4.5 Article

Phylogenomic analysis resolves the relationships among net-winged beetles (Coleoptera: Lycidae) and reveals the parallel evolution of morphological traits

Journal

SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 911-925

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/syen.12363

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Czech Science Foundation [18-14942S]
  2. Faculty of Science UP [IGA Prf-2019]
  3. Government of Sabah

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Net-winged beetles (Coleoptera: Lycidae) are a diverse group of elateroids known for aposematism and neoteny. Phylogenetic analyses of morphological and molecular data have revealed different results with respect to within-group relationships. In this study, we recovered a highly supported phylogenomic phylogeny and identified seven subfamilies: Dexorinae stat.n., Calochrominae stat.n., Erotinae, Ateliinae, Lycinae, Lyropaeinae stat.n. and Metriorrhynchinae stat.n. Our results suggest that female neoteny evolved multiple times. Therefore, the development of similar morphological modifications in neotenics may be linked and may have produced characteristics such as body miniaturization, structural simplification, i.e. reduction of mouthparts, fewer antennomeres and palpomeres, uniquely shaped terminal palpomeres, shortened elytra, the loss of coadaptation between the elytra and pronotum, and others. Additional traits evolved in parallel due to similarities in biology, function and sexual selection. These characteristics include mimetic similarities, the presence of the rostrum, pronotal carinae and elytral costae, and the structure of male genitalia. By comparing the phylogenomic topology with the evolution of morphological characters, we were able to identify evolutionary trends in lycids and compare them with analogues for other neotenic elateroids. These traits have not been accepted as homoplasies due to the ambiguous phylogenetic signal from Sanger sequencing markers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available