Evolutionary phenomics and the emerging enlightenment of arthropod systematics

Abstract

Abstract. Published research on the diversity and evolutionary history of Arthropoda sets a high standard for data collection and the integration of novel methods. New phylogenetic estimation algorithms, divergence time approaches, collaborative tools and publishing standards, to name a few, were brought to the broader scientific audience in the context of arthropod systematics. The treatment of morphology in these studies, however, has largely escaped innovation. Lodes rich in characters too often go unexplored, phenotype concepts are published with inadequate documentation and the way observations are textualised leaves them inaccessible to a majority of biologists. We discuss these issues, using data from recent arthropod systematics publications, and offer several that stand to restore the broad utility of morphological data. Specifically, we focus on: (1) the potential of internal soft-part characters and how to integrate their observation into arthropod systematics projects through dissection and serial sectioning; (2) the importance of capturing observations in images, especially using relatively new approaches, like laser scanning confocal microscopy and three-dimensional reconstruction; and (3) the untapped potential of established knowledge representation methods, which may help make the descriptive components of arthropod systematics research more accessible to other domains.

Limnephilid taxa revised by speciation traits: Rhadicoleptus, Isogamus, Melampophylax genera, Chaetopteryx rugulosa, Psilopteryx psorosa species groups, Drusus bolivari, Annitella kosciuszkii species complexes (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae)

“…It is the time to get more prepared and cope with the genotype of the much financed molecular genetics. Combining information from genomes, transcriptomes, proteomes, phenomes, and biomes is backed by emerging informatics standards (Deans et al 2012b). Hightech and high-throughput phenotyping is getting more and more available and employed in several fields of phenomics (Sozzani & Benfey 2011).…”

“…Template principle for more effective species descriptions (Evenhuis 2007) and uniformed spatial descriptors for phenotypic diversity in the biological spatial ontology (Dahdul et al 2014) are waiting to be applied. Methodological inertia, relying mostly on sclerites, limits the wide application of fine structure analysis including female structures and internal soft body parts full of important unexplored phenotypic traits (Deans et al 2012b).…”

MalagasyConostigmus(Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea) and the secret of scutes

“…Epidermal cells produce the cuticle, the acellular exoskeleton that is the subject of most morphological descriptions in insect systematics (Deans et al, 2012). For instance, in the present paper we exclusively used cuticle-related phenotypes.…”

The need for data standards in zoomorphology

“…Current research practice of morphological phylogenetics has been criticized for various reasons, including lack of transparency and insufficient documentation that does not allow one to convey the precise morphology that the characters intend to capture (e.g., Hillis and Wiens, 2000; Poe and Wiens, 2000; Wiens, 2001, 2004; Jenner, 2002, 2003, 2004a, b, c; Deans et al, 2012a). This has relevance for the goal of standardizing morphological data, as it has been claimed that morphological data is best recorded and represented as discrete characters and character states representing primary homologies (e.g., Ramírez et al, 2007; Edgecombe, 2008; see also Sereno, 2007).…”