4.7 Article

Phylogeny of the genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Homoptera: Aphididae) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 598-611

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.006

Keywords

molecular phylogenetics; systematic; aphid; Aphis; Bursaphis; Aphidinae; Aphidini; mitochondrial DNA; species-group; Black aphid; Black backed aphid; frangulae-like species aphid

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aphis is the largest aphid genus in the world and contains several of the most injurious aphid pests. It is also the most reluctant aphid genus to any comprehensive taxonomic treatment: while most species are easily classified into species groups that form well defined entities, numerous species within these groups are difficult to tell apart morphologically and identification keys remain ambiguous and mostly rely on host plant affiliation. In this paper, we used partial sequences of COI/COII and CytB genes to reconstruct the first phylogeny of Aphis and discuss the present systematics. The monophyly of the subgenus Bursaphis and of the tree major species groups, Black aphid, Black backed aphid and frangulae-like species was recovered by all phylogenetic analyses. However our data suggested that the nominal subgenus was not monophyletic. Relationships between major species groups were often ambiguous but Black and Black backed species groups appeared as sister clades. The most striking result of this study was that our molecular data met the same limits as the morphological characters used in classifications: mitochondrial DNA did not allow the differentiation of species that are difficult to identify. Further, interspecies relationships within groups of species for which taxonomic treatment is difficult stayed unresolved. This suggests that species delineation in the genus Aphis is often ambiguous and that diversification might have been a rapid process. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available