4.7 Article

A phylogenetic revision of the Glaucopsyche section (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), with special focus on the Phengaris-Maculinea clade

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 237-243

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.05.016

关键词

Ants; Lycaenid butterflies; Parasitic caterpillars; Phylogeny; Maximum likelihood; Bayesian inference

资金

  1. Danish National Science Research Foundation
  2. Tonder Statsskoles Elevforening
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB-0447242]
  4. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [CGL2010-21226/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite much research on the socially parasitic large blue butterflies (genus Maculinea) in the past 40 years, their relationship to their closest relatives, Phengaris, is controversial and the relationships among the remaining genera in the Glaucopsyche section are largely unresolved. The evolutionary history of this butterfly section is particularly important to understand the evolution of life history diversity connected to food-plant and host-ant associations in the larval stage. In the present study, we use a combination of four nuclear and two mitochondrial genes to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Glaucopsyche section, and in particular, to study the relationships among and within the Phengaris-Maculinea species. We find a clear pattern between the clades recovered in the Glaucopsyche section phylogeny and their food-plant associations, with only the Phengaris-Maculinea clade utilising more than one plant family. Maculinea is, for the first time, recovered with strong support as a monophyletic group nested within Phengaris, with the closest relative being the rare genus Caerulea. The genus Glaucopsyche is polyphyletic, including the genera Sinia and lolana. Interestingly, we find evidence for additional potential cryptic species within the highly endangered Maculinea, which has long been suspected from morphological, ecological and molecular studies. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据