Phylogeny and Diversification of Planthoppers (Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha) Based on a Comprehensive Molecular Dataset and Large Taxon Sampling

Phylogeny and diversification of planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha) based on a comprehensive molecular dataset and large taxon sampling

“…Having already shown the significant impact of sampling throughout this work, we consider it very likely that a sample that is more representative of the diversity of these families in the future will have significant effects on the grouping of taxonomic units observed. A good example of this instability is the Nogodinidae issue, regularly found polyphyletic and in different ways, in molecular analyses (Yeh et al, 2005, Urban & Cryan, 2007Song & Liang, 2013, Bucher & Bourgoin, 2019this work). It is clear that the Nogodinidae do not form a monophyletic group and that the family cannot be maintained: its non-related subunits belong to several of these related families whose diagnoses will have to be reviewed in order to accommodate these taxonomic subunits of the Nogodinidae.…”

“…Wang et al, 2019;Xu et al, 2019;Kim et al, 2021) have come to challenge the results of Urban & Cryan (2007), to the point that attempting a simple consensus of all the phylogenetic hypotheses would lead to retain only a few polytomous nodes, even for the seemingly well-established sister families. A review of these studies suggests that most of the issues pertain to taxa and characters sampling (Bucher & Bourgoin, 2019). Indeed, all molecular phylogenies of planthopper families were conducted either on a limited diversity of characters with only a few gene sequences in the pioneer studies (Bourgoin et al, 1997;Yeh & Yang, 1999;Yeh et al, 1998Yeh et al, , 2005, or later on a too restricted taxonomic sampling never exceeding ~130 taxa (Cryan & Urban, 2007, 2012Song & Liang, 2013;Huang & Qin, 2018;Yu & Liang, 2018, Wang et al, 2019Xu et al, 2019;Kim et al, 2021;Michalik et al, 2023), failing to adequately consider the high diversity and disparity of planthoppers.…”

“…(4) While the monophyly of most families remain to be confirmed with phylogenetic analyses (Bartlett et al, 2018), should we reconsider the monophyly of Achilidae including Achilixiidae (Liang, 2001)? Likewise, the relatedness of the different lineages within Cixiidae needs to be more closely investigated, as three incongruent evolutionary patterns are now proposed in recent molecular studies with (a) Cixiidae as a monophyletic unit sister to Delphacidae (Song & Liang, 2013;Urban & Cryan, 2007, 2012Yu & Liang, 2018); or (b) Cixiidae as paraphyletic and including Delphacidae (Ceotto et al, 2008;Urban et al, 2010), or (c) Delphacidae as paraphyletic inluding subfamily Asiracinae Motschulsky, 1863 sister to all Cixiidae (Bucher et Bourgoin, 2019;Kim et al, 2021). In addition, a particular attention is needed for the taxonomic value of Nogodinidae that are now repeatedly found to be paraphyletic (Yeh and Yang, 1999;Yeh et al, 2005;Urban & Cryan, 2007;Song & Liang, 2013;Bucher et al, 2019), as well as the issue to retain a separate paraphyletic family Kinnaridae including Meenoplidae (Bourgoin, 1993).…”

“…(5) Lastly, questions remain on the placement of some families whose relationships were strongly not consensual in the different phylogenetic inferences i.e. Caliscelidae, Lophopidae, Tettigometridae and Tropiduchidae (Bourgoin et al, 1997;Bucher et al, 2019;Song & Liang, 2013;Urban & Cryan, 2007;Yeh et al, 2005).…”