2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00366.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic relationships among superfamilies of Hymenoptera

Abstract: The first comprehensive analysis of higher-level phylogeny of the order Hymenoptera is presented. The analysis includes representatives of all extant superfamilies, scored for 392 morphological characters, and sequence data for four loci (18S, 28S, COI and EF-1a). Including three outgroup taxa, 111 terminals were analyzed. Relationships within symphytans (sawflies) and Apocrita are mostly resolved. Well supported relationships include: Xyeloidea is monophyletic, Cephoidea is the sister group of Siricoidea + [X… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

22
198
3
4

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(227 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
22
198
3
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Today Evanioidea comprises approximately 2200 species (Huber, 2009;Engel and Krombein, 2012;Aguiar et al, 2013), and depending on the classification adopted, these are arranged in two or three families. Since the works of Bischoff (1927), Hedicke (1930Hedicke ( , 1939aHedicke ( , 1939bHedicke ( , 1939c, and Crosskey (1951Crosskey ( , 1962, the most consistent classification considers the superfamily to comprise three extant familes-Aulacidae, Gasteruptiidae, and Evaniidae (e.g., Mason, 1993;Grimaldi and Engel, 2005;Sharkey et al, 2012). The monophyly of evanioids is abundantly supported in analyses of morphological and molecular data sources (e.g., Dowton and Austin, 1994;Dowton et al, 1997;Vilhelmsen et al, 2010;Sharkey et al, 2012;Payne et al, 2013), and they are also one of the few superfamilies for which there have been comparatively comprehensive modern phylogenetic studies and revisions (e.g., Aulacidae [Jennings and Austin, 2000;Smith, 2001;Turrisi, 2006Turrisi, , 2007Turrisi, , 2014Turrisi et al, 2009;Turrisi and Madl, 2013], Gasteruptiidae [Jennings and Austin, 2002;Macedo, 2009Macedo, , 2011Zhao et al, 2012;Achterberg and Talebi, 2014], Evaniidae [Deans and Huben, 2003;Deans, 2005;Deans et al, 2006;Kawada and Azevedo, 2007;Mullins et al, 2012]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Today Evanioidea comprises approximately 2200 species (Huber, 2009;Engel and Krombein, 2012;Aguiar et al, 2013), and depending on the classification adopted, these are arranged in two or three families. Since the works of Bischoff (1927), Hedicke (1930Hedicke ( , 1939aHedicke ( , 1939bHedicke ( , 1939c, and Crosskey (1951Crosskey ( , 1962, the most consistent classification considers the superfamily to comprise three extant familes-Aulacidae, Gasteruptiidae, and Evaniidae (e.g., Mason, 1993;Grimaldi and Engel, 2005;Sharkey et al, 2012). The monophyly of evanioids is abundantly supported in analyses of morphological and molecular data sources (e.g., Dowton and Austin, 1994;Dowton et al, 1997;Vilhelmsen et al, 2010;Sharkey et al, 2012;Payne et al, 2013), and they are also one of the few superfamilies for which there have been comparatively comprehensive modern phylogenetic studies and revisions (e.g., Aulacidae [Jennings and Austin, 2000;Smith, 2001;Turrisi, 2006Turrisi, , 2007Turrisi, , 2014Turrisi et al, 2009;Turrisi and Madl, 2013], Gasteruptiidae [Jennings and Austin, 2002;Macedo, 2009Macedo, , 2011Zhao et al, 2012;Achterberg and Talebi, 2014], Evaniidae [Deans and Huben, 2003;Deans, 2005;Deans et al, 2006;Kawada and Azevedo, 2007;Mullins et al, 2012]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even the relationship of Ceraphronoidea to other Hymenoptera remains unclear, although the superfamily is robustly monophyletic (Mikó et al 2013). Different molecular analyses have grouped Ceraphronoidea with Stephanoidea, Ichneumonoidea, Megalyroidea, or with Ichneumonoidea and Proctotrupomorpha (Klopfstein et al 2013;Mao et al 2014;Peters et al 2017;Sharkey 2007;Sharkey et al 2012). Contrary to the belief that ceraphronoids are too small for morphological characters to be of phylogenetic use (Klopfstein et al 2013), the group contains taxa with morphological structures that may serve as characters to corroborate both the phylogenetic relationships among members within the superfamily.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…(e.g., Naumann and Masner, 1985), studies have repeatedly united the Diapriidae, Monomachidae, and Maamingidae into a natural group (e.g., Dowton et al, 1997;Dowton and Austin, 2001;Castro and Dowton, 2006;Sharkey, 2007;Davis et al, 2010;Sharkey et al, 2012). The superfamily Diapri- NO.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%