中国长翅目昆虫化石研究现状

长翅目昆虫在地史纪录上可以追溯到早二叠纪,是全变态昆虫中最原始的种类之一.截至目前,29篇关于中国长翅目昆虫化石分类的论著发表,共描述我国长翅目昆虫化石11科28属51种,这些化石分布于从三叠纪到白垩纪的不同地层中.本文通过图表提供了我国已发现的长翅目化石名录并介绍了其分布和年代,回顾了我国长翅目昆虫化石的研究进展,指出了一些分类存在的问题,简要慨述了长翅目中一些科的起源与演化以及长翅目与其它全变态昆虫的关系.我国长翅目化石种类丰富,但在基础分类、系统演化方面还缺乏系统的研究,因而许多工作甚至最基础的分类工作亟待开展.     

Phylogeny of the holometabolous insect orders: molecular evidence

Phylogenetic relationships among the holometabolous insect orders were reconstructed using 18S ribosomal DNA data drawn from a sample of 182 taxa representing all holometabolous insect orders and multiple outgroups. Parsimony analysis supports the monophyly of all holometabolous insect orders except for Coleoptera and Mecoptera. Mecoptera is paraphyletic with respect to Siphonaptera, which is nested within Mecoptera. Coleoptera is scattered as a paraphyletic assemblage across the tree topology. These data support a monophyletic Halteria (Strepsiptera + Diptera), Amphiesmenoptera (Trichoptera + Lepidoptera), Neuropterida (Neuroptera + (Megaloptera + Raphidioptera)), but Antliophora (Halteria + Mecoptera + Siphonaptera) and Mecopterida (Antliophora + Amphiesmenoptera) are paraphyletic. The limitations of using 18S ribosomal DNA as the sole phylogenetic marker for reconstructing insect ordinal relationships are discussed.     

Molecular phylogenetics of the family Cyprinidae (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes) as evidenced by sequence variation in the first intron of S7 ribosomal protein-coding gene: further evidence from a nuclear gene of the systematic chaos in the family

The family Cyprinidae is the largest freshwater fish group in the world, including over 200 genera and 2100 species. The phylogenetic relationships of major clades within this family are simply poorly understood, largely because of the overwhelming diversity of the group; however, several investigators have advanced different hypotheses of relationships that pre- and post-date the use of shared-derived characters as advocated through phylogenetic systematics. As expected, most previous investigations used morphological characters. Recently, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and combined morphological and mtDNA investigations have been used to explore and advance our understanding of species relationships and test monophyletic groupings. Limitations of these studies include limited taxon sampling and a strict reliance upon maternally inherited mtDNA variation. The present study is the first endeavor to recover the phylogenetic relationships of the 12 previously recognized monophyletic subfamilies within the Cyprinidae using newly sequenced nuclear DNA (nDNA) for over 50 species representing members of the different previously hypothesized subfamily and family groupings within the Cyprinidae and from other cypriniform families as outgroup taxa. Hypothesized phylogenetic relationships are constructed using maximum parsimony and Basyesian analyses of 1042 sites, of which 971 sites were variable and 790 were phylogenetically informative. Using other appropriate cypriniform taxa of the families Catostomidae (Myxocyprinus asiaticus), Gyrinocheilidae (Gyrinocheilus aymonieri), and Balitoridae (Nemacheilus sp. and Beaufortia kweichowensis) as outgroups, the Cyprinidae is resolved as a monophyletic group. Within the family the genera Raiamas, Barilius, Danio, and Rasbora, representing many of the tropical cyprinids, represent basal members of the family. All other species can be classified into variably supported and resolved monophyletic lineages, depending upon analysis, that are consistent with or correspond to Barbini and Leuciscini. The Barbini includes taxa traditionally aligned with the subfamily Cyprininae sensu previous morphological revisionary studies by Howes (Barbinae, Labeoninae, Cyprininae and Schizothoracinae). The Leuciscini includes six other subfamilies that are mainly divided into three separate lineages. The relationships among genera and subfamilies are discussed as well as the possible origins of major lineages.     

Early Mecopterida and the systematic position of the Microptysmatidae (Insecta: Endopterygota)

In recent times many authors have regarded the Protomeropidae and Microptysmatidae - two essentially Permian groups - as either early trichopteran lineages or members of the stem-group of the Amphiesmenoptera (basically: Trichoptera+Lepidoptera). Actually none of these families possesses, in its ground plan, the most significant derived trait of the amphiesmenopteran forewing, namely a true ‘double-Y loop’ arrangement of the anal veins. Since ‘Carpenter’s organs’, small rounded structures in the costal area of the hindwing, are only known to occur in certain members of the Permochoristidae, Kaltanidae and Protomeropidae, these three families should belong to a fossil clade, which we ascribe to the Mecoptera, suborder Pistillifera sensu lato, mainly on account of a few venational features. Although we maintain the Microptysmatidae in the Mecopterida (=Panorpida, i.e. Amphiesmenoptera, Mecoptera, Diptera, and relatives), we propose to place this family in a separate order: the Permotrichoptera, n. status. Indeed, apparently, Microptysmatidae can be ascribed neither to the Amphiesmenoptera nor to the Antliophora (=Mecoptera-Diptera complex).     

A preliminary molecular and morphological phylogeny of the Antarctic Epimeriidae and Iphimediidae (Crustacea, Amphipoda)

The phylogenetic relationships of 14 species of the Antarctic amphipod families Epimeriidae and Iphimediidae were investigated using 553bp of the gene for the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) and 98 morphological characters. Both families are dominant members of the Antarctic benthic amphipod community. In contrast to previous studies, our molecular and morphological data suggest that the families Epimeriidae and Iphimediidae may not be sister taxa. Our study suggests that Iphimediidae are more closely related to Eusirus (Eusiridae) than to Epimeria (Epimeriidae). Phylogenetic analyses based on maximum parsimony (MP) and maximum likelihood (ML) indicate that the genera Iphimediella and Gnathiphimedia are not monophyletic.     

Systematics of Chaetognatha under the light of molecular data, using duplicated ribosomal 18S DNA sequences

While the phylogenetic position of Chaetognatha has became central to the question of early bilaterian evolution, the internal systematics of the phylum are still not clear. The phylogenetic relationships of the chaetognaths were investigated using newly obtained small subunit ribosomal RNA nuclear 18S (SSU rRNA) sequences from 16 species together with 3 sequences available in GenBank. As previously shown with the large subunit ribosomal RNA 28S gene, two classes of Chaetognatha SSU rRNA gene can be identified, suggesting a duplication of the whole ribosomal cluster; allowing the rooting of one class of genes by another in phylogenetic analyses. Maximum Parsimony, Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian analyses of the molecular data, and statistical tests showed (1) that there are three main monophyletic groups: Sagittidae/Krohnittidae, Spadellidae/Pterosagittidae, and Eukrohniidae/Heterokrohniidae, (2) that the group of Aphragmophora without Pterosagittidae (Sagittidae/Krohnittidae) is monophyletic, (3) the Spadellidae/Pterosagittidae and Eukrohniidae/Heterokrohniidae families are very likely clustered, (4) the Krohnittidae and Pterosagittidae groups should no longer be considered as families as they are included in other groups designated as families, (5) suborder Ctenodontina is not monophyletic and the Flabellodontina should no longer be considered as a suborder, and (6) the Syngonata/Chorismogonata and the Monophragmophora/Biphragmophora hypotheses are rejected. Such conclusions are considered in the light of morphological characters, several of which are shown to be prone to homoplasy.     

Proper names in twin worlds: Monophyly, paraphyly, and the world around us

This paper addresses the theoretical relevance of monophyletic, paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups under the paradigm of sophisticated scientific realism. The doctrine of metaphysical realism is introduced using the philosophy of Karl Popper as an example, which is then contrasted with scientific realism. A discussion of the nature of causal relations presents an account of counterfactual conditionals. The current state of art casts the theory of phylogenetic systematics in a stark contrast of classes (universals) and individuals (particulars). In practice, however, individuals piggyback on classes, or sets. Natural kinds are introduced in order to overcome this deep dichotomy. The theoretical relevance of natural kinds lies in their explanatory value, and that may change with changing context. It is for this reason that non-monophyletic groups can have explanatory value (their members can function as tokens of causally relevant kinds) within certain domains of evolutionary biology. Explanatory value is maximized by integration of the genealogical hierarchy of species and monophyletic taxa with other areas of evolutionary biology.     

从细胞色素b基因序列变异分析中国鲇形目鱼类的系统发育

采用PCR技术获得中国鲇形目鱼类11科24属27个代表种类细胞色素b基因1138bp全序列,比较分析了来自北美洲、非洲的部分鲇形目鱼类同一基因序列,并选取脂鲤目、鲤形目和鲱形目鱼类作外类群,采用Bayesian方法和最大简约法(MP)构建分子系统树。结果表明：(1)鲇形目鱼类细胞色素b基因序列中,与脂鲤目、鲤形目以及鲱形目鱼类相比存在3bp的缺失;(2)鲇形目鱼类各科代表种类形成一单系群;(3)两种建树方法均支持铫科、粒鲇科和钝头鮠科形成一单系群;而胡子鲇科、刀鲇科、海鲇科、鮰科、长臀鮠科、鲢科、鲇科、棘脂鲿科、鲿科形成一大的单系群;但鳗鲇科的系统位置两种建树方法没有取得一致结果;而其中长臀鲍科与北美的鮰科形成姐妹群,胡子鲇、鮰科、鲇科、鲿科和鮡科是较明显的单系群。     

Shark tales: a molecular species-level phylogeny of sharks (Selachimorpha, Chondrichthyes)

Sharks are a diverse and ecologically important group, including some of the ocean's largest predatory animals. Sharks are also commercially important, with many species suffering overexploitation and facing extinction. However, despite a long evolutionary history, commercial, and conservation importance, phylogenetic relationships within the sharks are poorly understood. To date, most studies have either focused on smaller clades within sharks, or sampled taxa sparsely across the group. A more detailed species-level phylogeny will offer further insights into shark taxonomy, provide a tool for comparative analyses, as well as facilitating phylogenetic estimates of conservation priorities. We used four mitochondrial and one nuclear gene to investigate the phylogenetic relationships of 229 species (all eight Orders and 31 families) of sharks, more than quadrupling the number of taxon sampled in any prior study. The resulting Bayesian phylogenetic hypothesis agrees with prior studies on the major relationships of the sharks phylogeny; however, on those relationships that have proven more controversial, it differs in several aspects from the most recent molecular studies. The phylogeny supports the division of sharks into two major groups, the Galeomorphii and Squalimorphii, rejecting the hypnosqualean hypothesis that places batoids within sharks. Within the squalimorphs the orders Hexanchiformes, Squatiniformes, Squaliformes, and Pristiophoriformes are broadly monophyletic, with minor exceptions apparently due to missing data. Similarly, within Galeomorphs, the orders Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes, Carcharhiniformes, and Orectolobiformes are broadly monophyletic, with a couple of species 'misplaced'. In contrast, many of the currently recognized shark families are not monophyletic according to our results. Our phylogeny offers some of the first clarification of the relationships among families of the order Squaliformes, a group that has thus far received relatively little phylogenetic attention. Our results suggest that the genus Echinorhinus is not a squaliform, but rather related to the saw sharks, a hypothesis that might be supported by both groups sharing 'spiny' snouts. In sum, our results offer the most detailed species-level phylogeny of sharks to date and a tool for comparative analyses.     

Familial placement and relations of Rehmannia and Triaenophora (Scrophulariaceae s.l.) inferred from five gene regions

Accurate classification systems based on evolution are imperative for biological investigations. The recent explosion of molecular phylogenetics has resulted in a much improved classification of angiosperms. More than five phylogenetic lineages have been recognized from Scrophulariaceae sensu lato since the family was determined to be polyphyletic; however, questions remain about the genera that have not been assigned to one of the segregate families of Scrophulariaceae s.l. Rehmannia Liboschitz and Triaenophora Solereder are such genera with uncertain familial placement. There also is debate whether Triaenophora should be segregated from Rehmannia. To evaluate the phylogenetic relations between Rehmannia and Triaenophora, to find their closest relatives, and to verify their familial placement, we conducted phylogenetic analyses of the sequences of one nuclear DNA (ITS) region and four chloroplast DNA gene regions (trnL-F, rps16, rbcL, and rps2) individually and combined. The analyses showed that Rehmannia and Triaenophora are each strongly supported as monophyletic and together are sister to Orobanchaceae. This relation was corroborated by phytochemical and morphological data. Based on these data, we suggest that Rehmannia and Triaenophora represent the second nonparasitic branch sister to the remainder of Orobanchaceae (including Lindenbergia).     

Reconstructing labroid evolution with single-copy nuclear DNA.

Fifteen per cent of all living fishes are united in a single suborder (Labroidei) and display a dazzling array of behavioural and ecological traits. The labroids are considered monophyletic and members share a pharyngeal jaw apparatus (PJA) modified for crushing and processing prey. Outside of the explicitly functional PJA, there is no corroborative evidence for a monophyletic Labroidei. Here, we report the first molecular phylogenetic analysis of the suborder. Contrary to morphology-based phylogenies, our single-copy nuclear DNA data do not support labroid families as a natural group. Our data indicate that pharyngognathy has evolved independently among labroid families and that characters of the PJA are not reliable markers of perciform evolution. This work ''crushes'' conventional views of fish phylogeny and should engender novel concepts of piscine life history evolution.     

Mecoptera is paraphyletic: multiple genes and phylogeny of Mecoptera and Siphonaptera

Phylogenetic relationships among members of the Mecoptera and Siphonaptera were inferred from DNA sequence data. Four loci (18S and 28S ribosomal DNA, cytochrome oxidase II and elongation factor-1α) were sequenced for 69 taxa selected to represent major flea and mecopteran lineages. Phylogenetic analyses of these data support a paraphyletic Mecoptera with two major lineages: Nannochoristidae + (Siphonaptera + Boreidae) and Meropidae + ((Choristidae + Apteropanorpidae) (Panorpidae + (Panorpidae + Bittacidae))). The flea family Ctenophthalmidae is paraphyletic, and the Ceratophylloidea is monophyletic. Morphological evidence is discussed which is congruent with the placement of Siphonaptera as sister group to Boreidae.     

Disintegration of the scrophulariaceae

A molecular systematic study of Scrophulariaceae sensu lato using DNA sequences of three plastid genes (rbcL, ndhF, and rps2) revealed at least five distinct monophyletic groups. Thirty-nine genera representing 24 tribes of the Scrophulariaceae s.l. (sensu lato) were analyzed along with representatives of 15 other families of Lamiales. The Scrophulariaceae s.s. (sensu stricto) include part or all of tribes Aptosimeae, Hemimerideae, Leucophylleae, Manuleae, Selagineae, and Verbasceae (= Scrophularieae) and the conventional families Buddlejaceae and Myoporaceae. Veronicaceae includes all or part of tribes Angelonieae, Antirrhineae, Cheloneae, Digitaleae, and Gratioleae and the conventional families Callitrichaceae, Globulariaceae, Hippuridaceae, and Plantaginaceae. The Orobanchaceae include tribes Buchnereae, Rhinantheae, and the conventional Orobanchaceae. All sampled members of Orobanchaceae are parasitic, except Lindenbergia, which is sister to the rest of the family. Family Calceolariaceae Olmstead is newly erected herein to recognize the phylogenetic distinctiveness of tribe Calceolarieae. The Calceolariaceae are close to the base of the Lamiales. The Stilbaceae are expanded by the inclusion of Halleria. Mimulus does not belong in any of these five groups.     

When monophyly is not enough: exclusivity as the key to defining a phylogenetic species concept

A natural starting place for developing a phylogenetic species concept is to examine monophyletic groups of organisms. Proponents of “the” Phylogenetic Species Concept fall into one of two camps. The first camp denies that species even could be monophyletic and groups organisms using character traits. The second groups organisms using common ancestry and requires that species must be monophyletic. I argue that neither view is entirely correct. While monophyletic groups of organisms exist, they should not be equated with species. Instead, species must meet the more restrictive criterion of being genealogically exclusive groups where the members are more closely related to each other than to anything outside the group. I carefully spell out different versions of what this might mean and arrive at a working definition of exclusivity that forms groups that can function within phylogenetic theory. I conclude by arguing that while a phylogenetic species concept must use exclusivity as a grouping criterion, a variety of ranking criteria are consistent with the requirement that species can be placed on phylogenetic trees.

Diversity, taxonomy and evolution of medium-chain dehydrogenase/reductase superfamily.

A comprehensive, structural and functional, in silico analysis of the medium-chain dehydrogenase/reductase (MDR) superfamily, including 583 proteins, was carried out by use of extensive database mining and the blastp program in an iterative manner to identify all known members of the superfamily. Based on phylogenetic, sequence, and functional similarities, the protein members of the MDR superfamily were classified into three different taxonomic categories: (a) subfamilies, consisting of a closed group containing a set of ideally orthologous proteins that perform the same function; (b) families, each comprising a cluster of monophyletic subfamilies that possess significant sequence identity among them and might share or not common substrates or mechanisms of reaction; and (c) macrofamilies, each comprising a cluster of monophyletic protein families with protein members from the three domains of life, which includes at least one subfamily member that displays activity related to a very ancient metabolic pathway. In this context, a superfamily is a group of homologous protein families (and/or macrofamilies) with monophyletic origin that shares at least a barely detectable sequence similarity, but showing the same 3D fold. The MDR superfamily encloses three macrofamilies, with eight families and 49 subfamilies. These subfamilies exhibit great functional diversity including noncatalytic members with different subcellular, phylogenetic, and species distributions. This results from constant enzymogenesis and proteinogenesis within each kingdom, and highlights the huge plasticity that MDR superfamily members possess. Thus, through evolution a great number of taxa-specific new functions were acquired by MDRs. The generation of new functions fulfilled by proteins, can be considered as the essence of protein evolution. The mechanisms of protein evolution inside MDR are not constrained to conserve substrate specificity and/or chemistry of catalysis. In consequence, MDR functional diversity is more complex than sequence diversity. MDR is a very ancient protein superfamily that existed in the last universal common ancestor. It had at least two (and probably three) different ancestral activities related to formaldehyde metabolism and alcoholic fermentation. Eukaryotic members of this superfamily are more related to bacterial than to archaeal members; horizontal gene transfer among the domains of life appears to be a rare event in modern organisms.     

Molecules, morphology and fossils: a comprehensive approach to odonate phylogeny and the evolution of the odonate wing

We undertook a comprehensive morphological and molecular phylogenetic analysis of dragonfly phylogeny, examining both extant and fossil lineages in simultaneous analyses. The legitimacy of higher‐level family groups and the phylogenetic relationship between families were tested. Thirteen families were supported as monophyletic (Aeshnidae, Calopterygidae, Chlorocyphidae, Euphaeidae, Gomphidae, Isostictidae, Lestidae, Libellulidae, Petaluridae, Platystictidae, Polythoridae, Pseudostigmatidae and Synthemistidae) and eight as non‐monophyletic (Amphipterygidae, Coenagrionidae, Corduliidae, Megapodagrionidae, Protoneuridae and Synlestidae), although Perilestidae and Platycnemididae were recovered as monophyletic under Bayesian analyses. Nine families were represented by one species, thus monophyly was not tested (Epiophlebiidae, Austropetaliidae, Chlorogomphidae, Cordulegastridae, Macromiidae, Chorismagrionidae, Diphlebiidae, Lestoideidae and Pseudolestidae). Epiprocta and Zygoptera were recovered as monophyletic. Ditaxinerua is supported as the sister lineage to Odonata, Epiophlebiidae and the lestid‐like damselflies are sister to the Epiprocta and Zygoptera, respectively. Austropetaliidae + Aeshnidae is the sister lineage to the remaining Anisoptera. Tarsophlebia's placement as sister to Epiprocta or as sister to Epiprocta + Zygoptera was not resolved. Refinements are made to the current classification. Fossil taxa did not seem to provide signals crucial to recovering a robust phylogeny, but were critical to understanding the evolution of key morphological features associated with flight. Characters associated with wing structure were optimized revealing two wing character complexes: the pterostigma–nodal brace complex and the costal wing base & costal–ScP junction complex. In turn, these two complexes appear to be associated; the pterostigma–nodal brace complex allowing for further modification of the wing characters comprised within the costal wing base & costal–ScP junction complex leading the modern odonate wing. © The Willi Hennig Society 2008.     

HEADS AND TAILS: A CHORDATE PHYLOGENY

Abstract— A cladistic analysis of chordates is presented, based on some 320 nested characters. All the principal higher taxa are defined by synapomorphies, including extinct acanthodians and placoderms. The data base draws broadly from adult anatomy (including osteological data for Recent and fossil taxa), embryology, physiology, and biochemistry. A conventional sequence of chordate higher taxa is generated (hemichordates, urochordates, cephalochordates, craniates). Among the craniates, cyclostomes are considered paraphyletic. Gnathostomes are monophyletic, but two fossil "agnathan" groups (galeaspids, osteostracans) are regarded as stem gnathostomes. Chondrichthyans and osteichthyans are monophyletic. New arguments for osteichthyan affinity of acanthodians are presented. The phylogenetic position of placoderms is still problematic, but they can no longer be perceived as stem chondrichthyans or even as "elasmobranchiomorphs." Recent dipnoans and tetrapods are sister groups, but new paleontological discoveries refute many of their supposed osteological synapomorphies, thereby reopening the possibility of a closer relationship between tetrapods and osteolepiform rhipidistians.     

MITOCHONDRIAL PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF THE LAND SNAIL ALBINARIA IN CRETE: LONG-TERM GEOLOGICAL AND SHORT-TERM VICARIANCE EFFECTS

The land snail genus Albinaria exhibits an extreme degree of morphological differentiation in Greece, especially in the island of Crete. Twenty-six representatives of 17 nominal species and a suspected hybrid were examined by sequence analysis of a PCR-amplified mitochondrial DNA fragment of the large rRNA subunit gene. Maximum parsimony and neighbor-joining phylogenetic analyses demonstrate a complex pattern of speciation and differentiation and suggest that Albinaria species from Crete belong to at least three distinct monophyletic groups, which, however, are not monophyletic with reference to the genus as a whole. There is considerable variation of genetic distance within and among “species” and groups. The revealed phylogenetic relations do not correlate well with current taxonomy, but exhibit biogeographical coherence. Certain small- and large-scale vicariance events can be traced, although dispersal and parapatric speciation may also be present. Our analysis suggests that there was an early and rapid differentiation of Albinaria groups across the whole of the range followed by local speciation events within confined geographical areas.     

Molecular phylogeny of the superfamily Tephritoidea (Insecta: Diptera) reanalysed based on expanded taxon sampling and sequence data

Phylogenenetic relationships of the superfamily Tephritoidea (Diptera: Tephritidae) were reanalysed based upon four mitochondrial gene fragments (12S, 16S, cytochrome c oxidase I and cytochrome c oxidase II) from 53 tephritoid (10 families) and 30 outgroup (14 families) species. The data set of Han and Ro (Mol Phylogenet Evol, 39, 2005, 416) was expanded in terms of the number of taxa as well as molecular characters. We were able to sample the enigmatic families Ctenostylidae and Eurygnathomyiidae for the first time. Based on increased taxon sampling (from 49 to 83 species) and additional sequences (combined length of DNA fragments increased from 2451 to 4490 bp), the inferred phylogenetic trees suggest a number of interesting phylogenetic relationships, some of which were not recovered from the previous study. Some of the important findings are as follows: (1) monophyly of the superfamily Tephritoidea; (2) all the included tephritoid families except for Tephritidae were recovered as monophyletic groups; (3) Tephritoidea can be divided into two monophyletic groups – the Piophilidae Family Group (Pallopteridae, Circumphallidae?, Lonchaeidae, Piophilidae and Eurygnathomyiidae) and the Tephritidae Family Group (Richardiidae, Ulidiidae, Platystomatidae, Tephritidae, Ctenostylidae and Pyrgotidae); (4) Eurygnathomyiidae is recognized as an independent monophyletic family apart from Pallopteridae; (5) the enigmatic family Ctenostylidae is a member of the superfamily Tephritoidea; (6) parasitic Pyrgotidae + Ctenostylidae + Tachiniscinae and mostly phytophagous Tephritidae are recovered within a monophyletic group; and (7) according to an inferred chronogram, the first Tephritoidea might have evolved around the middle of Paleocene Epoch [~59 Million years ago (mya)] and the family Tephritidae around the late Eocene (~36 mya).