The taxonomic value of male Coccoidea (Homoptera) with an evaluation of some numerical techniques

Abstract. A new kermesid genus, Eriokermes, is described for three species previously placed in the Eriococcidae: Eriokermes gillettei (Tinsley) comb.n.; E.juniperi (Goux) comb.n.; and E.juniperinus (De Lotto) comb.n. Keys to Nearctic kermesid genera, Eriokermes species, and immatures and adults of E.gillettei are provided. Four female and five male instars of E.gillettei are described. Eriokermes is placed in Kermesidae based on a cladistic estimate of its phylogenetic position. Summary Kermesids can be distinguished from eriococcids by: adult males with 5 pairs of simple eyes, presence of a postocciput, prescutal ridge extending into scutum, and scutum with central clear area; adult females with dorsal simple disc pores, without microtubular ducts, usually without protruding anal lobes, and usually with a submarginal band of tubular ducts on the tergum; and first instars with dorsal simple disc pores, with 4 dorsal rows of setae on abdominal segments excluding the posterior one, and without microtubular ducts. Conversely, eriococcids can be distinguished from kermesids by: adult males with 2 pairs of simple eyes, absence of a postocciput, presuctal ridge not extending into scutum, and scutum without central clear area; adult females without dorsal simple disc pores, with microtubular ducts, usually with protruding anal lobes, and usually with tubular ducts scattered over the venter; and first instars with microtubular ducts, with 6 dorsal rows of setae on abdominal segments excluding the posterior one, and without dorsal simple disc pores. The present cladistic analysis provides evidence that the Eriococcidae constitute the sister group of the Pseudococcidae (Boratynski & Davies, 1971) and is contrary to the conclusions of Miller & Kosztarab (1979), Danzig (1980) and Kosztarab & Bullington (1986). The importance of including characters from adult male and first instars in phylogenetic analyses of coccoids has been emphasized previously (Ferris, 1957; Miller & Kosztarab, 1979). The current study confirms their value for the resolution of higher level relationships within the Coccoidea.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

Description of a new genus of scale insect with a discussion of relationships among families related to the Kermesidae (Homoptera: Coccoidea)

Miller

1993

“…We recovered weak evidence for a sister relationship between Diaspididae + Conchaspididae and the rest of neococcoids excluding pseudococcids, and 'eriococcids.' Previously, a close relationship between Diaspididae and Asterolecaniidae or Lecanodiaspididae has been suggested (Stickney, 1934;Boratyński & Davies, 1971;Rosenblueth et al, 2012), along with several alternative arrangements. For example, from small ribosomal subunit DNA data, Gullan & Cook (2007) estimated a sister relationship between Diaspididae and the 'Gondwanan clade' of Eriococcidae (sensu Cook & Gullan, 2004).…”

Section: Lecanodiaspididae Cerococcoidae Asterolecaniidae Conchaspmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Marginal support was recovered for Diaspididae as sister to Conchaspididae. A close relationship between the latter two families has been suggested on the basis of similarities between adult females (Mamet, 1954;Boratyński & Davies, 1971). Others have felt that differences in labial segmentation would preclude such a close relationship (Koteja, 1974).…”

Section: Lecanodiaspididae Cerococcoidae Asterolecaniidae Conchaspmentioning

confidence: 99%

The phylogeny of the superfamily Coccoidea (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha) based on the morphology of extant and extinct macropterous males

Hodgson

Hardy

2013

Abstract. Currently, 49 families of scale insects are recognised, 33 of which are extant. Despite more than a decade of DNA sequence-based phylogenetic studies of scales insects, little is known with confidence about relationships among scale insects families. Multiple lines of evidence support the monophyly of a group of 18 scale insect families informally referred to as the neococcoids. Among neococcoid families, published DNA sequence-based estimates have supported Eriococcidae paraphyly with respect to Beesoniidae, Dactylopiidae, and Stictococcidae. No other neococcoid interfamily relationship has been strongly supported in a published study that includes exemplars of more than ten families. Likewise, no well-supported relationships among the 15 extant scale insect families that are not neococcoids (usually referred to as 'archaeococcoids') have been published. We use a Bayesian approach to estimate the scale insect phylogeny from 162 adult male morphological characters, scored from 269 extant and 29 fossil species representing 43/49 families. The result is the most taxonomically comprehensive, most resolved and best supported estimate of phylogenetic relationships among scale insect families to date. Notable results include strong support for (i) Ortheziidae sister to Matsucoccidae, (ii) a clade comprising all scale insects except for Margarodidae s.s., Ortheziidae and Matsucoccidae, (iii) Coelostomidiidae paraphyletic with respect to Monophlebidae, (iv) Eriococcidae paraphyletic with respect to Stictococcidae and Beesoniidae, and (v) Aclerdidae sister to Coccidae. We recover strong support for a clade comprising Phenacoleachiidae, Pityococcidae, Putoidae, Steingeliidae and the neococcoids, along with a sister relationship between this clade and Coelostomidiidae + Monophlebidae. In addition, we recover strong support for Pityococcidae + Steingeliidae as sister to the neococcoids. Data from fossils were incomplete, and the inclusion of extinct taxa in the data matrix reduced support and phylogenetic structure. Nonetheless, these fossil data will be invaluable in DNA sequence-based and total evidence estimates of phylogenetic divergence times.

“…The various similarity coefficients and standardization methods which can be used before extracting the principal components may lead to different results. Comparisons of several of these options in taxonomic studies have failed to agree on a 'best' method, results appearing to vary with the type of data used (Boratynski & Davies, 1971;Thorpe, 1980;Pimentel, 1981). Due to uncertainty concerning the most appropriate approach five alternative analyses were performed and the results examined for consistency.…”

Section: Principal Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This problem is not uncommon in insect taxonomy (see Daly, 1985), and is particularly serious for Collembola since they continue to grow and moult after sexual maturity (Christiansen, 1964). These difficulties have led to almost total rejection of quantitative studies of Collembola morphology, with few attempts to assess the value of the various multivariate methods that are now in widespread use (see Boratynski & Davies, 1971; Thorpe, 1980;Blackith & Reyment, 1971). An exception is Pitkin's (1980) multivariate study of the Onychiurus armatus (Tullberg) species complex.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological variation in British Folsomia quadrioculata Tullberg (Collembola: Isotomidae): a multivariate study

Wetton

1987

. Morphological variation among freshly caught specimens resembling Folsomia quadrioculata Tullberg was examined using principal components analysis and canonical variates analysis. Two distinct groups were identified corresponding with F. quadrioculata and F.manolachei Bagnall. Previous workers have questioned the specific status of F.manolachei and regarded these two species as inseparable using morphometric characters. A study of specimens previously identified as F. quadrioculata suggested that many were mis‐identified and that F.manolachei is more abundant in the British Isles than is usually thought. Variation in some characters traditionally used to identify Folsomia species was examined and a method for distinguishing adult and juvenile F.quadrioculata from F.manolachei is provided. The synonomy of F.nana Gisin with F.manolachei is supported. The separation of F.diplothalma Axelson from F. quadrioculata is discussed, concluding that no characters are known which can reliably separate British specimens of these species.