Estimating time and space in the evolution of the Lepidoptera

Jong, R. de

doi:10.1163/22119434-900000233

Cited by 31 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 76 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of fossil-calibrated molecular dating is less advanced in Lepidoptera than in other insect groups, mainly because the fossil record in this order is relatively sparse and poorly studied [53], [54]. Very few lepidopteran fossils have rigorously established, synapomorphy-based identifications, and as yet, no molecular dating for any lepidopteran group has been explicitly based on synapomorphy-grounded calibration points.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Large-Scale, Higher-Level, Molecular Phylogenetic Study of the Insect Order Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies)

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHigher-level relationships within the Lepidoptera, and particularly within the species-rich subclade Ditrysia, are generally not well understood, although recent studies have yielded progress. We present the most comprehensive molecular analysis of lepidopteran phylogeny to date, focusing on relationships among superfamilies.Methodology / Principal Findings483 taxa spanning 115 of 124 families were sampled for 19 protein-coding nuclear genes, from which maximum likelihood tree estimates and bootstrap percentages were obtained using GARLI. Assessment of heuristic search effectiveness showed that better trees and higher bootstrap percentages probably remain to be discovered even after 1000 or more search replicates, but further search proved impractical even with grid computing. Other analyses explored the effects of sampling nonsynonymous change only versus partitioned and unpartitioned total nucleotide change; deletion of rogue taxa; and compositional heterogeneity. Relationships among the non-ditrysian lineages previously inferred from morphology were largely confirmed, plus some new ones, with strong support. Robust support was also found for divergences among non-apoditrysian lineages of Ditrysia, but only rarely so within Apoditrysia. Paraphyly for Tineoidea is strongly supported by analysis of nonsynonymous-only signal; conflicting, strong support for tineoid monophyly when synonymous signal was added back is shown to result from compositional heterogeneity.Conclusions / SignificanceSupport for among-superfamily relationships outside the Apoditrysia is now generally strong. Comparable support is mostly lacking within Apoditrysia, but dramatically increased bootstrap percentages for some nodes after rogue taxon removal, and concordance with other evidence, strongly suggest that our picture of apoditrysian phylogeny is approximately correct. This study highlights the challenge of finding optimal topologies when analyzing hundreds of taxa. It also shows that some nodes get strong support only when analysis is restricted to nonsynonymous change, while total change is necessary for strong support of others. Thus, multiple types of analyses will be necessary to fully resolve lepidopteran phylogeny.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Large-Scale, Higher-Level, Molecular Phylogenetic Study of the Insect Order Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies)

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phylogenetic tree in Fig. 8 was obtained by analyzing 55 morphological characters and 26 species (representing all nine genera of Coeliadinae and fi ve outgroups) (de Jong, 2007). The only other tree available is a part of the large tree which includes 210 hesperiid taxa (Warren et al, 2009), of which only six are Coeliadinae (representing six of the nine genera currently recognized; Fig.…”

Section: Taxonomic Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differences and uncertainties are due to diffi culties with calibration (and possibly the trees can still be improved). For instance, for the calibration of the Pieridae tree four fossils were used, the identifi cation of which is doubtful if not incorrect (de Jong, 2007). But we are not concerned with the butterfl ies as a whole in this paper.…”

Section: Importance Of This Fossil For Determining the Time Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconstructing a 55-million-year-old butterfly (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae)

Jong¹

2016

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ISSN (online): 1802-8829http://www.eje.cz 6th, 2014. I feel it is appropriate to name the fossil after him. MATERIAL AND METHODSThe fossil ( Fig. 1) was found in the Fur formation on the island of Fur in the Limfjord in N Denmark. It is a 60 m thick marine deposit of diatoms and clay minerals with many layers of volcanic ash. It was formed shortly after the Paleocene to Eocene transition, about 55 Ma (Pedersen et al., 2004) and previously estimated at 57 Ma (Rust, 1998). The deposit is famous for its many fossils, not only marine animals but also terrestrial animals, which apparently were blown into the sea or actively fl ew over the water. Among the numerous insect fossils only the present fossil can be identifi ed as a butterfl y.The fossil is of a relatively broad-winged insect with wings folded down enclosing the legs. Outline of hindwings diffi cult to make out and most of the head is missing, but the dark lines in front of it may be remnants of palpi. Apex and greater part of termen of forewings are absent. Because of its fi ne detail the specimen in Fig. 1a is thought to be the compressed insect (although little is left except coloration of the substrate), of which the imprint is preserved in the counterpart illustrated in Fig. 1b. Therefore, the uppermost forewing is supposed to be the right wing. In the rest of the fossil the veins of four wings are lying on top of each other, making it diffi cult to decide which vein belongs to which wing. Part of the underlying (left) forewing is free and, although in this wing the apex is missing, several veins are clearly visible and there are no structures lying under it and blurring the picture. The venation of the "free" part of the (supposed) left forewing (right part of the fossil in Fig. 1a) was drawn on a transparent sheet and slid over the other forewing. By moving the Reconstructing a 55-million-year-old butterfl y (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) RIENK DE JONGNaturalis Biodiversity Center, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands; e-mail: rienk.dejong@naturalis.nl Key words. Fossil, oldest butterfl y, Hesperiidae, Protocoeliades kristenseni, new genus, new species, divergence time, evolution, biogeography Abstract. The oldest butterfl y fossil known, which was formed about 55 Ma in what is now Denmark, is described. The fragments of its forewing venation indicates it belongs to the Hesperiidae. Further reconstruction indicates that it fi ts in the Coeliadinae and is close to the extant genera Hasora and Burara. It is here described as Protocoeliades kristenseni gen. et sp. n. It is the fi rst butterfl y fossil found on a continent (Europe) where its closest relatives do not currently occur. Its position on the phylogenetic tree of the Coeliadinae and its importance in understanding the time dimension in the evolution of butterfl ies, and their ecological and biogeographic implications are discussed. ZooBank Article LSID: E0B5F7AD-5352-493B-9016-F16A9C596D70

show abstract

“…Although restricting our comparisons to current sister species may seem to represent a biased sample with respect to all historical speciation events, we do not dispute that speciation took place in the Neogene, nor that most extant higher taxa arose before the Pleistocene. Indeed, fossil butterflies of Oligocene age (33–23 Ma) are mostly placed in extant genera (de Jong, ). However, the literature abounds with statements such as ‘with high species diversity evident in the early Eocene, later climate change is neither sufficient nor necessary to explain Neotropical diversity’ (Knapp & Mallet, , p. 72) and ‘the Pleistocene accounts for only a small proportion of the cladogenetic events sampled, contrary to the expectations of the Pleistocene refugia model’ (Antonelli et al ., , p. 396), and frequent assertions that the PRH has been ‘abandoned’ (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing the diversification of the Amazonian biota: butterfly divergences are consistent with Pleistocene refugia

Garzón‐Orduña

Benetti‐Longhini

Brower

2014

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rejection of the Pleistocene refugium hypothesis (PRH) as an explanation for the high biodiversity of Neotropical forest is based in part on the assertion that biotic elements of these forests evolved during the Neogene. That argument is justified, in turn, by the ages of crown groups (the age of the most recent common ancestor of extant species of a clade). We consider the use of crown ages as a metric to reject the PRH to be an unfair test, because the circumscription of crown groups of interest is arbitrary, and their ages represent overestimates of the time of species formation. We present divergence times between pairs of sister species (131 pairs), and among pairs of sister species and their closest relative (56 triplets), from 35 genera of Neotropical butterflies. Our aim is to refocus the discussion about the timing of diversification of the Neotropical biota on the time of the formation of extant species, a metric that is consistent and comparable across taxa. Our results show that 72% of speciation events leading to the formation of butterfly sister species occurred within the last 2.6 Myr, a result consistent with the temporal predictions of the PRH, suggesting that the PRH cannot be completely discarded as a driver of Neotropical diversification.

show abstract

Estimating time and space in the evolution of the Lepidoptera

Cited by 31 publications

References 76 publications

A Large-Scale, Higher-Level, Molecular Phylogenetic Study of the Insect Order Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies)

A Large-Scale, Higher-Level, Molecular Phylogenetic Study of the Insect Order Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies)

Reconstructing a 55-million-year-old butterfly (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae)

Timing the diversification of the Amazonian biota: butterfly divergences are consistent with Pleistocene refugia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About