Phylogenetic radiation of the greenbottle flies (Diptera, Calliphoridae, Luciliinae)

Abstract

The subfamily Luciliinae is diverse and geographically widespread. Its four currently recognised genera (Dyscritomyia Grimshaw, 1901, Hemipyrellia Townsend, 1918, Hypopygiopsis Townsend 1916 and Lucilia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) contain species that range from saprophages to obligate parasites, but their pattern of phylogenetic diversification is unclear. The 28S rRNA, COI and Period genes of 14 species of Lucilia and Hemipyrellia were partially sequenced and analysed together with sequences of 11 further species from public databases. The molecular data confirmed molecular paraphyly in three species-pairs in Lucilia that hamper barcode identifications of those six species. Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina were confirmed as mutual sister species. The placements of Dyscritomyia and Hypopygiopsis were ambiguous, since both made Lucilia paraphyletic in some analyses. Recognising Hemipyrellia as a genus consistently left Lucilia s.l. paraphyletic, and the occasionally-recognised (sub)genus Phaenicia was consistently paraphyletic, so these taxa should be synonymised with Lucilia to maintain monophyly. Analysis of a matrix of 14 morphological characters scored for adults of all genera and for most of the species included in the molecular analysis confirmed several of these findings. The different degrees of parasitism were phylogenetically clustered within this genus but did not form a graded series of evolutionary stages, and there was no particular relationship between feeding habits and biogeography. Because of the ubiquity of hybridization, introgression and incomplete lineage sorting in blow flies, we recommend that using a combination of mitochondrial and nuclear markers should be a procedural standard for medico-criminal forensic identifications of insects.

Untitled

“…Rather, the use of multiple markers has been suggested as a means to increase the accuracy of species identification. Indeed, our results show that COI barcoding successfully identified most species, but did not distinguish between the pairs L. mexicana and L. coeruleiviridis as previously reported (DeBry et al, 2013;Whitworth, 2014;Williams, Lamb & Villet, 2016) and between Co. aldrichi and Co. macellaria (Tables 3, 5, S1).…”

Forensically Important Blow Flies Chrysomya pinguis, C. villeneuvi, and Lucilia porphyrina (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in a Case of Human Remains in Thailand

“…Reasonably for the present study, the molecular based identification of L. porphyrina may be efficient enough for species validation, particularly in Thailand where L. ampullacae does not coexist. To discriminate closely related sister species in co-exiting area, phylogenies based on more than 1 genetic marker merits investigation to retrieve sufficient genetic information in different loci of genes [18]. …”

The State of Phylogenetic Analysis: Narrow Visions and Simple Answers—Examples from the Diptera (flies)

“…To simply provide data as 0s and 1s is a reductionist presentation that introduces an opacity that others cannot penetrate-hardly the characterization of progressive science. As it stands, most recent morphologically-based phylogenies simply, at best, itemize their characters, with the plesiomorphic and apomorphic states merely listed (often relegated to supplemental files) (e.g., Fu et al, 2016;Inclán et al, 2016;Kits et al, 2013;Meier & Wiegmann, 2002;Morgulis et al, 2016;Wagner & Stuckenberg, 2016;Williams et al, 2016;Young et al, 2016b). Such presentations limit scientific dialogue, criticism, and development.…”

“…On the other hand, there are numbers of publications in which both sequences and morphology (at least partially) are examined. Some are combined studies that partition morphological and molecular characters at least as an initial approach to examine levels of congruence (e.g., Germann et al, 2010;Hash et al, 2017;Petersen et al, 2010;Roháček & Tóthová, 2014;Skevington & Yeates, 2000;Su et al, 2008;Williams et al, 2016). Some others combine the characters, appearing to effectively swamp the morphological characters with the molecular characters (e.g., Fu et Pu et al, 2017;Semelbauer, 2016;Tachi, 2013;Tkoč et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2014;Watts et al, 2016).…”

“…Such limited examination is inherent to current methods utilized in sequence analyses but is unacceptably reductionist for studies including morphological features. An exemplar approach is used even when morphological character states are known for far more taxa (e.g., Cerretti & Pape, 2012;Forster et al, 2016;Kits et al, 2013;Koch et al, 2015;Wagner & Stuckenberg, 2016;Williams et al, 2016;Yassin, 2013) and cannot be considered as thorough science, and especially not when it ignores previously published information. Such limited comparisons strongly reduce the possibility of understanding character state distributions in any sort of breadth, and increases the odds of misinterpreting the results.…”