Molecular phylogeny of the scorpionflies Panorpidae (Insecta: Mecoptera) and chromosomal evolution

Abstract

Panorpidae is the most species‐rich family in Mecoptera with ca. 470 species in the Northern Hemisphere. However, the intergeneric phylogenetic relationships of Panorpidae remain unsatisfactorily resolved to date. Here, we used molecular and cytogenetic approaches to determine the phylogenetic relationships of Panorpidae in the evolutionary scenario of chromosomes, and estimated their divergence times using fossil‐calibrated Bayesian analysis. In total, 89 species representing all seven genera of Panorpidae were used to reconstruct the phylogenetic trees using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference based on the nuclear 28S rRNA and mitochondrial cox1 and cox2 genes. The results reveal that Panorpidae is a well‐supported monophyletic group that can be categorized into two major clades. Major Clade I comprises Neopanorpa and Leptopanorpa, and Major Clade II consists of all the other genera (Cerapanorpa, Dicerapanorpa, Furcatopanorpa, Panorpa and Sinopanorpa). Neopanorpa and Cerapanorpa are regarded as paraphyletic groups for the first time. BEAST analysis indicates that Panorpidae originated in the Lower Cretaceous approximately 122.5 Ma (96.8–149.3 Ma), and that most diversification occurred from the Selandian (59.8 Ma) to the Middle Pleistocene (0.6 Ma) in the Cenozoic. Cytogenetic data plotted on the cladogram show that the lineage differentiation of Panorpidae is closely related to the chromosomal evolution, especially the reduction of chromosome number. Our study suggests that a taxonomic revision of Panorpidae is urgently needed at the generic level.

Evolutionary history of the scorpionfly Dicerapanorpa magna (Mecoptera, Panorpidae)

“…The node age estimated for Dicerapanorpa based on the combined molecular data (Supporting Information Figure b) is nearly consistent with that from Miao, Wang, and Hua (), but slightly inconsistent with that from Hu et al (). The later divergence time estimated from substitution rate (Supporting Information Figure a) might suggest that the substitution rate at 2.3% Ma −1 was relatively conservative for scorpionflies.…”

“…ZQ, Table 1) may reflect a postglacial expansion, as noted in certain European plant species (Comes & Kadereit, 1998) and many insect species (Drees, Matern, Oheimb, Reimann, & Assmann, 2010;Hill, Griffiths, & Thomas, 2011). The node age estimated for Dicerapanorpa based on the combined molecular data (Supporting Information Figure S2b) is nearly consistent with that from Miao, Wang, and Hua (2018), but slightly inconsistent with that from Hu et al (2015). The later divergence time estimated from substitution rate (Supporting Information Figure S2a) might suggest that the substitution rate at 2.3% Ma −1 was relatively conservative for scorpionflies.…”

The mitochondrial genomes of Panorpidae: sequence, structure and phylogenetic analysis

“…According to a molecular phylogenetic analysis [22], Neopanorpa is the sister taxon with all other genera of Panorpidae. However, Neopanorpa is considered paraphyletic with Leptopanorpa based on another molecular phylogenetic analysis [23] and morphological phylogeny [20]. Based on our present mitogenome phylogenetic study, Neopanorpa forms a sister taxon with Furcatopanorpa.…”

“…Neopanorpa van der Weele, 1909 (ca. 170 Recently, the phylogeny of Panorpidae was studied based on morphological characters [21] and DNA sequences [22,23]. Furcatopanorpa was considered to form the sister taxon with all other genera of Panorpidae based on morphological characters [21], but to some species of Panorpa based on DNA sequences [23].…”

“…170 Recently, the phylogeny of Panorpidae was studied based on morphological characters [21] and DNA sequences [22,23]. Furcatopanorpa was considered to form the sister taxon with all other genera of Panorpidae based on morphological characters [21], but to some species of Panorpa based on DNA sequences [23]. Previously, Panorpa was treated as a paraphyletic group with Neopanorpa based on morphological characters and DNA sequence data [21,[24][25][26].…”