The adult head structures of Tipulomorpha (Diptera, Insecta) and their phylogenetic implications

Schneeberg, Katharina; Beutel, Rolf G.

doi:10.1111/j.1463-6395.2010.00463.x

Cited by 15 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(94 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A partial fusion also occurs in Sciaridae and Scatopsidae, apparently the result of parallel evolution. Other shared derived characters of Tipuloidea are the absence of M. craniolacinialis (M. 19) and the presence of only one muscle of the precerebral pharyngeal pump, but both characters also occur in several other dipteran groups [28,58,59,60]. The anterior tentorial arm is a thick hollow tube in the dipteran groundplan, as it is the case in most species examined.…”

Section: Phylogenetic Implications Of the Examined Charactersmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…An apomorphic character of Tipuloidea is the partial fusion of the stipites in adults. This groundplan feature is found in Pedicia and in Limonia, whereas the stipites are completely fused in Tipulidae [58]. A partial fusion also occurs in Sciaridae and Scatopsidae, apparently the result of parallel evolution.…”

Section: Phylogenetic Implications Of the Examined Charactersmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…The anterior tentorial arm is a thick hollow tube in the dipteran groundplan, as it is the case in most species examined. The anterior arm is massive in most groups of Tipuloidea (entire anterior arm in Pedicia and in Cylindrotoma, anterior part in Limonia; see [58]). Similar conditions have evolved independently in Syrphidae and in some members of Bibionomorpha.…”

Section: Phylogenetic Implications Of the Examined Charactersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Groundplan features of the adult and larval head. The adult head is orthognathous in the dipteran groundplan and in most taxa examined, whereas it is prognathous in Tipulomorpha [58], Nymphomyiomorpha [50], Ptychopteromorpha, and most members of Culicomorpha (partim, not in Simuliidae and in Ceratopogonidae) [41]. The head of Mecoptera (with the exception of Nannochorista) [80,81,82] and Siphonaptera [83] is also orthognathous, indicating that Table 4.…”

Section: Character Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The evolution of head structures in lower Diptera

Beutel

Schneeberg

2015

ScienceOpen Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The head of adult dipterans is mainly characterized by modifications and more or less far-reaching reductions of the mouthparts (e.g., mandibles and maxillae), linked with the specialization on liquid food and the reduced necessity to process substrates mechanically. In contrast, the compound eyes and the antennae, sense organs used for orientation and for finding a suitable mating partner and oviposition site, are well developed. Some evolutionary novelties are specific adaptations to feeding on liquefied substrates, such as labellae with furrows or pseudotracheae on their surface, and the strongly developed pre– and postcerebral pumping apparatuses. In some dipteran groups specialized on blood, the mandibles are still present as piercing stylets. They are completely reduced in the vast majority of families. Within the group far-reaching modifications of the antennae take place, with a strongly reduced number of segments and a specific configuration in Brachycera. The feeding habits and mouthparts of dipteran larvae are much more diverse than in the adults. The larval head is prognathous and fully exposed in the dipteran groundplan and most groups of lower Diptera. In Tipuloidea and Brachycera it is partly or largely retracted, and the sclerotized elements of the external head capsule are partly or fully reduced. The larval head of Cyclorrhapha is largely reduced. A complex and unique feature of this group is the cephaloskeleton. The movability of the larvae is limited due to the lack of thoracic legs. This can be partly compensated by the mouthparts, which are involved in locomotion in different groups. The mouth hooks associated with the cyclorrhaphan cephaloskeleton provide anchorage in the substrate.

show abstract

Section: Phylogenetic Implications Of the Examined Charactersmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Phylogenetic Implications Of the Examined Charactersmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Phylogenetic Implications Of the Examined Charactersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Character Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The evolution of head structures in lower Diptera

Beutel

Schneeberg

2015

ScienceOpen Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This peculiar conclusion was based on five character states, namely the presence of an adult hypostomal bridge, the loss of foretibial spurs, the loss of midtibial spurs and the loss of hind tibial spurs and finally, the loss of the maxillary palpus (the later bringing the Nymphomyiidae close to the base of the Brachycera because the exemplar for the Acroceridae (Ogcodes basalis) was also missing its mouthparts (but present in some other Acroceridae)). The hypostomal bridge is poorly understood in nematocerous Diptera (Schneeberg & Beutel, 2011) and is present in Nannochoristidae; its validity needs new and comparative observations including re-evaluation of the scoring for this feature by Lambkin et al (2013) (it is present, for example, in Tipulidae and Culicidae). The remaining four character states (all losses) were, first of all quite likely related between the three leg characters (evolutionarily linked and not independent indicators of relationship) and secondly are susceptible to known homoplasy (such losses occur in a number of other families).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

The adult head morphology of the hessian flyMayetiola destructor(diptera, cecidomyiidae)

Schneeberg

Polilov

Harris

et al. 2013

Journal of Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adult head of the Hessian fly Mayetiola destructor was examined and described in detail. Morphological features are evaluated with respect to phylogenetic implications and possible effects of miniaturisation. Preserved groundplan features of Diptera are the orthognathous orientation of the head, the vestiture of small microtrichia (possible autapomorphy), filiform antennae inserted frontally between the compound eyes, the presence of a clypeolabral muscle (possible autapomorphy), the presence of labellae (autapomorphy), and the presence of only one premental retractor. Potential synapomorphies of the groups assigned to Bibionomorpha are the origin of M. tentorioscapalis medialis on the frons and the loss of M. craniolacinialis. Further apomorphies of Cecidomyiidae identified in Mayetiola are the unusually massive anterior tentorial arm, the absence of the labro-epipharyngeal food channel, the absence of the lacinia, and the presence of antennal sensilla connected by a seta, a feature not known from any other group of Diptera. The very large size of the compound eyes (in relation to the entire head surface) and the complete loss of ocelli are possible effects of miniaturization. The large size of the brain (in relation to the cephalic lumen), the unusual shape of the optic lobes, and the absence of the frontal ganglion as a separate structure are probably also linked with size reduction.

show abstract

The adult head structures of Tipulomorpha (Diptera, Insecta) and their phylogenetic implications

Cited by 15 publications

References 37 publications

The evolution of head structures in lower Diptera

The evolution of head structures in lower Diptera

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

The adult head morphology of the hessian flyMayetiola destructor(diptera, cecidomyiidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About