4.7 Article

Phylogenetic relationships among tribes of the green lacewing subfamily Chrysopinae recovered based on mitochondrial phylogenomics

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07431-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [5162016]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31672322]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1144119] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [1144119] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chrysopidae (green lacewings) is the second largest family in Neuroptera, and it includes medium-size lacewings largely recognized by the presence of golden-colored eyes, bright green bodies and delicate wings with dense venation patterns. The subfamily Chrysopinae includes 97% of the species diversity in the family and it is currently divided into four tribes: Ankylopterygini, Belonopterygini, Chrysopini and Leucochrysini. Here we sequenced and annotated the nearly complete mitochondrial genomes of four species of each these tribes: Abachrysa eureka, Italochrysa insignis, Leucochrysa pretiosa, Parankyloteryx sp. We then reconstructed the phylogenetic relationships with estimated divergence times among tribes of Chrysopinae based on the mt genomic data. Our results suggest that Chrysopinae sans Nothancyla verreauxi evolved as two reciprocally monophyletic lineages formed by stem members of the tribes Leucochrysini plus Belonopterygini on one hand, and the stem members of Ankylopterygini plus Chrysopini on the other. Our estimations of divergence times place the diversification of stem Chrysopinae into the extant tribes during the Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous. The relatively young ages previously estimated for the green lacewing divergences were probably underestimated due to false inferences of homology between non-sister taxa that are later correctly identified as homoplasy after more taxa are added.

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