Phylogenetic relationships of the Australian Leptophlebiidae (Ephemeroptera)

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships among the Australian Leptophlebiidae genera and selected genera from South America and New Zealand were investigated using a cladistic analysis of 43 morphological characters. The outcomes of this analysis were largely consistent with the higher-level relationships previously proposed by Pescador and Peters (1980). The monophyly of the Meridialaris lineage (comprising Austrophlebioides, Tillyardophlebia, Kirrara, ‘WT sp. 1’ and ‘WT sp. 2’ from Australia, Meridialaris from South America and Deleatidium and Atalophlebioides from New Zealand) was strongly supported, as was the monophyly of the Nousia lineage (Nyungara, Nousia and Koorrnonga). However, Australian genera assigned to the Hapsiphlebia lineage (Atalophlebia, Kalbaybaria, Ulmerophlebia, Jappa and Atalomicria) did not form a monophlyletic group. There was support for a sister-group relationship between the Dactylophlebia and Meridialaris lineages, and for the placement of Garinjuga (Penaphlebia lineage) as the sister-group to a large clade comprising genera of the Nousia, Dactylophlebia and Meridialaris lineages. The phylogenetic analysis provided some clarification of the affinities of Neboissophlebia, Bibulmena, Loamaggalangta and Kaninga. These genera appear to belong to lineages not recognised previously among the Gondwanan Leptophlebiidae.

Biodiversity of Australasian Insects

“…The family Teloganodidae (which rather unusually includes South Africa and Madagascar in its Gondwanan pattern) and many clades, including Ameletopsidae, Nesameletidae, Oniscigastridae, and Rallidentidae, suggest austral radiation, as do the remarkably diverse Australasian Leptophlebiidae (Christidis 2006 (Wiggins 2005). Although these aquatic orders and their predominantly running-water habitats are quite well studied, only recently has a novel aquatic diversity been uncovered -that of diving beetles (Dytiscidae) in underground aquifers beneath arid Australia (e.g., Humphreys 2001, Cooper et al 2002, Balke et al 2004).…”

Are Tropical Streams Ecologically Different from Temperate Streams?

“…1). Further support for this approach can be drawn ftom the fact that the end-points (Tasmania and North America) have well-described faunas whereas two regions with negative residuals (Queensland and tropical South America) have incompletely described faunas (Christidis, 2003). It is probable that the pattern would vary somewhat among different taxa; for example, Trichoptera and Diptera are particularly diverse in Australia (Pearson et at., 1986;Lake et aI., 1994).…”

Ecology of streams in a biogeographic isolate—the Queensland Wet Tropics, Australia

“…In addition to contemporary variables, phylogenetic history is important because it can determine ecological traits and presentday distributions. Thus, habitat use by QWT mayflies is partly dictated by their history, and partitioning aligns with phylogenetic lineages (e.g., Koorrnonga in pools, Austrophlebioides on stones) (Christidis 2003). In contrast, trophic radiation of terapontid fishes indicates no such constraints, possibly because of the ecological release afforded by fresh waters (Davis et al 2012b).…”

“…Patterns of diversity vary among taxa. For example, endemic species of Ephemeroptera have restricted distributions (probably because of their short adult lives), limited dispersal abilities, and require cool streams (Christidis 2003, Christidis andDean 2005), whereas species of Trichoptera and Chironomidae are more widely distributed (McKie et al 2005, Connolly et al 2008). Gondwanan origins and endemism suggest that the QWT uplands are significant refugia because they were buffered against Pleistocene climatechange effects (McKie 2002, Pearson 2005, Krosch 2006).…”