuclear S7 ribosomal protein gene in 40 mormyroid species. Alignment of S7 sequences from 38 taxa within the subfamily Mormyrinae is non‐problematic, but these are difficult to align with sequences of Petrocephalus bovei (Petrocephalinae) and Gymnarchus niloticus (Gymnarchidae), which we exclude from our analysis. There are no significant differences in base frequencies among these sequences and base compositional bias is low. Maximum parsimony (MP) analysis on the S7 dataset, designating Myomyrus macrops as the outgroup, generates a phylogenetic hypothesis for these taxa with a low level of homoplasy (RI = 0.87). We examine agreement between the S7 data with previously published mitochondrial (12S/16S, cytochrome b) and nuclear (rag 2) datasets for the same taxa by means of incongruence length difference tests and partitioned Bremer support (decay) analysis. While we find significant agreement between the S7 dataset and the others, MP analysis of the S7 data alone and in combination with the other datasets indicates two novel relationships within the Mormyrinae: (1) Mormyrus is the sister group to Brienomyrus brachyistius and Isichthys henryi, and (2) Hippopotamyrus pictus is the sister group of a clade, previously recovered, containing Marcusenius senegalensis. S7 data provide additional support for a number of clades recovered in the earlier molecular studies, some of which conflict with current mormyrid taxonomy. Inferred indels and a single inversion in the S7 fragment provide supplemental character support for many of these relationships. These phylogenetic results strengthen recent hypotheses concerning the evolution of electric organ structure in these fishes. The evolutionary characteristics of this nuclear marker and its phylogenetic utility in this group suggests that it could be widely useful for systematic studies at the subfamilial level in teleost fishes. © 2003 The Linnean Society of London. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2003, 78 , 273–292.     

Phylogenetic relationships of subfamilies and circumscription of tribes in the family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea)

A comprehensive tribal‐level classification for the world’s subfamilies of Hesperiidae, the skipper butterflies, is proposed for the first time. Phylogenetic relationships between tribes and subfamilies are inferred using DNA sequence data from three gene regions (cytochrome oxidase subunit I‐subunit II, elongation factor‐1α and wingless). Monophyly of the family is strongly supported, as are some of the traditionally recognized subfamilies, with the following relationships: (Coeliadinae + (“Pyrginae” + (Heteropterinae + (Trapezitinae + Hesperiinae)))). The subfamily Pyrginae of contemporary authors was recovered as a paraphyletic grade of taxa. The formerly recognized subfamily Pyrrhopyginae, although monophyletic, is downgraded to a tribe of the “Pyrginae”. The former subfamily Megathyminae is an infra‐tribal group of the Hesperiinae. The Australian endemic Euschemon rafflesia is a hesperiid, possibly related to “Pyrginae” (Eudamini). Most of the traditionally recognized groups and subgroups of genera currently employed to partition the subfamilies of the Hesperiidae are not monophyletic. We recognize eight pyrgine and six hesperiine tribes, including the new tribe Moncini. © The Willi Hennig Society 2008.     

The phylogeny and evolution of Figitidae (Hymenoptera: Cynipoidea)

A phylogeny of the Figitidae (Hymenoptera: Cynipoidea) is presented based on combined analysis of molecular (28S‐D2 and D3, COI and 18S‐E17‐35), morphological and life‐history data. Data are analyzed by parsimony and Bayesian inference methods. Taxon sampling was held at a premium, and the resulting matrix contained 168 terminal taxa representing eight of nine subfamilies (Pycnostigminae not included) and all major subgroups of each subfamily. Alignment of the 28S D2 + D3 gene fragment based on a structural model resulted in the most defendable and least conflicting alignment tested. Melanips, previously classified in Figitinae, was consistently found to be the sister group of the Aspicerinae; Euceroptres, historically classified in Thrasorinae, frequently rendered that subfamily paraphyletic in these analyses. The general evolutionary trend is for early figitids to be parasitoids of gall inducing insects, with later host shifts occurring to exposed hosts associated with aphids. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.     

Phylogeny of the superfamily Gelechioidea (Lepidoptera: Ditrysia): an exemplar approach

Phylogenetic relationships within the megadiverse lepidopteran superfamily Gelechioidea have been poorly understood and consequently the family level classification has been problematic. An analysis of phylogeny using 193 characters, including 241 informative character states, derived from larval, pupal and adult morphology and larval ecology, was performed to resolve the phylogeny of the Gelechioidea. 143 species representing the diversity of the putative Gelechioidea were included, supplemented with 13 species representing 11 other Ditrysian families. The monophyly of the Gelechioidea was supported, although only with homoplastic characters. The putative position of the Gelechioidea as the sister group of the Apoditrysia was not supported, since the Gelechioidea was nested within this clade. The Gelechioidea was divided into two main lineages: (1) the gelechiid lineage constituting Deoclonidae, Syringopainae, a re‐composed Coleophoridae (including Coelopoetinae and Batrachedrinae as paraphyletic with Stathmopodinae, and Coleophorinae nested within it), Momphidae, Pterolonchidae, Scythrididae, Cosmopterigidae, and Gelechiidae, and (2) the oecophorid lineage constituting the “autostichid” family assemblage (including taxa formerly assigned to Autostichinae, Holcopogoninae, Symmocinae, Glyphidoceridae and Lecithoceridae), Xyloryctidae s.l. (including a paraphyletic Xyloryctidae of authors, some oecophorids of authors, Deuterogoniinae and Blastobasinae), Oecophoridae s.s., Amphisbatidae s.s., Carcinidae, Stenomati[n/d]ae, Chimabachidae and Elachistidae (including Depressariinae s.s., Telechrysis, Ethmiinae, Hypertrophinae s.l., miscellaneous “amphisbatids”sensu authors, Aeolanthinae, Parametriotinae, Agonoxeninae and Elachistinae). Detritivory/fungivory may have evolved only twice within Gelechioidea, though the evolution of larval food substrate use frequently reverses. To avoid an unnecessary further proliferation of names, it is recommended that no further family group names are introduced within the Gelechioidea, unless based on a rigorous analysis of inter‐relationships.