z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Phylogeny of the suborder P socomorpha: congruence and incongruence between morphology and molecular data ( I nsecta: P socodea: ‘ P socoptera’)
Author(s) -
Yoshizawa Kazunori,
Johnson Kevin P.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
zoological journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.148
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1096-3642
pISSN - 0024-4082
DOI - 10.1111/zoj.12157
Subject(s) - biology , monophyly , psocoptera , phylogenetics , zoology , molecular phylogenetics , phylogenetic tree , taxon , evolutionary biology , clade , ecology , genetics , gene
The largest suborder of bark lice ( I nsecta: P socodea: ‘ P socoptera’) is P socomorpha, which includes over 3600 described species. We estimated the phylogeny of this major group with family‐level taxon sampling using multiple gene markers, including both nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal RNA and protein‐coding genes. Monophyly of the suborder was strongly supported, and monophyly of three of four previously recognized infraorders ( C aeciliusetae, E pipsocetae, and P socetae) was also strongly supported. In contrast, monophyly of the infraorder H omilopsocidea was not supported. Based on the phylogeny, we divided H omilopsocidea into three independent infraorders: A rchipsocetae, P hilotarsetae, and H omilopsocidea. Except for a few cases, previously recognized families were recovered as monophyletic. To establish a classification more congruent with the phylogeny, we synonymized the families B ryopsocidae (with Z elandopsocinae of P seudocaeciliidae), C alopsocidae (with P seudocaeciliidae), and N eurostigmatidae (with E pipsocidae). Monophyly of E lipsocidae, L achesillidae, and M esopsocidae was not supported, but the monophyly of these families could not be rejected statistically, so they are tentatively maintained as valid families. The molecular tree was compared with a morphological phylogeny estimated previously. Sources of congruence and incongruence exist and the utility of the morphological data for phylogenetic estimation is evaluated. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here