Characterization of the mitochondrial genome ofAnalcellicampa xanthosomagen. et sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)

Abstract

A new genus with a new species of the tribe Hoplocampini of Hoplocampinae was described from China: Analcellicampa xanthosoma Wei & Niu, gen. et sp. nov. Hoplocampa danfengensis G. Xiao 1994 was designated as the type species of the new genus. The characters of Analcellicampa danfengensis (G. Xiao) comb. nov. were briefly discussed. A key to the tribes and known genera of Hoplocampinae was provided. The nearly complete mitochondrial genome of A. xanthosoma was characterized as having a length of 15,512 bp and containing 37 genes (22 tRNAs, 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), and 2 rRNAs). The gene order of this new specimen was the same as that in the inferred insect ancestral mitochondrial genome. All PCGs were initiated by ATN codons and ended with TAA or T stop codons. All tRNAs had a typical cloverleaf secondary structure, except for trnS1. Remarkably, the helices H991 of rrnS and H47 of rrnL were redundant, while helix H563 of rrnL was highly conserved. A phylogeny based on previously reported symphytan mitochondrial genomes showed that A. xanthosoma is a sister group to Monocellicampa pruni, with high support values. We suggest that A. xanthosoma and M. pruni belong to the tribe Hoplocampini of Hoplocampinae.

The West Palaearctic genera of Nematinae (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae)

“…The conclusions on the phylogeny of Nematinae reached by Niu et al (2019), based mainly on morphological characters, differ substantially from our results, which are based on molecular data. In our opinion the methodology and data analysis on which their results are based are both seriously flawed.…”

“…This approach was adopted so that type species of some genera for which only one gene was available could be included in the analyses (only one specimen in the second dataset had 422 bp of COI, all others had at least 658 bp of COI). In the end, the new data presented by Niu et al (2019) are irrelevant to their discussion on the classification of the Nematinae, because of completely inadequate taxon sampling: they analysed only two specimens of Nematinae. Their data are in fact consistent with all previously proposed classifications, not just with Wei and Nie (1998) as they stated.…”

“…Their results are also affected by misinterpretations of previously published work by other researchers, particularly the papers by Nyman et al (2006) and Prous et al (2014). Niu et al (2019) failed to mention that many of the deepest splits within Nematinae were poorly supported (low statistical support and conflicting relationships in different analyses), although this was acknowledged by both Nyman et al (2006) and Prous et al (2014). At the same time, monophyly of Nematinae (including “Hoplocampinae”) was strongly supported in all analyses.…”

“…At the same time, monophyly of Nematinae (including “Hoplocampinae”) was strongly supported in all analyses. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, there is no justification for the proposal of alternative classifications: Niu et al (2019) have not provided such evidence, because they rely solely on the classification proposed by Wei and Nie (1998). Wei and Nie (1998) claimed that their “cladistic analysis” of “Tenthredinoidea” (i.e., Tenthredinidae as currently understood) was based on a “…huge data matrix”, but that “…the complicated analysis process are omitted here for limited space and they will be reported in detail in a separated monograph.” We are unaware of any sources or publications which provide these data.…”

“…The cladistic analyses by Vilhelmsen (2015), based on 146 morphological characters, demonstrate how difficult it is using such methods to achieve a high level of statistical support and stability for phylogenies within Tenthredinidae. At the same time, the statement by Niu et al (2019: page [2]) that the results of Prous et al (2014) were based “only on 400-bp sequences of the barcode region”, is simply wrong. As clearly described in Prous et al (2014: 3) there were two datasets based on four genes (two mitochondrial and two nuclear), one of them (134 specimens) with little missing data (19 specimens missing one gene and seven specimens missing two genes) and the second one (79 specimens) with more missing data (21 specimens missing one gene, eight specimens missing two genes, and 15 specimens missing three genes).…”