A phylogenetic analysis of relationships among genera of Conopidae (Diptera) based on molecular and morphological data

Abstract

Members of the family Conopidae (Diptera) have been the focus of little targeted phylogenetic research. The most comprehensive test of phylogenetic support for the present subfamily classification of Conopidae is presented here using 66 specimens, including 59 species of Conopidae and seven outgroup taxa. Relationships among subfamily clades are also explored. A total of 6824 bp of DNA sequence data from five gene regions (12S ribosomal DNA, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, cytochrome b, 28S ribosomal DNA and alanyl‐tRNA synthetase) are combined with 111 morphological characters in a combined analysis using both parsimony and Bayesian methods. Parsimony analysis recovers three shortest trees. Bayesian analysis recovers a nearly identical tree. Five monophyletic subfamilies of Conopidae are recovered. The rarely acknowledged Zodioninae is restored, including the genera Zodion and Parazodion. The genus Sicus is removed from Myopinae. Morphological synapomorphies are discussed for each subfamily and inter‐subfamily clade, including a comprehensive review of the character interpretaions of previous authors. Included are detailed comparative illustrations of male and female genitalia of representatives of all five subfamilies with new morphological interpretation.

The first <i>Stylogaster</i> Macquart, 1835 (Diptera: Conopidae) fossil, from Oligo-Miocene Dominican amber, and some phylogenetic and biogeographic considerations

“…S. grimaldii morphologically resembles the species with a short ocellar triangle, sharing with them many other characters, such as the subequal-sized pedicel and postpedicel and the absence of thick bristles on the epandrium. The hypothesized position of other Stylogaster in this unpublished work is congruent with the molecular and morphological cladogram of Gibson et al (2012). The hypothesized position of the fossil species, as the sister of all other species with a short ocellar triangle, indicates that the separation between Old/New World and long/short ocellar triangle New World clades is probably older than the Neogene (23.03 Mya).…”

“…The dorsum was illustrated by tilting the specimen under various lighting conditions to assess, capture and clearly display all the characters necessary for diagnosis. The terminology used here follows McAlpine (1981) and Cumming and Wood (2009), except when contradicted by Gibson et al (2012), who are then followed.…”

“…Recent works on the phylogeny of Conopidae (Gibson et al, 2012;Gibson and Skevington, 2013) place Stylogaster as the sister taxon of the remaining Conopidae. The other fossil conopid group, Palaeomyopa, seems to be more related to the non-stylogastrine conopids than to Stylogaster, although it has not been included in any phylogenetic analysis.…”

“…Recent phylogenetic analyses give many alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for Stylogaster: one as the sister group of all other conopids, or as sister of the Lauxaniidae, depending on the method of analysis (Gibson et al, 2012;Gibson and Skevington, 2013) or even a paraphyletic Conopidae, inside the Sciomyzoidea, with Stylogaster separated from the other conopids (Wiegmann et al, 2011). The age of Stylogaster has not been proposed before, as the only known fossil conopid genus, Palaeomyopa Meulnier, 1912 is not closely related to Stylogaster (Hennig, 1966;Gibson and Skevington, 2013).…”

Phylogeny and taxonomic revision of all genera of Conopidae (Diptera) based on morphological data

“…Previous phylogenetic analyses based on molecular and morphological data (Gibson, Skevington & Kelso, , ) hypothesize at least five monophyletic subfamilies of Conopidae: Conopinae, Dalmanniinae, Myopinae, Stylogastrinae, and Zodioninae. These analyses offer characteristic apomorphies for clades including each subfamily as well as clades showing relationships between subfamilies.…”