Article

The phylogenetic relationships of flies in the superfamily Empidoidea (Insecta : Diptera)

The University of Tennessee Medical Center at Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (Impact Factor: 4.02). 07/2007; 43(3):701-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.02.029
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We conducted a molecular phylogenetic study of the Empidoidea, a diverse group of 10,000 species of true flies, with two major goals: to reconstruct a taxonomically complete and robustly supported phylogeny for the group and to use this information to assess several competing classifications for the clade. We amassed 3900+ nucleotides of coding data from the carbamoylphosphate synthase domain of the rudimentary locus (CAD) and 1200+ nucleotides from the large nuclear ribosomal subunit (28S) from 72 and 71 species, respectively, representing several orthorrhaphan and cyclorrhaphan families and all previously recognized empidoidean subfamilies. Independent and combined phylogenetic analyses of these data were conducted using parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian criteria. The combined matrix included 61 taxa for which both CAD and 28S sequences were obtained. Analyses of CAD first and second codon positions alone and when concatenated with 28S sequences yielded trees with similar and largely stable topologies. Analyses of 28S data alone supported many clades although resolution is limited by low sequence divergence. The following major empidoid clades were recovered with convincing support in a majority of analyses: Atelestidae, Empidoidea exclusive of Atelestidae, Hybotidae sensu lato, Dolichopodidae+Microphorinae (including Parathallassius), and Empididae sensu lato (including Brachystomatinae, Ceratomerinae, Clinocerinae, Empidinae, Hemerodromiinae, Oreogetoninae, and Trichopezinae). The branching arrangement among these four major clades was Atelestidae, Hybotidae, Dolichopodidae/Microphorinae, Empididae. Previously recognized subclades recovered with robust support included Hybotinae, Brachystomatinae, Tachydromiinae, Clinocerinae (in part), Hemerodromiinae, Empidinae, and Empidiini.

2 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    • "The characters uniting Syrphoidea + Schizophora are monotype ommatidia, dorsal arista and lever-like phallapodeme (Wada 1991; Cumming et al. 1995). By contrast, molecular data suggest Syrphoidea are paraphyletic and the Pipunculidae are sister to the Schizophora (Collins & Wiegmann 2002; Moulton & Wiegmann 2007; Wiegmann et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The morphology of the metathorax of brachyceran Diptera is examined, particularly the metapleuron in the superfamily Syrphoidea comprising two families Syrphidae and Pipunculidae. The homologies of the metepisternum (EPS) and metepimeron (EPM) are redefined based on the metapleural suture (PlS), which bears an internal apophysis. A new interpretation of the metathorax is provided for Syrphidae. Members of Schizophora and Pipunculidae have an articulation between EPM and the first abdominal tergite in common and the (metapleural-abdominal) articulation is indicated as a synapomorphy for them. In some species of Syrphidae the well-developed metapostnotum is articulated with the first abdominal tergite and the (metapostnotal-abdominal) articulation is diagnostic of a subgroup of the family. The articulations are evaluated and discussed with respect to abdominal flexion of Diptera.
    Insect systematics & evolution 10/2014; 45:395-414. DOI:10.1163/1876312X-45012112 · 1.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Genital morphology is still the main decisive diagnostic character used in the morphological identification and subsequent classification. Studies carried out over the last few decades indicate the family Hybotidae is to be monophyletic (Chvala 1983, Collins and Wiegmann 2002, Sinclair and Cumming 2006, Moulton and Wiegmann 2007). The family includes ca. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Empidoidea is one of the largest extant lineages of flies, but phylogenetic relationships among species of this group are poorly investigated and global diversity remains scarcely assessed. In this context, one of the most enigmatic empidoid families is Hybotidae. Within the framework of a pilot study, we barcoded 339 specimens of Old World hybotids belonging to 164 species and 22 genera (plus two Empis as outgroups) and attempted to evaluate whether patterns of intra- and interspecific divergences match the current taxonomy. We used a large sampling of diverse Hybotidae. The material came from the Palaearctic (Belgium, France, Portugal and Russian Caucasus), the Afrotropic (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and the Oriental realms (Singapore and Thailand). Thereby, we optimized lab protocols for barcoding hybotids. Although DNA barcodes generally well distinguished recognized taxa, the study also revealed a number of unexpected phenomena: e.g., undescribed taxa found within morphologically very similar or identical specimens, especially when geographic distance was large; some morphologically distinct species showed no genetic divergence; or different pattern of intraspecific divergence between populations or closely related species. Using COI sequences and simple Neighbour-Joining tree reconstructions, the monophyly of many species- and genus-level taxa was well supported, but more inclusive taxonomical levels did not receive significant bootstrap support. We conclude that in hybotids DNA barcoding might be well used to identify species, when two main constraints are considered. First, incomplete barcoding libraries hinder efficient (correct) identification. Therefore, extra efforts are needed to increase the representation of hybotids in these databases. Second, the spatial scale of sampling has to be taken into account, and especially for widespread species or species complexes with unclear taxonomy, an integrative approach has to be used to clarify species boundaries and identities.
    ZooKeys 12/2013; DOI:10.3897/zookeys.365.6070 · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In some cases, gene regions have been analysed simultaneously with morphological data (Skevington & Yeates, 2000; Meier & Baker, 2002; Meier & Wiegmann , 2002; Remsen & O'Grady, 2002; Dikow, 2009). Quantitative studies have been designed to test competing hypotheses of dipteran relationships (Collins & Wiegmann, 2002; Meier & Baker, 2002; Moulton & Wiegmann, 2007; Winterton et al., 2007). A supertree approach (Bininda-Emonds et al., 2002) summarized nine phylogenetic hypotheses of the Diptera, all of which were based on morphological evidence (Yeates & Wiegmann, 2005), and produced results in agreement with previous studies at infraordinal level using non-quantitative methods (e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Members of the megadiverse insect order Diptera (flies) have successfully colonized all continents and nearly all habitats. There are more than 154 000 described fly species, representing 10–12$0 of animal species. Elucidating the phylogenetic relationships of such a large component of global biodiversity is challenging, but significant advances have been made in the last few decades. Since Hennig first discussed the monophyly of major groupings, Diptera has attracted much study, but most researchers have used non-numerical qualitative methods to assess morphological data. More recently, quantitative phylogenetic methods have been used on both morphological and molecular data. All previous quantitative morphological studies addressed narrower phylogenetic problems, often below the suborder or infraorder level. Here we present the first numerical analysis of phylogenetic relationships of the entire order using a comprehensive morphological character matrix. We scored 371 external and internal morphological characters from larvae, pupae and adults for 42 species, representing all infraorders selected from 42 families. Almost all characters were obtained from previous studies but required revision for this ordinal-level study, with homology assessed beyond their original formulation and across all infraorders. We found significant support for many major clades (including the Diptera, Culicomorpha, Bibionomorpha, Brachycera, Eremoneura, Cyclorrhapha, Schizophora, Calyptratae and Oestroidea) and we summarize the character evidence for these groups. We found low levels of support for relationships between the infraorders of lower Diptera, lower Brachycera and major lineages of lower Cyclorrhapha, and this is consistent with findings from molecular studies. These poorly supported areas of the tree may be due to periods of rapid radiation that left few synapomorphies in surviving lineages.
    Systematic Entomology 01/2013; 38(1-1):164–179. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2012.00652.x · 2.55 Impact Factor
Show more