4.5 Article

Integrative species delimitation in Nearctic ambush bugs (Heteroptera: Reduviidae: Phymatinae): insights from molecules, geometric morphometrics and ecological associations

期刊

SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 205-223

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/syen.12388

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ambush bugs (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Phymatinae) are sit-and-wait predators of flower-visiting insects including pollinators. Broad species distribution ranges, intraspecific polymorphism, sexual dimorphism and subtle interspecific differences all contribute to making species delimitation especially difficult in this group, which is used as a model in the study of interactions between sexual dimorphism and sexual selection. Species boundaries among Nearctic ambush bugs in the common and frequently collected erosa species group (11 species, nine subspecies) have therefore remained unclear, resulting in a complex and poorly justified taxonomy. Recent molecular phylogenetic research suggested that several widespread Nearctic species are para- or polyphyletic. We here build on this research, integrating geometric morphometrics, molecular species delimitation approaches and host plant association data to provide a comprehensive dataset with respect to both taxon and character sampling with the goal of teasing apart evolutionary lineages of Nearctic Phymata Latreille. Although molecular-based species delimitation analyses suggested a variety of species hypotheses, probably as a result of striking discordance between mitochondrial and nuclear ribosomal genes, the combination of these with geometric morphometric data enabled us to confidently delimit several of these problematic taxa. In addition, geometric morphometric analysis of pronotal shape revealed undocumented morphological patterns that appear to be useful in the diagnosis of many of the surveyed taxa. The results from this study provide an objective foundation for the much-needed taxonomic revision of the most ubiquitous ambush bugs in North America.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据