Characterizing the Ancestors: Paedomorphosis and Termite Evolution

Nalepa, Christine A.; Bandi, Claudio

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3223-9_3

Cited by 87 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The available phylogenies are ambiguous with regard to the position of the Termopsidae and Kalotermitidae (see also figure 1a): Legendre et al [31] placed the Kalotermitidae in a more basal position, while it is the reverse in the study of Inward et al [17]. These most recent phylogenies reflect a long-standing debate about the relative positions of these lower termite families [58], which might take a long time to resolve, owing to the fast pace of Dictyopteran and termite evolution [59]. Even if the second scenario is more likely, the lack of brood care by workers in C. secundus and the other Cryptotermes species provides evidence for the principle that alloparental brood care is no necessary prerequisite for termite eusociality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brood care and social evolution in termites

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative brood care is assumed to be the common driving factor leading to sociality. While this seems to be true for social Hymenoptera and many cooperatively breeding vertebrates, the importance of brood care for the evolution of eusociality in termites is unclear. A first step in elucidating this problem is an assessment of the ancestral condition in termites. We investigated this by determining the overall level of brood care behaviour across four termite species that cover the phylogenetic diversity of the lower termites. Brood care was low in the three species (all from different families) that had an ancestral wood-dwelling lifestyle of living in a single piece of wood that serves as food and shelter. In the fourth species, a lower termite that evolved outside foraging, brood care was more common. Together with data for higher termites, this suggests that brood care in termites only becomes important when switching from a wood-dwelling to a foraging lifestyle. These results imply that early social evolution in termites was driven by benefits of increased defence, while eusociality in Hymenoptera and cooperative breeding in birds and mammals are primarily based on brood care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brood care and social evolution in termites

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also generally accepted is that termites, mantids and cockroaches form a monophyletic group, the Dictyoptera. Mantids and termites are also both almost certainly monophyletic Until 1990 the, largely untested, sister group relationship between Cryptocercus and the Isoptera was generally accepted (although see Nalepa and Bandi, 2000 for a discussion of other views). However, Thorne (1990) proposed that the similarity in morphology between termites and Cryptocercus was convergent, and, perhaps most importantly, that the gut flagellates of termites may have been acquired by feeding on cadavers of Cryptocercus living in the same woody substrates -a process known as transfaunation.…”

Section: Roots: Relationships Within Dictyopteramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that many of these synapomorphies are really only apparent when Mastotermes is assumed to be the most basal termite (see below). In addition, many morphological characters are difficult to polarise within the Dictyoptera due to paedomorphosis in termites and key groups of cockroaches (Nalepa and Bandi, 2000) and the highly derived nature of such characters in the entirely predatory mantids.…”

Section: Roots: Relationships Within Dictyopteramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The growing weight of morphological and molecular evidence appears to make a (mantids + cockroaches) sister to (termites) relationship a more remote possibility than was previously thought. However, some workers have suggested that the divergence rate of cockroaches, mantids and termites was so rapid that resolution of the branching order of the taxa may, in any case, be extremely difficult (Nalepa and Bandi, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Termites and trees: a review of recent advances in termite phylogenetics

Eggleton¹

2001

Insectes soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern termite phylogenetics is critically reviewed, with an emphasis on tree topologies as phylogenetic hypotheses. Studies have especially concentrated on (1) the position of Isoptera among the Dictyoptera and (2) the family group relationships within the Isoptera. The first of these problems is still controversial; although the weight of evidence now suggests that termites are nested within the cockroaches, thus making "Blattaria" as presently constituted paraphyletic. The exact position of termites within the cockroaches is uncertain, although Cryptocercus is the most plausible sister group.Family groups relationships are rather better resolved. Mastotermitidae is now generally accepted to be the most basal termite group. Termopsidae, Hodotermitidae and Kalotermitidae are all basal to (Termitidae + Serritermitidae + Rhinotermitidae), although their relative positions within that part of the tree are disputed. Most recent studies support a sister group relationship for Serritermitidae and (Termitidae + Rhinotermitidae). However, no study has yet unambiguously found the Rhinotermitidae monophyletic. The Termitidae are well established as monophyletic and as the most apical termite family. However, within the Termitidae the monophyly of none of the subfamilies is well established, making subfamily level analyses unreliable.A number of problem areas are identified: (1) poor taxon sampling is a universal problem, (2) higher taxonomic groupings are often assumed to be monophyletic a priori without adequate support, (3) datasets are collected from different taxa and character systems without consideration of the overall international effort.

show abstract

“…These taxa, with the exception of lepidopterans, have fair to good body-fossil records and lack taphonomic constraints on preservational quality. Much data currently support this scenario, including the body-fossil record of the relevant insect clades (Krell, 2000;Thome et al, 2000;Engel, 2000;Nel et al, 2004;Grimaldi and Engel, 2005), presence of associated groups of organisms such as flowering plants, grasses, and fungi (Taylor and Taylor, 1993;Grimaldi, 1999;Retallack, 2004), and phylogenetic inferences based on molecular analysis (Nalepa and Bandi, 2000). A comparatively reliable trace fossil record (Genise, 2004, and references therein) also supports this scenario, as the oldest well-documented insect nests and pupation chambers in palaeosols are recorded from the Upper Cretaceous, and their record is sparse in comparison with that of the Cenozoic (Genise, 2004).…”

Section: Fossil Record Of Ecological Keystone Insectsmentioning

confidence: 99%