Resolving the relationships of apid bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) through a direct optimization sensitivity analysis of molecular, morphological, and behavioural characters

Abstract

Phylogenetic analyses that incorporate the most character information also provide the most explanatory power. Here I demonstrate the value of such an approach through a direct optimization sensitivity analysis of apid bee phylogeny. Whereas prior studies have relied solely on one class of data or the other, this analysis combines previously published molecular, morphological, and behavioural characters into a single supermatrix. The final dataset includes 191 ingroup and 30 outgroup taxa, and includes data from seven unaligned gene sequences (18S, 28S, wingless, EF1‐α, polII, Nak, LW rhodopsin), 209 adult and larval morphological characters, and two behavioural characters. Nine different sets of transformation cost parameters are evaluated, along with their relative degrees of character incongruence. The preferred parameter set returns a strict consensus tree somewhat similar to, but more resolved than, a previous parsimony tree based on molecules alone. I also describe the effects of including EF1‐α and LW rhodopsin intron sequences on the outcome of the direct optimization analysis. By accounting for more evidence, this study provides the most comprehensive treatment yet of apid phylogenetic relationships.

A morphological supermatrix‐based phylogeny for the Neotropical fish superfamily Anostomoidea (Ostariophysi: Characiformes): phylogeny, missing data and homoplasy

“…To date, the supermatrix approach has primarily involved mining molecular data from public databases (e.g. Simmons and Goloboff, ), but it can apply to different data types including morphology, behaviour (Payne, ) and combinations of data types (e.g. Geisler et al., ; Payne, ).…”

“…Simmons and Goloboff, ), but it can apply to different data types including morphology, behaviour (Payne, ) and combinations of data types (e.g. Geisler et al., ; Payne, ). Our study demonstrates how a supermatrix approach can facilitate modern parametric and non‐parametric analysis of the extensive morphological character sets in classic monographic works.…”

Comparative morphology of the mandibles and head structures of corbiculate bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Apini)

“…All character state transformations were optimized on topologies that express opposing views on the phylogenetic relationships among the corbiculate subtribes: Apina as sister group of Meliponina (‘Hypothesis 1’, supported by most morphological and behavioural studies: Michener, , ; Maa, ; Prentice, ; Roig‐Alsina & Michener, ; Chavarría & Carpenter, ; Schultz et al ., ; Ascher et al ., ; Engel, ,; Noll, ; Cardinal & Packer, ; Payne, ; Canevazzi & Noll, ), and Bombina as sister‐group of Meliponina (‘Hypothesis 2’, supported by Cameron & Mardulyn, ). In either scenario, the Euglossina were placed as sister to the remaining corbiculate subtribes, and Apini was deliberately represented as monophyletic and sister to Centridini.…”

“…Most of the morphological analyses published after Roig‐Alsina & Michener () recycled their character sample without carefully evaluating or adding much to it (e.g. Chavarría & Carpenter, ; Schultz et al ., ; Ascher et al ., ; Engel, ,b; Payne, ). Thus, it is important not only to include new data, but also to check and recheck previously used characters, especially those of difficult interpretation, and illustrate/image them as much as possible to avoid future ambiguities.…”

Palaeocene origin of the Neotropical lineage of cleptoparasitic bees Ericrocidini‐Rhathymini (Hymenoptera, Apidae)

“…Cleptoparasitism has been reported in almost all bee subfamilies, except for Mellitinae and Stenotritinae, but is most species‐rich in the long‐tongued lineage (subfamilies Apinae and Megachilinae) (Straka & Bogusch, ; Cardinal et al ., ; Litman et al ., ). Cleptoparasitism originated early in the history of bees, approximately 95 Ma in the Cretaceous, in a large subclade within Apinae (Cardinal et al ., ; Payne, ). While many parasitic groups evolved from pollen‐collecting ancestors, the reverse – cleptoparasitism evolving to pollen‐collecting – has never been reported (Litman et al ., ).…”