@article {22562, title = {Hidden phylogenomic signal helps elucidate arsenurine silkmoth phylogeny and the evolution of body size and wing shape trade-offs}, journal = {Systematic Biology}, volume = {71}, year = {2022}, month = {06/2022}, pages = {859{\textendash}874}, chapter = {859}, abstract = {

\"One of the key objectives in biological research is understanding how evolutionary processes have produced Earth\’s diversity. A critical step toward revealing these processes is an investigation of evolutionary tradeoffs\—that is, the opposing pressures of multiple selective forces. For millennia, nocturnal moths have had to balance successful flight, as they search for mates or host plants, with evading bat predators. However, the potential for evolutionary trade-offs between wing shape and body size are poorly understood. In this study, we used phylogenomics and geometric morphometrics to examine the evolution of wing shape in the wild silkmoth subfamily Arsenurinae (Saturniidae) and evaluate potential evolutionary relationships between body size and wing shape. The phylogeny was inferred based on 782 loci from target capture data of 42 arsenurine species representing all 10 recognized genera. After detecting in our data one of the most vexing problems in phylogenetic inference\—a region of a tree that possesses short branches and no \“support\” for relationships (i.e., a polytomy), we looked for hidden phylogenomic signal (i.e., inspecting differing phylogenetic inferences, alternative support values, quartets, and phylogenetic networks) to better illuminate the most probable generic relationships within the subfamily. We found there are putative evolutionary trade-offs between wing shape, body size, and the interaction of fore- and hindwing (HW) shape. Namely, body size tends to decrease with increasing HW length but increases as forewing (FW) shape becomes more complex. Additionally, the type of HW (i.e., tail or no tail) a lineage possesses has a significant effect on the complexity of FW shape. We outline possible selective forces driving the complex HW shapes that make Arsenurinae, and silkmoths as a whole, so charismatic.\"

}, keywords = {ANCHORED HYBRID ENRICHMENT, ARSENURINAE, GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS, PHYLOGENOMICS, SATURNIIDAE, TRADE-OFFS, TRAITS, WING SHAPE}, doi = {10.1093/sysbio/syab090}, author = {Hamilton, C.A. and Winiger, N. and Rubin, J.J. and Breinholt, J. and Rougerie, R. and Kitching, I.J. and Barber, J.R. and Kawahara, A.Y.} } @article {22414, title = {The evolution of two distinct strategies of moth flight}, journal = {Journal of the Royal Society Interface}, volume = {18}, year = {2021}, month = {11/2021}, pages = {20210632}, chapter = {202106v32}, abstract = {

\"Across insects, wing shape and size have undergone dramatic divergence even in closely related sister groups. However, we do not know how morphology changes in tandem with kinematics to support body weight within available power and how the specific force production patterns are linked to differences in behaviour. Hawkmoths and wild silkmoths are diverse sister families with divergent wing morphology. Using three-dimensional kinematics and quasisteady aerodynamic modelling,we compare the aerodynamics and the contributions of wing shape, size and kinematics in 10 moth species. We find that wing movement also diverges between the clades and underlies two distinct strategies for flight.Hawkmoths use wing kinematics, especially high frequencies, to enhance force and wing morphologies that reduce power. Silkmoths use wing morphology to enhance force, and slow, high-amplitude wingstrokes to reduce power. Both strategies converge on similar aerodynamic power and can support similar body weight ranges. However, inter-clade within-wingstroke force profiles are quite different and linked to the hovering flight of hawkmoths and the bobbing flight of silkmoths. These two moth groups fly more like other, distantly related insects than they do each other, demonstrating the diversity of flapping flight evolution and a rich bioinspired design space for robotic flappers.\"

}, keywords = {AERODYNAMICS, EVOLUTION, FLIGHT CONTROL, KINEMATICS, MORPHOLOGY, MORPHOMETRICS, SATURNIIDAE, SPHINGIDAE, WING LOADING, WING SHAPE}, doi = {10.1098/rsif.2021.0632}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0632}, author = {Aiello, B.R. and Sikandar, U.B. and Minoguchi, H. and Bhinderwala, B. and Hamilton, C.A. and Kawahara, A.Y. and Sponberg, S.} } @article {22377, title = {Adaptive shifts underlie the divergence in wing morphology in bombycoid moths}, journal = {Proceedings of the Royal Society B}, volume = {288}, year = {2021}, month = {08/2021}, pages = {20210677}, chapter = {20210677}, abstract = {

\"The evolution of flapping flight is linked to the prolific success of insects. Across Insecta, wing morphology diversified, strongly impacting aerodynamic performance. In the presence of ecological opportunity, discrete adaptive shifts and early bursts are two processes hypothesized to give rise to exceptional morphological diversification. Here, we use the sister-families Sphingidae and Saturniidae to answer how the evolution of aerodynamically important traits is linked to clade divergence and through what process(es) these traits evolve. Many agile Sphingidae evolved hover-feeding behaviors, while adult Saturniidae lack functional mouth parts and rely on a fixed energy budget as adults. We find that Sphingidae underwent an adaptive shift in wing morphology coincident with life history and behavior divergence, evolving small high aspect-ratio wings advantageous for power reduction that can be moved at high frequencies, beneficial for flight control. In contrast, Saturniidae, which do not feed as adults, evolved large wings and morphology which surprisingly does not reduce aerodynamic power, but could contribute to their erratic flight behavior, aiding in predator avoidance. We suggest that after the evolution of flapping flight, diversification of wing morphology can be potentiated by adaptative shifts, shaping the diversity of wing morphology across insects.\"

}, keywords = {ADAPTATION, AERODYNAMICS, ASPECT RATIO, BOMBYCOIDEA, EVOLUTION, FLIGHT CONTROL, SATURNIIDAE, SPHINGIDAE}, doi = {10.1098/rspb.2021.0677}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0677}, author = {Aiello, B.R. and Tan, M. and Bin Sikandar, U. and Alvey, A.J. and Bhinderwala B. and Kimball, K.C. and Barber, J.R. and Hamilton, C.A. and Kawahara, A.Y. and Sponberg, S.} } @article {21830, title = {A global checklist of the Bombycoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera)}, journal = {Biodiversity Data Journal}, volume = {6}, year = {2018}, month = {02/2018}, pages = {e22236}, chapter = {e22236}, abstract = {

\"Background
Bombycoidea is an ecologically diverse and speciose superfamily of Lepidoptera. The superfamily includes many model organisms, but the taxonomy and classification of the superfamily has remained largely in disarray. Here we present a global checklist of Bombycoidea. Following Zwick (2008) and Zwick et al. (2011), ten families are recognized: Anthelidae, Apatelodidae, Bombycidae, Brahmaeidae, Carthaeidae, Endromidae, Eupterotidae, Phiditiidae, Saturniidae and Sphingidae. The former families Lemoniidae and Mirinidae are included within Brahmaeidae and Endromidae respectively. The former bombycid subfamilies Oberthueriinae and Prismostictinae are also treated as synonyms of Endromidae, and the former bombycine subfamilies Apatelodinae and Phitditiinae are treated as families.


New information
This checklist represents the first effort to synthesize the current taxonomic treatment of the entire superfamily. It includes 12,159 names and references to their authors, and it accounts for the recent burst in species and subspecies descriptions within family Saturniidae (ca. 1,500 within the past 10 years) and to a lesser extent in Sphingidae (ca. 250 species over the same period). The changes to the higher classification of Saturniidae proposed by N\ässig et al. (2015) are rejected as premature and unnecessary. The new tribes, subtribes and genera described by Cooper (2002) are here treated as junior synonyms. We also present a new higher classification of Sphingidae, based on Kawahara et al. (2009), Barber and Kawahara (2013) and a more recent phylogenomic study by Breinholt et al. (2017), as well as a reviewed genus and species level classification, as documented by Kitching (2018).\"

}, keywords = {ANTHELIDAE, APATELODIDAE, BOMBYCIDAE, BRAHMAEIDAE, CARTHAEIDAE, CATALOGUE, CHECKLIST, ENDROMIDAE, EUPTEROTIDAE, HIGHER CLASSIFICATION, ORECTA, PHIDITIIDAE, SATURNIIDAE, SPHINGIDAE}, doi = {10.3897/BDJ.6.e22236}, url = {https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.6.e22236}, author = {Kitching, I.J. and Rougerie, R. and Zwick, A. and Hamilton, C.A. and St._Laurent, R. and Naumann, S. and Ballesteros-Mejia, L. and Kawahara, A.Y.} }