Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (54)
- Part of Periodical (22)
Language
- English (76) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (76)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (76)
Keywords
- phylogeny (76) (remove)
Camel spiders (Arachnida: Solifugae) are one of the arachnid groups characterised by a prosomal dorsal shield composed of three distinct elements: the pro-, meso- and metapeltidium. These are associated respectively with prosomal appendages one to four, five, and six. What is less well known, although noted in the historical literature, is that the coxae of the 4th and 5th prosomal segments (i.e. walking legs 2 and 3) of camel spiders are also separated ventrally by a distinct membranous region, which is absent between the coxae of the other legs. We suggest that this essentially ventral division of the prosoma specifically between coxae 2 and 3 is homologous with the so-called sejugal furrow (the sejugal interval sensu van der Hammen). This division constitutes a fundamental part of the body plan in acariform mites (Arachnida: Acariformes). If homologous, this sejugal furrow could represent a further potential synapomorphy for (Solifugae + Acariformes); a relationship with increasing morphological and molecular support. Alternatively, outgroup comparison with sea spiders (Pycnogonida) and certain early Palaeozoic fossils could imply that the sejugal furrow defines an older tagma, derived from a more basal grade of organisation. In this scenario the (still) divided prosoma of acariform mites and camel spiders would be plesiomorphic. This interpretation challenges the textbook arachnid character of a peltidium (or ‘carapace’) covering an undivided prosoma.
Birds are characterized by pneumatization of their skeletons by epithelial diverticula from larger, air-filled cavities. The diverticula-or 'air sacs'-that invade the postcranium result from outgrowths of the lungs; poslcranial pneumaticity has been very well studied. Much more poorly understood are the air sacs that pneumatize the skull. Study or craniofacial pneumaticity in modern birds (Neornithes) indicates the presence of two separate systems: nasal pneumaticity and tympanic pneumaticity, The lacrimal and maxillary bones arc pneumatized by diverticula of the main paranasal cavity, the antorbital sinus. There are five tympanic diverticula in neornithines that pneumatize the quadrate, articulare and the bones of the braincase. The pneumatic features of the following six genera of Mesozoic birds are examined: Archaeopteryx, Ellaliornis, Baplomis, Parahesperornis, Hesperornis and lchthyornis. Despite the 'archaic' aspect of most of these birds, many of the pneumatic features of neornithines are found in .Mesozoic birds and are considered primitive for Aves. The phylogenetic levels at which most of the avian pneumatic features arose within Archosauria are uncertain. Until the phylogenetic levels at which homologous pneumatic features arose are determined, it is unwise to use most pneumatic characters in the discussion of avian origins. Within avian phylogeny, Ornithurae and Neornithes are well-supported by pneumatic synapomorphies. There is a trend towards reduction of craniofacial pneumaticity within Hesperornithiformes. Witthin Neornithes, four derived pneumatic characters suggest that the Palaeognathae (ratites and tinamous) is monophyletic.
Lepidoptera phylogeny and systematics : the state of inventorying moth and butterfly diversity
(2007)
The currently recognized robust support for the monophyly of the Lepidoptera (and the superorder Amphiesmenoptera comprising Lepidoptera + Trichoptera) is outlined, and the phylogeny of the principal lineages within the order is reviewed succinctly. The state of the taxonomic inventory of Lepidoptera is discussed separately for ‘micro-moths’, ‘macro-moths’ and butterflies, three assemblages on which work has followed historically somewhat different paths. While currently there are about 160,000 described species of Lepidoptera, the total number of extant species is estimated to be around half a million. On average, just over one thousand new species of Lepidoptera have been described annually in recent years. Allowing for the new synonyms simultaneously established, the net increase in species numbers still exceeds 800/year. Most of the additions are foreseeable in the micro-moth grade, but even for butterflies ca 100 species are added annually. Examples of particularly interesting new high-rank taxa that have been described (or whose significance has become realized) since the middle of the 20th century include the non-glossatan lineages represented by Agathiphaga and Heterobathmia and the heteroneuran families Andesianidae, Palaephatidae, Hedylidae and Micronoctuidae. Some thoughts on how present and future systematic lepidopterology might be prioritised are presented.
The taxonomy, diversity, and distribution of the aquatic insect order Trichoptera, caddisflies, are reviewed. The order is among the most important and diverse of all aquatic taxa. Larvae are vital participants in aquatic food webs and their presence and relative abundance are used in the biological assessment and monitoring of water quality. The species described by Linnaeus are listed. The morphology of all life history stages (adults, larvae, and pupae) is diagnosed and major features of the anatomy are illustrated. Major components of life history and biology are summarized. A discussion of phylogenetic studies within the order is presented, including higher classification of the suborders and superfamilies, based on recent literature. Synopses of each of 45 families are presented, including the taxonomic history of the family, a list of all known genera in each family, their general distribution and relative species diversity, and a short overview of family-level biological features. The order contains 600 genera, and approximately 13,000 species.
A cladistic analysis is presented of the hawkmoths of the tribe Acherontiini, Morgan´s Sphinx (Xanthopan morganii (Walker», and related genera. The study aims to test the monophyly of tribe Acherontiini; the hypothesis that all taxa with extremely long probosces (some Acherontiini, Meganoton rubescens, Neococytius, Xanthopan) form a monophyletic group, or at least fall within a single reasonably compact clade; and, within this group, to determine whether Xanthopan is more closely related to Acherontiini or to COCytillS and Neococytius. The data set comprises 109 characters derived from adult and immature stage morphology, biology and behaviour. These data were analysed using equal weighting, successive approximations character weighting (SACW) and implied weighting. All weighting schemes agreed on the monophyly of Acherontiini and of a group of genera comprising Amphimoea, Cocytius and Neococytius (the Cocytius group). Several other generic and suprageneric clades were also consistently recovered. However, those hawkmoths with extremely long probosces were never recovered as a monophyletic group. The relationships of Xanthopan were also ambiguous. Equal weighting and SACW placedXanthopan + Meganoton rztbescens (Butler) as sister to the COCytills group, while implied weighting placed Xanthopan as sister to Acherontiini. This latter relationship is based primarily on shared possession of a pilifer/palp hearing organ. Further analyses suggested the two components of this organ were not biologically independent. Downweighting this feature accordingly resulted in all weighting schemes converging on the topology found by equal weighting. Exclusion of the incomplete subset of immature stage data had no effect under implied weighting but equal weighting and SACW now recovered a Neotropical clade comprising Manduca. and the Cocytius group, while Xanthopan was placed with M. rubescens and Panogena. Downweighting the pilifer/palp hearing organ under implied weighting again caused convergence with the equal weighting/SACW results. Thus, the relationships of Xanthopan remain equivocal and further data, particularly from the immature stages, will be required to elucidate its phylogenetic position further.
Before the turn of the millenium the investigation of phylogenetic relationships was revolutionized by two major inputs, the use of molecular sequence data for phylogenetic reconstruction, paralleled by the sophistication of computer aided reconstruction methods. The ever growing number of data however did not only result in clarifications of open questions, but brought forth a number of new conflicting phylogenetic hypotheses. Sometimes they are wrongly referred to as conflicts between morphological and molecular approaches, which sporadically even culminated in the rejection of the usefulness of one of the two approaches (e.g. Scotland et al 2003). These scientists overlook the great advantage of having two a priori largely independent data sets (Wägele 2001) which in a synthetic way enable the greatest progress in phylogenetic research. However, solely putting data together will not suffice to choose among conflicting hypotheses. The increasing number of conflicts necessitates approaches that go beyond mere data congruence, but searching for the possible reasons of conflicts. In the present paper, problems in the reconstruction of the phylogenetic origin of Hexapoda, as well as of the early branchings within the Hexapoda, will exemplify approaches of critical re-evaluation and testing of data used in morphological data matrices for phylogenetic analyses. The early cladogenetic events of hexapods are especially suited for such a discussion for several reasons. The hexapods, as the most species-rich group of organisms, look back at a long and multi-faceted history of taxonomic and phylogenetic studies, culminating in a number of conflicting hypotheses. Triggered by incongruences with morphological analyses the reconstruction of the hexapodan roots likewise became a hot-spot of molecular research activities during^the last two decades. Furthermore the phylogenetic positions of the oldest lineages branching off within the hexapodan clade, the Diplura, Protura and Collembola, are in particular very difficult to reconstruct. While at least the latter two are well defined by morphological autapomorphies their phylogenetic position could not be reconstructed unambiguously, since their morphology seems highly derived with respect to the hexapodan ground pattern.