A new genus in the tribe Acidoxanthini (Diptera: Tephritidae: Trypetinae) from India, with a discussion of its phylogenetic relationships

David, K. J.; Hancock, D. L.; Han, Ho-Yeon; Gracy, R. Gandhi; Sachin, K.; Swathi, R.S.

doi:10.1016/j.aspen.2021.06.010

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, recent studies based on several genes or mitogenome showed that both the Dacinae and Trypetinae are not monophyletic. For instance, the genus Ceratitis was closer to the genus Anastrepha than to the Dacini tribe (San Jose et al, 2018;David et al, 2021;Yong et al, 2021). In contrast, other studies showed that the Anastrepha was closer to the Dacini tribe, forming a distinct cluster from the Ceratitis (Krosch et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2019b;Song et al, 2019).…”

Section: Phylogeny Of the Fruit Fliesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…However, molecular evidence does not support the monophyly of Trypetinae (Han and McPheron, 1997;Han and Ro, 2009). Moreover, recent studies have suggested that both the Dacinae and the Trypetinae are non-monophyletic (Krosch et al, 2012;San Jose et al, 2018;Zhang et al, 2019;Song et al, 2019;David et al, 2021;Yong et al, 2021). In the subgenus Bactrocera, mitochondrial data shows that Bactrocera dorsalis is more closely related to Bactrocera tryoni than to Bactrocera latifrons (da Costa et al, 2019;Yong et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2010;Zhang et al, 2018), while nuclear data supports a closer relationship between B. dorsalis and B. latifrons (Dupuis et al, 2018;San Jose et al, 2018;Valerio et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phylogenomic analysis and molecular identification of true fruit flies

He,

Wang,

et al. 2024

Front. Genet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The family Tephritidae in the order Diptera, known as true fruit flies, are agriculturally important insect pests. However, the phylogenetic relationships of true fruit flies, remain controversial. Moreover, rapid identification of important invasive true fruit flies is essential for plant quarantine but is still challenging. To this end, we sequenced the genome of 16 true fruit fly species at coverage of 47–228×. Together with the previously reported genomes of nine species, we reconstructed phylogenetic trees of the Tephritidae using benchmarking universal single-copy ortholog (BUSCO), ultraconserved element (UCE) and anchored hybrid enrichment (AHE) gene sets, respectively. The resulting trees of 50% taxon-occupancy dataset for each marker type were generally congruent at 88% nodes for both concatenation and coalescent analyses. At the subfamily level, both Dacinae and Trypetinae are monophyletic. At the species level, Bactrocera dorsalis is more closely related to Bactrocera latifrons than Bactrocera tryoni. This is inconsistent with previous conclusions based on mitochondrial genes but consistent with recent studies based on nuclear data. By analyzing these genome data, we screened ten pairs of species-specific primers for molecular identification of ten invasive fruit flies, which PCR validated. In summary, our work provides draft genome data of 16 true fruit fly species, addressing the long-standing taxonomic controversies and providing species-specific primers for molecular identification of invasive fruit flies.

show abstract

Section: Phylogeny Of the Fruit Fliesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenomic analysis and molecular identification of true fruit flies

He,

Wang,

et al. 2024

Front. Genet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seven keys had the images right next to the couplets and eight had them on an adjacent page (supplementary table 2, column AB). Two keys had either one (David et al 2021-the one most relevant for the new genus) or all (Colombo et al 2022) images hyperlinked to the couplet. Other figures cited in keys were generally dispersed throughout the manuscript except in three papers (Ślipiński et al 2021;Yeshwanth and Konstantinov 2021;Viswayjothi and Clark 2022) in which they were grouped, along with all other figures, at the end of the paper.…”

Section: Actual Minimum Maximummentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of keys for the identification of newly described insect genera: recommendations for authors, reviewers, editors and publishers

Packer

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large numbers of new taxa are described annually and while there is a great need to make them identifiable, there seems little consistency in how this might be facilitated. I surveyed 427 papers published in 2021 and 2022, which described 587 new insect genera. I found that only 136 of the papers included keys, and these allowed the identification of 233 of the new genera 31.9% of papers and 39.7% of the new genera). The proportion of papers that included a key varied significantly among insect orders but not among the handful of journals wherein the bulk of the new genera were described. Overall, for 17 key-related variables assessed in a binary fashion (optimal vs suboptimal), the average key had almost six criteria that were scored as being suboptimal. For example, less than one-fifth facilitated retracing and less than 12% had illustrated keys where the images were conveniently located close to the relevant key couplets. Progress towards confirming a putative identification was possible in all papers, through the inclusion of a diagnosis, habitus images or both. Based upon this analysis, and expanding on previous suggestions for key construction, I make 23 recommendations on how to make an identification key maximally useful for users and indicate the relative ease with which each could be adhered to. I suggest that identification keys should accompany all new taxon descriptions, that guidelines for effective key construction be added to journals’ instructions to authors, that editors and reviewers should check keys carefully and that publishers should be attentive to the needs of users through, for example, permitting duplication of images to make keys easier to use. My recommendations are likely relevant to all levels in the taxonomic hierarchy for all organisms, despite the data being derived from generic-level keys for insects.

show abstract

Phylogeny of tribe Dacini revisited (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae)

HANCOCK,

DREW

2024

Zootaxa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylogenetic relationships within the Dacini are discussed, with Dacimita David & Hancock and Ichneumonopsis Hardy transferred from tribe Gastrozonini to tribe Dacini based on synapomorphies and regarded as sister taxa to Monacrostichus Bezzi and Dacus Fabricius + Bactrocera Macquart respectively. The Madagascan genus Tythocalama Munro is removed from synonymy with subgenus Dacus (Neodacus) Perkins and placed as a new synonym of subgenus Dacus (Mictodacus) Munro.

show abstract

A new genus in the tribe Acidoxanthini (Diptera: Tephritidae: Trypetinae) from India, with a discussion of its phylogenetic relationships

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Phylogenomic analysis and molecular identification of true fruit flies

Phylogenomic analysis and molecular identification of true fruit flies

A survey of keys for the identification of newly described insect genera: recommendations for authors, reviewers, editors and publishers

Phylogeny of tribe Dacini revisited (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About