2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106983
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylomitogenomics provides new perspectives on the Euphasmatodea radiation (Insecta: Phasmatodea)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

10
32
0
5

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
10
32
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The divergence of Phylliidae was estimated to have started at ~49.9 mya (55.5 – 47.1 mya) and at ~51.1 mya (64.0–38.2 mya) for FC and RC analyses, respectively, with the clades established as genera largely originating in the Oligocene. While our estimates are comparable to previously obtained divergence times 25 , 33 and within the credibility intervals of others 24 , 41 , the analyses by Tihelka et al 34 and Forni et al 45 have presented a much older origin of Euphasmatodea (Jurassic) and Phylliidae (Cretaceous) (Fig. 4 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The divergence of Phylliidae was estimated to have started at ~49.9 mya (55.5 – 47.1 mya) and at ~51.1 mya (64.0–38.2 mya) for FC and RC analyses, respectively, with the clades established as genera largely originating in the Oligocene. While our estimates are comparable to previously obtained divergence times 25 , 33 and within the credibility intervals of others 24 , 41 , the analyses by Tihelka et al 34 and Forni et al 45 have presented a much older origin of Euphasmatodea (Jurassic) and Phylliidae (Cretaceous) (Fig. 4 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In addition to the usage of different fossils, also the varying definition of upper bounds appears to result in incongruent divergence times estimations. Although the rising discussion on the contradictory phasmatodean divergence times deserves further attention (see also Forni et al ., 2021 for another significantly older estimation), a full‐fledged analysis and discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of the present study. Since the general divergence times of extant Euphasmatodea estimated by Simon et al .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…(2018), such as Echinosomiscus primoticus Engel & Wang, a fossil insect preserved in Cretaceous amber (∼99 mya) described as an adult male related to a subordinate lineage comprising Lonchodinae and Clitumninae (Engel et al ., 2016). However, this extremely small fossil most probably does not belong to Phasmatodea at all (Bradler & Buckley, 2018) and was used as calibration point for Phasmatodea or Euphasmatodea (Simon et al ., 2019; Forni et al ., 2020; Forni et al ., 2021), whereas Tihelka et al . (2020) included it as calibration point within the much more subordinate Oriophasmata.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…By contrast, Bank et al, based on three nuclear data sets (18S, 28S and H3) and four mitochondrial data genes At the family level, our data supported the monophyly of Heteropterygidae but Diapheromeridae, Phasmatidae, and Lonchodidae were not recovered. Lonchodidae consists of two subfamilies, Lonchodinae and Necrosciinae, but did not form a clade, which was also reported by Forni et al, Kômoto et al,and Song et al [6,22,33]. However, the phylogenetic relationship among Dataminae, Heteropteryginae, and Obriminae of Heteropteridae is still controversial.…”
Section: Phylogenetic Analysesmentioning
confidence: 81%