Towards an 18S phylogeny of hexapods: Accounting for group-specific character covariance in optimized mixed nucleotide/doublet models

Misof, Bernhard; Niehuis, Oliver; Bischoff, Inge; Rickert, Andreas; Erpenbeck, Dirk; Staniczek, Arnold H.

doi:10.1016/j.zool.2007.08.003

Cited by 69 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results conflict with the earlier hypothesis of a sister-group relationship between Hymenoptera and Mecopterida (Kristensen, 1999), but they are congruent with recent molecular (McKenna and Farrell, 2010;Misof et al, 2007;Savard et al, 2006;Schulmeister, 2003b;Wiegmann et al, 2009), as well as morphological studies (Kukalová-Peck and Lawrence, 2004;Rasnitsyn, 1980Rasnitsyn, , 2002aRohdendorf and Rasnitsyn, 1980). Thus, our results contribute to an emerging consensus with respect to holometabolan ordinal relationships, and we expect our outgroups to provide a reasonable signal for rooting the hymenopteran tree.…”

Section: Rooting and Basal Relationships Of The Hymenopteracontrasting

confidence: 65%

Evolution of the hymenopteran megaradiation

Heraty

Ronquist

Carpenter

et al. 2011

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

173

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe Hymenoptera -ants, bees and wasps -represent one of the most successful but least understood insect radiations. We present the first comprehensive molecular study spanning the entire order Hymenoptera. It is based on approximately 7 kb of DNA sequence from 4 gene regions (18S, 28S, COI and EF-1a) for 116 species representing all superfamilies and 23 outgroup taxa from eight orders of Holometabola. Results are drawn from both parsimony and statistical (Bayesian and likelihood) analyses, and from both by-eye and secondary-structure alignments. Our analyses provide the first firm molecular evidence for monophyly of the Vespina (Orussoidea + Apocrita). Within Vespina, our results indicate a sister-group relationship between Ichneumonoidea and Proctotrupomorpha, while the stinging wasps (Aculeata) are monophyletic and nested inside Evaniomorpha. In Proctotrupomorpha, our results provide evidence for a novel core clade of proctotrupoids, and support for the recently proposed Diaprioidea. An unexpected result is the support for monophyly of a clade of wood-boring sawflies (Xiphydrioidea + Siricoidea). As in previous molecular studies, Orussidae remain difficult to place and are either sister group to a monophyletic Apocrita, or the sister group of Stephanidae within Apocrita. Both results support a single origin of parasitism, but the latter would propose a controversial reversal in the evolution of the wasp-waist. Generally our results support earlier hypotheses, primarily based on morphology, for a basal grade of phytophagous families giving rise to a single clade of parasitic Hymenoptera, the Vespina, from which predatory, pollen-feeding, gall-forming and eusocial forms evolved.

show abstract

Section: Rooting and Basal Relationships Of The Hymenopteracontrasting

confidence: 65%

Evolution of the hymenopteran megaradiation

Heraty

Ronquist

Carpenter

et al. 2011

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

173

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Carapelli, Lio`, Nardi, Wath and Frati 2007: Plecoptera þ Diptera; Flook and Rowell 1998: ((Nemoura þ Dermaptera) þ Grylloblattodea), Hassanin 2006: Pteronarcys þ several Diptera, Coleoptera, and Sternorrhyncha; Terry and Whiting 2005: Plecoptera þ (Dermaptera þ Zoraptera)), but share the lack of even moderately strong statistical support values. Conversely, congruence between seemingly independent studies that place Plecoptera as the sistergroup to Dermaptera or Dermaptera þ Zoraptera (Flook and Rowell 1998;Kjer 2004;Terry and Whiting 2005;Misof et al 2007) can most probably be attributed to a shared data basis, namely the ribosomal gene 18S and the repeated usage of identical sequences from Genbank as a replacement for own data.…”

Section: Molecular Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Plecoptera – who are they? The problematic placement of stoneflies in the phylogenetic system of insects

Zwick¹

2009

Aquatic Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no consensus about the relations of Plecoptera with other insects. Very different sistergroup relationships have been proposed in the literature, several of which are discussed. The phylogenetic analysis is hampered by the diversity among Plecoptera. In the literature, traits of particular subgroups of Plecoptera have sometimes been mistaken as typical of the entire order. A plea for revived interest in plecopteran morphology is made in order to document the existing diversity and to establish the ground pattern of important structures for meaningful comparisons with other insects. A possible sistergroup relationship between Plecoptera and the remaining Neoptera, on the one hand, and a sistergroup relationship with the Polyneoptera on the other hand, seem most likely. Suggested close relationships of Plecoptera with Embioptera and Phasmatodea are refuted. Molecular data so far also failed to provide robust phylogenetic hypotheses for the placement of Plecoptera.Keywords: phylogenetic relations; Ephemeroptera; Neoptera; Polyneoptera; Embioptera; Phasmatodea Introduction Establishing the identity of Plecoptera and distinguishing them from other insects was the cardinal problem when early students began to perceive the multitude of insects and tried to order the astounding diversity. There was enormous progress from the earliest presentation of a stonefly as a nameless beautiful natural object (Hoefnagel 1592) to the detailed works by Burmeister (1839) and Pictet (1841) who were familiar with many details of adult and larval morphology, ecology and behaviour of Plecoptera. Following their studies, Plecoptera were no longer confused with other insects.However, the question where in the insect system the Plecoptera belong, what their closest relatives are, remains unanswered today. I do also not know but would like to discuss some suggested relations. The literature offers different answers to the above question but only work applying sound phylogenetic methodology (use of only homologous characters, conscientious distinction of plesiomorphic from apomorphic character states, conclusions based on only the latter) are relevant. The result of such work is a hypothesis of relations which becomes increasingly probable as efforts to falsify it fail, but it can never be proven.

show abstract

“…Odonata evolve more slowly than their neighbours in the tree. Ribosomal RNA analyses frequently recover Nonoculata [74,75,107,117,239,[242][243][244][245] Chiastomyaria [117,141,239], Dermaptera sister to Plecoptera [107,117,239], and mecopteran paraphyly [74,75,77,107,117,141,246]. The consistency of these results despite the differences in alignment and optimality criteria indicate that rRNA supports these relationships when analysed with existing methods, even though much larger datasets now contradict Nonoculata and mecopteran paraphyly.…”

Section: The Dominance Of Ribosomal Rnamentioning

confidence: 91%

“…They cited morphological support for this relationship from Boudreaux [69] and Kukalová-Peck [82]. Misof's group [239] provided an insect-specific secondary structural model, and re-evaluated Kjer's [107] analysis of 18S, with increased taxon sampling. They found similar results to those from earlier structural alignments although they found Zoraptera grouped with stoneflies (Plecoptera).…”

Section: The Dominance Of Ribosomal Rnamentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress, pitfalls and parallel universes: a history of insect phylogenetics

Kjer

Simon

Yavorskaya

et al. 2016

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phylogeny of insects has been both extensively studied and vigorously debated for over a century. A relatively accurate deep phylogeny had been produced by 1904. It was not substantially improved in topology until recently when phylogenomics settled many long-standing controversies. Intervening advances came instead through methodological improvement. Early molecular phylogenetic studies , dominated by a few genes, provided datasets that were too small to resolve controversial phylogenetic problems. Adding to the lack of consensus, this period was characterized by a polarization of philosophies, with individuals belonging to either parsimony or maximum-likelihood camps; each largely ignoring the insights of the other. The result was an unfortunate detour in which the few perceived phylogenetic revolutions published by both sides of the philosophical divide were probably erroneous. The size of datasets has been growing exponentially since the mid1980s accompanied by a wave of confidence that all relationships will soon be known. However, large datasets create new challenges, and a large number of genes does not guarantee reliable results. If history is a guide, then the quality of conclusions will be determined by an improved understanding of both molecular and morphological evolution, and not simply the number of genes analysed.

show abstract

Towards an 18S phylogeny of hexapods: Accounting for group-specific character covariance in optimized mixed nucleotide/doublet models

Cited by 69 publications

References 60 publications

Evolution of the hymenopteran megaradiation

Evolution of the hymenopteran megaradiation

The Plecoptera – who are they? The problematic placement of stoneflies in the phylogenetic system of insects

Progress, pitfalls and parallel universes: a history of insect phylogenetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About