Systematics of Afrotropical Eristalinae (Diptera: Syrphidae) using mitochondrial phylogenomics

Abstract

We examined the phylogeny and intrageneric classification of eristaline hoverfly genera from the Afrotropical Region using mitochondrial genomes. Genome skimming was used to obtain (nearly) full mtDNA and nuclear rDNA (18S, 28S) genomes of 120 museum vouchers from eight genera and 98 species. Phylogenetic reconstructions of mitogenomes and mitogenomes + nuclear rDNA yielded comparable phylogenies while that of rDNA only resulted in poorly resolved phylogenies. Phylogenetic analyses focused on six genera and supported the monophyly of the genera Chasmomma Bezzi, Eristalinus Rondani, Mesembrius Rondani and Syritta Le Peletier & Serville, whereas Simoides Loew was not monophyletic and rendered Phytomia Guérin‐Méneville paraphyletic. We therefore synonymize Simoides with Phytomia. Within Chasmomma, two species‐groups that differ in the colour and the shape of the hind femora (Chasmomma femoratum and Chasmomma nigrum species‐groups) were supported. Within Eristalinus, the monophyly of the subgenera Merodonoides Curran and Eristalodes Mik was supported, but not of the subgenus Eristalinus Rondani. Within Syritta, the monophyly of three out of the five species‐groups tested was rejected. This approach illustrates the importance of integrative and iterative approaches in taxonomy and shows that genomic data may not only clarify the systematic relationships among hoverfly genera and species, but also offer perspectives into the evolution of morphological and ecological variation within the family.

Amplicon capture phylogenomics provides new insights into the phylogeny and evolution of alpine Parnassius butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae)

“…Nevertheless, although mtDNA data may be not as reliable as nuclear gene data in delimitating species of Parnassius , the obvious advantage of mtDNA compared with nuclear genes is its affordability and ease of extraction from low‐coverage whole‐genome sequencing data or off‐target reads in enrichment sequencing data due to its high abundance in samples (Branstetter et al, 2021; Mullens et al, 2022). In this study, we successfully obtained complete (or nearly complete) mitochondrial genome data from 42 Parnassius species, covering all eight subgenera and 75% of known species.…”

Systematics and evolution of predatory flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) based on exon‐capture sequencing

“…Accumulated evidence does not sustain the current, outdated concept of Eristalinae based mostly on adult morphology. Phylogenetic studies during last decades using molecular and morphological data recover a non‐monophyletic Eristalinae (Mengual et al, 2015; Moran et al, 2022; Mullens et al, 2022; Pauli et al, 2018; Skevington & Yeates, 2000; Ståhls et al, 2003; Young, Lemmon, et al, 2016). Our results echo previous results, where several lineages branch off before the Syrphinae‐Pipizinae split and the first is that comprising the genera Eumerus Meigen and Merodon Meigen (see Moran et al, 2022; Pauli et al, 2018; Young, Lemmon, et al, 2016).…”

“…Syrphidae are currently divided into four subfamilies: Microdontinae, Eristalinae, Pipizinae and Syrphinae (Mengual et al, 2015). All subfamilies are recovered as monophyletic groups in recent phylogenetic studies with the exception of Eristalinae (Hippa & Ståhls, 2005; Mengual et al, 2015; Moran et al, 2022; Mullens et al, 2022; Pauli et al, 2018; Young, Lemmon, et al, 2016). Microdontine immatures live inside ant nests and feed on ant brood or parasitize them (Pérez‐Lachaud et al, 2014; Reemer, 2013), whereas eristaline larvae are mostly saprophagous (Aracil et al, 2019; Pérez‐Bañón et al, 2003; Rotheray, 1993), but there are also predatory immatures in phytotelmata and in wasp and bee nests (Rotheray, 2003; Rupp, 1989) and phytophagous species that may be agricultural pests (Brunel & Cadou, 1994; Edwards & Bevan, 1951; Ricarte et al, 2017; Souba‐Dols et al, 2020; Tompsett, 2002).…”