Phylogenetic relationships of selected European Ennominae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)

Abstract

Abstract. This study reports the results of a molecular phylogenetic analysis of thirty three species of Ennominae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). The aim of this analysis was to determine the phylogenetic affinities of 13 European species not previously studied using these methods. Fragments of seven nuclear genes, elongation factor 1 alpha (EF-1 ), wingless (wgl), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), ribosomal protein S5 (RpS5) and expansion segments D1 and D2 of the 28S rRNA gene and fragment of one mitochondrial gene, cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI), were used. In the analysis using Bayesian phylogenetic inference, original gene sequences of the target species were combined with a larger data matrix of 20 species of Ennominae, used in a previous study (Wahlberg et al., 2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 55: 929-938). Most notably, the results indicate that the representatives of the genera Cepphis, Plagodis, Pseudopanthera and Selenia form a well-supported monophyletic group which appeared as the sister clade to the rest of the "ennomine" group of tribes. On the other hand, Crocallis and Opisthograptis group together with Ennomos. These results conflict with previous tribal subdivisions of the subfamily pointing to the need to reconsider the concepts of Ennomini and Ourapterygini. Within the tribe Macariini, the genus Macaria appears to be more closely related to Itame (= Speranza) than to Chiasmia clathrata. The emerging phylogenetic tree of Ennominae suggests only a limited phylogenetic inertia in body size making this group a promising target for comparative studies on this central life history trait and its correlates.

Disentangling determinants of egg size in the Geometridae (Lepidoptera) using an advanced phylogenetic comparative method

“…(2008), Wahlberg et al. (2010) and Õunap et al. (2011), but also a small portion of unpublished original sequences.…”

“…Nevertheless, there is considerable variation in life history traits (e.g. Barbosa et al, 1989;Snäll et al, 2007;Javoiš et al, 2011) including body and egg sizes (Brehm & Fiedler, 2004), as well as in habitat choice, dietary habit (polyphagous or oligo ⁄ monophagous, tree or herb diet) and overwintering stage (Koch, 1984;Leraut, 2009). Such a high ecological diversity makes this group very attractive for studying correlates and potential determinants of egg size (or other life history traits) in a phylogenetic comparative framework.…”

“…For constructing a phylogenetic hypothesis ( Fig. 1), we principally used DNA sequence data for Geometridae provided by Snä ll et al (2007), Viidalepp et al (2007Viidalepp et al ( ), Õ unap et al (2008, Wahlberg et al (2010) andÕ unap et al (2011), but also a small portion of unpublished original sequences. The final data matrix comprised 116 species and 4643 positions, and the tree was constructed in BEAST (Drummond & Rambaut, 2007) using Bayesian inference.…”

Sharing and re-use of phylogenetic trees (and associated data) to facilitate synthesis

“…When re-use of aligned (homologized) characters occurs, it is most often that the authors are adding to their own previous work, i.e., the authors add new rows or columns to an alignment from a study with an overlapping set of authors (e.g., [36]). It may seem surprising that authors do not simply re-align all the data, but in many studies, authors are using manual methods of alignment, either with non-sequence characters for which there is no automated method (e.g., [37,38]), or with sequences so closely related that manual alignment is not problematic (e.g., [39,40]).…”

Degree of Specialization Is Related to Body Size in Herbivorous Insects: A Phylogenetic Confirmation

“…The comparative analysis was based on a phylogeny, which was built on DNA sequence data for Geometridae principally provided by Snäll et al (2007), Viidalepp et al (2007), Õunap et al (2008, 2011), and Wahlberg et al (2010), but also a small portion of unpublished original sequences (Fig. 2).…”