Molecular phylogenetics of Vespoidea indicate paraphyly of the superfamily and novel relationships of its component families and subfamilies. -Zoologica Scripta, 37 , 539-560. The 24 000+ described species of Vespoidea include many well-known stinging wasps, such as paper wasps and hornets (Vespidae), velvet ants (Mutillidae), spider wasps (Pompilidae) and ants (Formicidae). The compelling behaviours of vespoids have been instrumental in developing theories of stepwise evolutionary transitions, which necessarily depend on an understanding of phylogeny, yet, existing morphological phylogenies for Vespoidea conflict. We collected molecular data from four nuclear genes (elongation factor-1 α F2 copy, long-wavelength rhodopsin, wingless and the D2-D3 regions of 28S ribosomal RNA (2700 bp in total)) to produce the first molecular phylogeny of Vespoidea. We analysed molecular data alone and in combination with published morphological data from Brothers and Carpenter. Parsimony analyses left many deeper nodes unsupported, but suggested paraphyly of three families. Total-evidence Bayesian inference produced a more resolved tree, in which the monophyly of Vespoidea was nevertheless ambiguous. Bayesian inference of molecular data alone returned a well-resolved consensus with posterior probabilities of over 95% for most nodes. We used this topology as the best estimate of phylogeny at the family and subfamily levels. Notable departures from previous estimates include: (i) paraphyly of Vespoidea resulting from the nesting of Apoidea within a lineage comprising Formicidae, Scoliidae and two subfamilies of Bradynobaenidae; (ii) paraphyly of Bradynobaenidae, Mutillidae and Tiphiidae; (iii) a sister relationship between Rhopalosomatidae and Vespidae; and (iv) Rhopalosomatidae + Vespidae as sister to all other vespoids/apoids. We discuss character evidence in light of the new phylogeny, and propose a new classification of Aculeata that recognizes eight superfamilies: Apoidea, Chrysidoidea,

Following decades of ecologic and economic impacts from a growing list of nonindigenous and invasive species, government and management entities are committing to systematic early- detection monitoring (EDM). This has reinvigorated investment in the science underpinning such monitoring, as well as the need to convey that science in practical terms to those tasked with EDM implementation. Using the context of nonindigenous species in the North American Great Lakes, this article summarizes the current scientific tools and knowledge - including limitations, research needs, and likely future developments - relevant to various aspects of planning and conducting comprehensive EDM. We begin with the scope of the effort, contrasting target-species with broad-spectrum monitoring, reviewing information to support prioritization based on species and locations, and exploring the challenge of moving beyond individual surveys towards a coordinated monitoring network. Next, we discuss survey design, including effort to expend and its allocation over space and time. A section on sample collection and analysis overviews the merits of collecting actual organisms versus shed DNA, reviews the capabilities and limitations of identification by morphology, DNA target markers, or DNA barcoding, and examines best practices for sample handling and data verification. We end with a section addressing the analysis of monitoring data, including methods to evaluate survey performance and characterize and communicate uncertainty. Although the body of science supporting EDM implementation is already substantial, research and information needs (many already actively being addressed) include: better data to support risk assessments that guide choice of taxa and locations to monitor; improved understanding of spatiotemporal scales for sample collection; further development of DNA target markers, reference barcodes, genomic workflows, and synergies between DNA-based and morphology-based taxonomy; and tools and information management systems for better evaluating and communicating survey outcomes and uncertainty.

No abstract

Sympetrinae is the largest subfamily of the diverse dragonfly family Libellulidae. This subfamily, like most libellulid subfamilies, is defined currently by a few wing venation characters, none of which are synapomorphies for the taxon. In this study, we used DNA sequence data from the nuclear locus elongation factor‐1α and the mitochondrial loci 16S and 12S rRNA, together with 38 wing venation characters, to test the monophyly of the Sympetrinae and several other libellulid subfamilies. No analysis recovered Sympetrinae as monophyletic, partly because of the position of Leucorrhinia (of the subfamily Leucorrhininae) as a strongly supported sister to Sympetrum (of Sympetrinae) in all analyses. The subfamilies Brachydiplactinae, Leucorrhininae, Trameinae and Trithemistinae were also found not to be monophyletic. Libellulinae was the only subfamily supported strongly as monophyletic. Consistency indices and retention indices of wing venation characters used to define various subfamilies were closer to zero than unity, showing that many of these characters were homoplasious, and therefore not useful for a classification scheme within Libellulidae.

No abstract