REMARKS ON THE EVOLUTION OF TRICHOPTERA: A CRITIQUE OF WIGGINS AND WICHARD's CLASSIFICATION

Weaver, John S.

doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1992.tb00063.x

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wiggins & Wichard (Ill) proposed a new classification of Trichoptera (caddisflies) based upon a functional and adaptive view of the cocoon or larval case, but this view is evidently not congruent with other data (102). It should be emphasized that while one should be cautious from the point of view of homology and phylogeny about adaptively defined traits, the general aversion to using phylogenetic perspectives in adaptive story-telling (25) is without foundation.…”

Section: Remane's Criteriamentioning

confidence: 95%

Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny

Wenzel¹

1992

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

220

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThe sociobiology debates of the 1970s increased interest in the biology of behavior. At the same time, the growth of cladistics increased interest in how to do systematics and phylogenetic reconstruction. Yet, there are surprisingly few recent papers dealing explicitly with behavior from a phylogenetic perspective. Lack of communication between students of behavior and students of systematics is partly to blame. If one says to a behavioral ecologist, "Isn't it curious that there are white bears in the arctic?" he may say that there is nothing curious about it because they are white like all the other arctic mammals, and the fact that they are bears is irrelevant to the broad patterns of evolution. If one asks the same of a systematist he may reply that there is nothing curious about it because they are still bears like all the others, and the fact that they are white is irrelevant to the broad patterns of evolution. Both perspectives are partly right, and both are less than the whole story. Systematists tend to look for constraints of history, while behaviorists usually prefer to work with a warm ball of clay that lies ready to take on any shape the outside forces push upon it.Some of what follows is review and some is more philosophical, but the point of the paper is simple. Determining homology among behaviors is no different than determining homology among morphological structures. Behav ior is not special, it is only more difficult to characterize. Ethology (the study of behavior) is a relatively young science and does not yet have the benefit of centuries of debate and consensus, but that provides more reason for us to take up the challenge now. Ethology has made almost no advance with respect to a phylogenetic understanding of behavior since the late 1950s, and most Further ANNUAL REVIEWS 362 WENZEL modern ethologists simply do not work toward that goal. To honor the proud . heritage of Lorenz and Tinbergen we need only to be brave and begin.There is an immense literature dealing with "evolution of behavior," but only a tiny fraction of ethological efforts are relevant to the question of how one postulates homology among specific elements of an animal's behavioral repertoire. The majority of studies on behavioral evolution are related to theories of the process of evolution, and they therefore compare grades to illuminate the way in which analogous transitions occur in different groups (33). The focus of these studies is the transition itself, and homology of the steps is n01: an issue. Also the taxonomic literature is skewed toward finding species-spc:cific behaviors that allow identification more easily than morpho logical varii ation allows (1). Such unique traits do not assist in reconstructing phylogeny; only shared traits are useful for finding a nested hierarchy of order.I have tried! to include here both classical and more recent works that illustrate explicit postulates of homology, or cases where behavioral characters were critical for defining or supporting a phylogenetic scheme, but ...

show abstract

Section: Remane's Criteriamentioning

confidence: 95%

Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny

Wenzel¹

1992

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

220

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phylogeny of Trichoptera has been studied intensively with explicit methods for 50 years (Ross, 1956(Ross, , 1964(Ross, , 1967Weaver, 1984Weaver, , 1992aWeaver, , 1992bWeaver & Morse, 1986;Wiggins & Wichard, 1989;Wiggins, 1992Wiggins, , 2004Frania & Wiggins, 1997;Ivanov, 1997Ivanov, , 2002Morse 1997;Kjer et al, 2001Kjer et al, , 2002 (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global diversity of caddisflies (Trichoptera: Insecta) in freshwater

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1A). Recently, alternative morphologically based phylogenies have been proposed challenging Ross’ view (Weaver 1983, 1984, 1992a,b; Weaver & Morse 1986; Wiggins & Wichard 1989; Wiggins 1992; Frania & Wiggins 1997; Ivanov 1997; summarized by Morse 1997b). To date, at least five very different hypotheses of the relationships among the components of the three suborders have been proposed or suggested (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeny of caddisflies (Insecta, Trichoptera)

Kjer¹,

Blahnik²,

Holzenthal³

2002

Zoologica Scripta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

91.Trichoptera are holometabolous insects with aquatic larvae that, together with the Lepidoptera, comprise the Amphiesmenoptera. Previous phylogenetic hypotheses and progress on our ongoing data collection are summarized. Fragments of the large and small subunit nuclear ribosomal RNAs ( D1, D3, V4 -5), the nuclear elongation factor 1 alpha gene and a fragment of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 (COI) were sequenced, and molecular data were combined with previously published morphological data. Equally and differentially weighted parsimony analyses were conducted in order to present a phylogeny of Trichoptera, including 43 of 45 families. Our phylogeny closely resembles that proposed by Herbert Ross with respect to the relationships among suborders, with a monophyletic Annulipalpia at the base of the tree, and a clade consisting of Spicipalpia plus a monophyletic Integripalpia. The monophyly of Spicipalpia is weakly supported in the combined equally weighted analysis, and Spicipalpia is paraphyletic in the differentially weighted analysis. Within Integripalpia, our phylogeny recovered monophyletic Plenitentoria, Brevitentoria and Sericostomatoidea. Leptoceroidea was unresolved in the equally weighted analysis and monophyletic in the differentially weighted analysis. Within Annulipalpia, we recovered a basal but paraphyletic Philopotamoidea and a monophyletic Hydropsychoidea.

show abstract

REMARKS ON THE EVOLUTION OF TRICHOPTERA: A CRITIQUE OF WIGGINS AND WICHARD's CLASSIFICATION

Cited by 21 publications

References 8 publications

Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny

Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny

Global diversity of caddisflies (Trichoptera: Insecta) in freshwater

Phylogeny of caddisflies (Insecta, Trichoptera)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About