Molecular Dimensions of Insect Taxonomy

Sperling, Felix A. H.; Roe, Amanda D.

doi:10.1002/9781444308211.ch16

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 137 publications

(132 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A single technician with a general training in molecular techniques could prepare specimens to send out for sequencing -one hundred specimens a week could be done easily and relatively cheaply, or many hundreds a week if more expensive kits and plates are used. DNA-sequence data have the additional advantage that they can be used to identify all life history stages and just about all body parts (Sperling and Roe 2009). Returned sequences could be matched against databases for an almost instantaneous identification.…”

Section: Cook 2003; Perkins and Austin 2009)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?

Cook

Edwards

Crisp

et al. 2010

Invert. Systematics

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Despite the widespread and common use of DNA-sequence data to estimate phylogenies, support or contest classifications, and identify species using barcodes, they are not commonly used as the primary or sole source of data for describing species. This is possibly due to actual or perceived pressure from peers to include morphology as the primary source of data for species descriptions. We find no compelling evidence to exclude DNA-only descriptions, or to insist that morphology always be included in a species description. It is not the data type per se that is important, but the science behind the taxonomic conclusions. Using alternative kinds of data for descriptions should not cause problems for taxonomy if links are kept with type specimens.

show abstract

Section: Cook 2003; Perkins and Austin 2009)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?

Cook

Edwards

Crisp

et al. 2010

Invert. Systematics

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be informative to develop and use microsatellite loci or intronic sequences to examine the population structure of H. sericeus . A multisource approach that uses a combination of informative markers will allow a better assessment of both the permeability and directionality of gene flow between populations at the species level (Roe & Sperling, 2007; Schlick‐Steiner et al ., 2009; Sperling & Roe, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetically separate populations of the ocean-skater Halobates sericeus (Heteroptera: Gerridae) have been maintained since the late Pleistocene

Leo

Cheng

Sperling

2012

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The oceanic water strider (or ocean-skater) Halobates sericeus Eschscholtz has a disjunct distribution in the Pacific Ocean, with northern and southern populations widely separated by an equatorial zone. It is sensitive to sea surface conditions and, consequently, its distribution and population structure may provide an insight into environmental changes on the ocean surface on both recent and historical time scales. We assessed the genetic diversity and population structure of H. sericeus in the Pacific Ocean using three gene markers -cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI), elongation factor 1a and internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS-1). These markers indicate that both populations are evolutionarily distinct with limited gene flow, having separated 20 000-50 000 years ago. This suggests that physical conditions and/or biotic interactions on the surface of the Pacific Ocean have provided significant barriers to gene flow since the late Pleistocene or earlier, creating biotic stability over large geographical and temporal scales in spite of a long history of global climate change.

show abstract

“…It appears however, that nature is more complex than the sequences might suggest and there are obvious and often confusing complications (Nelson & Buggs, 2016). Although the idea that nested sets of mutations has merit (if properly polarized) (Sperling & Roe, 2009;Kück & Wägele, 2016), this is not the process that is currently implemented by molecular systematists (more on this below).…”

Section: Genomes Vs Phenotypementioning

confidence: 99%

The State of Phylogenetic Analysis: Narrow Visions and Simple Answers—Examples from the Diptera (flies)

Borkent

2018

Zootaxa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The order Diptera is remarkably diverse, not only in species but in morphological variation in every life stage, making them excellent candidates for phylogenetic analysis. Such analysis has been hampered by methods that have severely restricted character state interpretation. Morphological-based phylogenies should be based on a deep understanding of the morphology, development and function of character states, and have extensive outgroup comparisons made to determine their polarity. Character states clearly vary in their value for determining phylogenetic relationships and this needs to be studied and utilized. Characters themselves need more explicit discussion, including how some may be developmentally or functionally related to other characters (and potentially not independent indicators of genealogical relationship). The current practice by many, of filling a matrix with poorly understood character states and highly limited outgroup comparisons, is unacceptable if the results are to be a valid reflection of the actual history of the group.Parsimony analysis is not an objective interpretation of phylogenetic relationships when all characters are treated as equal in value. Exact mathematical values applied to characters are entirely arbitrary and are generally used to produce a phylogeny that the author considers as reasonable. Mathematical appraisal of a given node is similarly inconsequential because characters do not have an intrinsic mathematical value. Bremer support, for example, provides values that have no biological reality but provide the pretence of objectivity. Cladists need to focus their attention on testing the validity of each synapomorphy proposed, as the basis for all further phylogenetic interpretation, rather than the testing of differing phylogenies through various comparative programs.Current phylogenetic analyses have come to increasingly depend on DNA sequence-based characters, in spite of their tumultuous history of inconsistent results. Until such time as sequences can be shown to produce predictive phylogenies (i.e., using Hennigian logic), independent of morphological analysis, they should be viewed with caution and certainly not as a panacea as they are commonly portrayed.The purported comprehensive analyses of phylogenetic relationships between families of Diptera by Wiegmann et al. (2011) andLambkin et al. (2013) have serious flaws and cannot be considered as the "Periodic Table" of such relationships as originally heralded.Systematists working on Diptera have a plethora of complex and informative morphological synapomorphies in every life stage, either described or awaiting study. Many lineages have the potential of providing a wealth of evolutionary stories to share with other biologists if we produce stable phylogenies based on weighted synapomorphies and interpreted to elucidate the zoogeographic and bionomic divergence of the group. Some lineages are devoid of convincing synapomorphies and, in spite of our desires, should be recognized as being largely uninterpretab...

show abstract

Molecular Dimensions of Insect Taxonomy

Cited by 23 publications

References 137 publications

Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?

Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?

Genetically separate populations of the ocean-skater Halobates sericeus (Heteroptera: Gerridae) have been maintained since the late Pleistocene

The State of Phylogenetic Analysis: Narrow Visions and Simple Answers—Examples from the Diptera (flies)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About