4.7 Article

Molecular phylogenetic analysis of nycteribiid and streblid bat flies (Diptera : Brachycera, Calyptratae): Implications for host associations and phylogeographic origins

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 155-170

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2005.06.008

Keywords

Nycteribiidae; Streblidae

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bat flies are a small but diverse group of highly specialized ectoparasitic, obligatory bloodsucking Diptera. For the first time, the phylogenetic relationships of 26 species and five subfamilies were investigated using four genes (18S rDNA, 16S rDNA, CoII, and cytB) under three optimality criteria (maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML), and Bayesian inference). Tree topology tests of previous hypotheses were conducted under likelihood (Shimodaira-Hasegawa test). Major findings include the non-monophyly of the Streblidae and the recovery of an Old World- and a New World-Clade of bat flies. These data ambiguously resolve basal relationships between Hippoboscidae, Glossinidae, and bat flies. Recovered phylogenies resulted in either monophyly (Bayesian approach) or paraphyly (MP/ML topologies) of the bat flies, thus obscuring the potential number of possible associations with bats throughout the history of this group. Dispersal-vicariance analysis suggested the Neotropical region as the possible ancestral distribution area of the New World Streblidae and the Oriental region for the Old World bat flies. The genes examined show conflicting support across the nodes of the tree, particularly in the basal positions. Additionally, there is poor character support among all genes for the nodes associated with early hippoboscoid diversification. This results in extremely short basal branches, adding support to the idea of a rapid radiation among the four major groups of Hippoboscoidea. (c) 2005 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