The concept of genus within the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Parasitiformes): historical review and phylogenetic analyses of the genus Neoseiulus Hughes

Abstract

Systematic studies on the family Phytoseiidae were first conducted at the beginning of the 20th century but\ud increased greatly after the Second World War. Various classifications have been proposed based on different\ud characters such as: dorsal, ventral, and leg chaetotaxy; the shape of ventrianal and sternal shields; the shape of\ud the insemination apparatus (spermatheca) and spermatodactylus; the number of teeth on the movable digit of\ud chelicera; and dorsal and ventral adenotaxy. The genus concepts developed over the last five decades can be divided\ud into two main categories or hypotheses. The first, supported mainly by Chant and McMurtry, focuses on dorsal and\ud ventral chaetotaxy, and the genera so defined usually include a great number of species. The second category,\ud proposed by Athias-Henriot, considers the shape of the insemination apparatus as the key character, and the\ud genera so defined usually include a limited number of species. From a diagnostic point of view, both classifications\ud have a valid structure, but the question investigated herein was: which of the two classifications or hypotheses fits\ud phylogenetic evolution? To answer this, we conducted molecular phylogenetic analyses (using the genes ITS and\ud 12S rRNA) on the genus Neoseiulus, which has been subjected to classification based on the two main genus\ud concepts. The results showed that the first hypothesis (Chant and McMurtry) leads to polyphyly of the genus\ud Neoseiulus, while the second (Athias-Henriot) leads to paraphyly of the genus. The results show that acarologists\ud who first decided that the insemination apparatus was of evolutive importance could be correct as the shape of the\ud insemination apparatus seems to better fit evolutive clades than dorsal and ventral chaetotaxy. The morphology\ud of this organ, however, must be more accurately studied to better define homologies. The present paper investigates\ud the two main hypotheses proposed until now for classification of Phytoseiidae and thereby opens the way for\ud improved classification

Which molecular markers for assessing which taxonomic level? The case study of the mite family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata)

“…Such a result is not in accordance with the traditional morphological classification, but had already been observed and discussed in Tsolakis et al. (). Thus, for the genus Amblyseius only two species were considered to determine the robustness of the clade obtained.…”

“…The nine DNA markers considered (four mitochondrial and five nuclear DNA fragments) were selected because they had already been used for assessing the phylogenetic relationships within Acari (Table 2). The mitochondrial DNA markers, COI mtDNA, CytB mtDNA, 12S rRNA and the nuclear fragment ITSS (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2) have been used successfully for molecular discrimination between Phytoseiidae species (Navajas et al, 1999;Yli-Mattila et al, 2000;Jeyaprakash and Hoy, 2002;Tixier et al, 2006aTixier et al, ,b, 2012Bowman and Hoy, 2012) and for assessing the phylogenetic relationships within two Phytoseiidae genera (Kanouh et al, 2010b;Tsolakis et al, 2012). The mitochondrial marker 16S rRNA has been used in phylogenetic studies of ticks, at the species level (Norris et al, 1996(Norris et al, , 1997Black and Roehrdanz, 1998), genus level (Crosbie et al, 1998;Mangold et al, 1998) and subfamily level (Black and Piesman, 1994;Black et al, 1997;Norris et al, 1999).…”

“…data), scientific developments will be aided by molecular markers. Molecular approaches have been used recently in mite phylogeny (Navajas and Fenton, ; De Rojas et al., ; Cruickshank, ; Lekveishvili and Klompen, ; Dabert, ; Domes et al., ; Klompen et al., ; Klimov and O'Connor, ; Dabert et al., ; Dowling and O'Connor, ; Kanouh et al., ; Roy et al., ; Schäffer et al., ; Tsolakis et al., ) but the panel of DNA fragments for assessing phylogenetic relationships at the supraspecific level is quite low compared to that for assessing species diagnosis (Navajas and Fenton, ; Cruickshank, ; Dabert, ). Barcoding approaches have been successfully developed for the family Phytoseiidae for species diagnostic purposes using 12S rDNA, CytB mtDNA, COI mtDNA and ITSS markers (Jeyaprakash and Hoy, , ; Tixier et al., ,b, , , , ; Okassa et al., , , ; Kanouh et al., Bowman and Hoy, ; Navia et al., ).…”

“…Barcoding approaches have been successfully developed for the family Phytoseiidae for species diagnostic purposes using 12S rDNA, CytB mtDNA, COI mtDNA and ITSS markers (Jeyaprakash and Hoy, , ; Tixier et al., ,b, , , , ; Okassa et al., , , ; Kanouh et al., Bowman and Hoy, ; Navia et al., ). Only two molecular studies of Phytoseiidae supraspecific levels have been carried out, both at the genus level ( Neoseiulus and Phytoseiulus ) (Kanouh et al., ; Tsolakis et al., ); they showed (i) incongruence between morphological theories and (ii) limits for the markers used (CytB mtDNA, 12S rDNA and ITSS) in assessing deeper phylogenetic relationships. Thus, the present paper aims to test the suitability of nine molecular markers for assessing Phytoseiidae phylogenetic relationships between genera, tribes and subfamilies.…”

The predatory mite Neoseiulus paspalivorus (Phytoseiidae) in Brazil: taxonomic status, reproductive compatibility and morphological and molecular variability

“…These fragments were chosen for the present study because these markers are independent and complementary, with a distinct evolutionary rate. The ITS region has been used in studies of the Phytoseiidae family to elucidate important aspects related to phylogeny (Kanouh et al 2010a;Tsolakis et al 2012) and confirm taxonomic status (e.g., Gotoh et al 1998;Hillis and Dixon 1991;Navajas and Fenton 2000;Navajas et al 1999) as well as to clarify synonyms and verify the occurrence of cryptic species (Tixier et al 2006aNavia et al 2014). The COI region has been used in the confirmation of phytoseiid species (Tixier et al 2008a;Okassa et al 2009); the clarification of taxonomic problems, such as synonyms (Tixier et al 2006a(Tixier et al , b, 2011; and the detection of cryptic species of the genus Neoseiulus (i.e.…”