Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) 1999
DOI: 10.1201/9781420074468.sec1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic Relationships among the Families of the Superfamily Tephritoidea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

9
62
0
7

Year Published

2002
2002
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
9
62
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…The monophyly of the tribe is supported by several morphological characters: the absence of anepisternal bristles and the presence of two pairs of katepisternal bristles, the epandrium expanded in the anterocaudal direction, the distiphallus pubescent or short spinulose in its medial part, no sclerotized preglans or long bristles, and two pairs of spermathecae in females. Therefore, Korneyev, 1994, 2006;Korneyev, 1999) included the rest of the Palaearctic Otitidae into the tribes Cephaliini, Otitini, and Myennidini, whereas the remaining Ulidiidae (without genus Homalocephala) were included into the tribes Ulidiini and Pterocallini, while considering all of the tribes within the scope of Ulidiidae. For uniting Ulidiinae and Otitinae into a single family, Kameneva and Korneyev used the following characters: non-developed fronto-orbital plates without strong setae (except in Chaetopsis Loew and close genera); absence of presutural supra-alar (except in Dyscrasis Hendel and some species of Otites Latreille) and katepimeral setae (presutural supra-alar present in the ground plan of most other families; katepimeral setae or setulae present in Platystomatidae, Ctenostylidae, Pyrgotidae, and Tephritidae); slightly bowed continuous Sc vein, neither bent anteriorly at right angle nor constricted before apex (bent anteriorly at right angle in Pyrgotidae Toxurini and most Tephritidae; constricted or broken before apex in Ctenostylidae, most Tephritidae, and some Pyrgotidae); R 1 vein (See figure on previous page.)…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The monophyly of the tribe is supported by several morphological characters: the absence of anepisternal bristles and the presence of two pairs of katepisternal bristles, the epandrium expanded in the anterocaudal direction, the distiphallus pubescent or short spinulose in its medial part, no sclerotized preglans or long bristles, and two pairs of spermathecae in females. Therefore, Korneyev, 1994, 2006;Korneyev, 1999) included the rest of the Palaearctic Otitidae into the tribes Cephaliini, Otitini, and Myennidini, whereas the remaining Ulidiidae (without genus Homalocephala) were included into the tribes Ulidiini and Pterocallini, while considering all of the tribes within the scope of Ulidiidae. For uniting Ulidiinae and Otitinae into a single family, Kameneva and Korneyev used the following characters: non-developed fronto-orbital plates without strong setae (except in Chaetopsis Loew and close genera); absence of presutural supra-alar (except in Dyscrasis Hendel and some species of Otites Latreille) and katepimeral setae (presutural supra-alar present in the ground plan of most other families; katepimeral setae or setulae present in Platystomatidae, Ctenostylidae, Pyrgotidae, and Tephritidae); slightly bowed continuous Sc vein, neither bent anteriorly at right angle nor constricted before apex (bent anteriorly at right angle in Pyrgotidae Toxurini and most Tephritidae; constricted or broken before apex in Ctenostylidae, most Tephritidae, and some Pyrgotidae); R 1 vein (See figure on previous page.)…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tephritoidea is a large superfamily of nine acalyptrate fly families including over 7,300 described species worldwide (Korneyev, 1999;Han and Ro, 2005): the Lonchaeidae, Piophilidae, Pallopteridae, Richardiidae, Ulidiidae, Platystomatidae, Pyrgotidae, Ctenostylidae and Tephritidae (including Tachiniscidae). The enigmatic family Ctenostylidae is here included in the superfamily based on our molecular study using mitochondrial DNA analysis (Han and Ro, in prep.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A sistemática é controversa, com a família sendo considerada tradicionalmente como a única componente da superfamília Conopoidea, com posição basal entre os Schizophora e grupo-irmão de Tephritoidea (McAlpine, 1989). Outros trabalhos, porém, contestam essa classifi cação, tanto do ponto de vista das análises morfológicas quanto das moleculares, como em Korneyev (1999) e Han & Ro (2004), que propuseram Conopidae como um táxon basal de Schizophora, porém grupo-irmão de Diopsidae. Dentre as propostas mais recentes de classifi cação, a fi logenia baseada na análise molecular de Gibson et al (2010), dependendo do método de análise, ou corrobora a fi logenia morfológica ou sugere o grupo (Conopidae + Lauxanioidea) como irmão de todos os Schizophora.…”
unclassified