4.5 Article

Green lacewing phylogeny, based on three nuclear genes (Chrysopidae, Neuroptera)

Journal

SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 275-288

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2008.00418.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Systematic relationships among higher taxa within Chrysopidae, a large and agriculturally significant neuropteran family, are poorly understood. A molecular phylogenetic survey of Chrysopidae was performed with three nuclear genes, namely wingless (546 bp), phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (483 bp), and sodium/potassium ATPase alpha subunit (410 bp). We examined 83 species in 24 genera, mainly from Japan, Eurasia and Africa. Parsimony and Bayesian analyses of combined datasets of a total of 1439 bp demonstrated that (1) monophyly of the subfamily Chrysopinae was supported but the relationship between Nothochrysinae and Apochrysinae was unclear, although the two subfamilies together may constitute the sister taxon of Chrysopinae; (2) of the three tribes examined within Chrysopinae (Ankylopterygini, Belonopterygini and Chrysopini), monophyly of Ankylopterygini and Belonopterygini was supported, but the relationships among the three remain unclear; (3) seven sub-clades in Chrysopini were indicated, namely (i) Brinckochrysa, (ii) Chrysemosa + Suarius, (iii) Chrysotropia + Nineta, (iv) Mallada + Chrysoperla + Peyerimhoffina, (v) Cunctochrysa + Meleoma + Nipponochrysa + Apertochrysa albolineatoides, (vi) Chrysopa + Plesiochrysa, and (vii) Dichochrysa + Apertochrysa eurydera; and (4) most genera were monophyletic, except for Apertochrysa and Cunctochrysa, each of which was shown to have two distinct origins. Our molecular analysis allowed the assignment of several species of uncertain affinities to known genera. There was some disagreement between the molecular and previously published morphological phylogenies, but in general our results confirmed existing morphological hypotheses of evolution within the family.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available