4.0 Letter

Quantifying the unquantifiable: why Hymenoptera, not Coleoptera, is the most speciose animal order

期刊

BMC ECOLOGY
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12898-018-0176-x

关键词

Beetles; Inordinate fondness; Animal diversity; Parasitic wasps; Parasitoids; Species richness

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB 1145355, 1542269]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1542269] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We challenge the oft-repeated claim that the beetles (Coleoptera) are the most species-rich order of animals. Instead, we assert that another order of insects, the Hymenoptera, is more speciose, due in large part to the massively diverse but relatively poorly known parasitoid wasps. The idea that the beetles have more species than other orders is primarily based on their respective collection histories and the relative availability of taxonomic resources, which both disfavor parasitoid wasps. Though it is unreasonable to directly compare numbers of described species in each order, the ecology of parasitic wasps-specifically, their intimate interactions with their hosts-allows for estimation of relative richness. Results: We present a simple logical model that shows how the specialization of many parasitic wasps on their hosts suggests few scenarios in which there would be more beetle species than parasitic wasp species. We couple this model with an accounting of what we call the genus-specific parasitoid-hostratio from four well-studied genera of insect hosts, a metric by which to generate extremely conservative estimates of the average number of parasitic wasp species attacking a given beetle or other insect host species. Conclusions: Synthesis of our model with data from real host systems suggests that the Hymenoptera may have 2.5-3.2x more species than the Coleoptera. While there are more described species of beetles than all other animals, the Hymenoptera are almost certainly the larger order.

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

4.0
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