A phylogeny of the family Fanniidae Schnabl (Insecta:Diptera:Calyptratae) based on adult morphological characters, with special reference to the Austral species of the genus Fannia

Abstract

The present study proposed a phylogenetic hypothesis of the family Fanniidae based on a cladistic analysis using characters from adult external morphology and female and male terminalia. The main purpose of this study was to clarify the phylogenetic position of newly described or poorly known species, mostly from southern South America, the Neotropics, Africa, Australia and New Zealand. In total, 151 characters from adult male and female external morphology and terminalia were scored for 78 species of Fanniidae. Ten continuous characters were included and analysed as such. Three genera of Fanniidae and all the species-groups and subgroups proposed for the genus Fannia, except for the admirabilis-group and the setifer-subgroup were included as terminal taxa. An heuristic parsimony analysis under implied weights was performed. The analysis recovered the monophyly of the Fanniidae and the genus Fannia, as well as the monophyly of several species-groups within Fannia. Male and female external morphological characters were, in general, highly homoplasious, whereas characters from male terminalia showed low level of homoplasy and provided resolution at suprageneric nodes and species-groups.

A morphometrics-based phylogeny of the temperate Gondwanan mite harvestmen (Opiliones, Cyphophthalmi, Pettalidae)

“…In fact, its developer has stated (Felsenstein 2002) that because all the correlations of continuous data cannot be known, a probabilistic model of their evolution cannot be built, and they are useful in retrospect only (mapped on to trees built from other data). TNT, the parsimony program, has received similar attention (Abdala 2007; Dominguez and Roig‐Junent 2008), also being rejected by some for its underlying assumptions about the evolution of characters (Legendre et al. 2008).…”

“…2007; Lycett 2007; Asher et al. 2008; Dominguez and Roig‐Junent 2008; Hardy et al. 2008; Moon et al.…”

“…In addition, recent analyses of rodent skulls in search of phylogenetic information (Gunduz et al 2007;Macholan 2008) are an interesting return to morphology in a group that has helped mark the milestones in systematics, from the phenetic analysis of morphological data (Lidicker 1973;Levenson et al 1985) and cladistic analysis of electrophoretic (Levenson et al 1985) and discrete morphological data (Novacek 1992), to some of the more illuminating discussions on the analysis of DNA sequence data (Allard et al 1991;Graur et al 1991;Luckett and Hartenberger 1993;Sullivan and Swofford 1997;DeBry 2003). Other researchers have looked to measurements and shape descriptors for new characters Chu 1998;Budd and Klaus 2001;Bookstein 2002;Buijsen et al 2003;Datwyler and Wolfe 2004;Pelser et al 2004;Dessein et al 2005;Abdala 2007;Lens et al 2007;Lycett 2007;Asher et al 2008;Dominguez and Roig-Junent 2008;Hardy et al 2008;Moon et al 2008) and we join their efforts here.…”

Molecular phylogeny of the Calyptratae (Diptera: Cyclorrhapha) with an emphasis on the superfamily Oestroidea and the position of Mystacinobiidae and McAlpine's fly

“…With regard to intra‐familial relationships of the Fanniidae, the basal split is probably between the monotypic genus Australofannia Pont and the remaining members of this family (Pont, 1977; Domínguez & Roig‐Juñent, 2008). Within the Muscidae, stability has yet to be achieved with regard to both the composition and the phylogenetic relationships of the eight subfamilies usually recognized (Achanthipterinae, Atherigoninae, Azeliinae, Cyrtoneurininae, Coenosiinae, Muscinae, Mydaeinae, Phaoniinae) (Couri & Pont, 2000; Couri & Carvalho, 2003; Savage et al , 2004; Nihei & Carvalho, 2007; Schuehli et al , 2007; Kutty et al , 2008).…”

Body shape evolution of Chromis and Azurina species (Percifomes, Pomacentridae) of the eastern Pacific

“…In previous studies, morphometric data has been used in order to provide new sources of characters in systematics (Fink & Zelditch, 1995;Bookstein, 2002;Pelser et al, 2004;Dessein et al, 2005;Abdala, 2007;Domínguez & Roig-Juñent, 2008;Moon et al, 2008;Aguilar-Medrano et al, 2011). Recently, the use of morphometrics in systematic contexts has undergone a clear revival (Humphries, 2002) through the development of new methodologies that allow a more efficient and elegant use of shape information, such as the direct use of x, >; (and 3D) coordinates (Catalano et al, 2010).…”