03040nas a2200385 4500008004100000024001700041245012400058210006900182300001200251490000700263520200900270653001602279653001302295653000802308653001902316653001802335653000802353653001702361653001602378653001502394653001102409653001402420653001602434653001602450653001602466653001202482653001302494100001702507700001602524700001502540700001502555700001802570700001702588856004902605 2008 eng d aPapyrus 805700aPhylogenetic relationships of wild silkmoths (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) inferred from four protein-coding nuclear genes0 aPhylogenetic relationships of wild silkmoths Lepidoptera Saturni a219-2280 v333 a

"The Saturniidae, or wild silkmoths, number approximately 1861 species in 162 genera and nine subfamilies including Cercophaninae and Oxyteninae. They include some of the largest and most spectacular of all Lepidoptera, such as the moon or luna moths, atlas moths, emperor moths, and many others. Saturniids have been important as sources of wild silk and/or human food in a number of cultures, and as models for comparative studies of genetics, development, physiology, and ecology. Seeking to improve the phylogenetic framework for such studies, we estimated relationships across Saturniidae, sampling all nine subfamilies plus all five tribes of Saturniinae. Seventy-five exemplars (45 Saturniidae plus 30 bombycoid outgroups) were sequenced for four protein-coding nuclear gene regions (5625 bp total), namely CAD (the fusion protein carbamoylphosphate synthetase/aspartate transcarbamylase/dihydroorotase), DDC (dopa decarboxylase), period, and wingless. The data, analyzed by parsimony and likelihood, gave a strongly resolved phylogeny at all levels. Relationships among subfamilies largely mirrored the pre-cladistic hypothesis of Michener, albeit with significant exceptions, and there was definitive support for the morphology-based proposal that Ludiinae form a tribe (Micragonini) within Saturniinae. In the latter subfamily, the African tribe Urotini was shown to be paraphyletic with respect to Bunaeini and Micragonini, also in accord with recent morphological findings. Relationships within the New World subfamilies Arsenurinae, Ceratocampinae and Hemileucinae nearly always accord with previous morphology-based phylogenies when both are clearly resolved. Within Hemileucinae, Hemileucini are paraphyletic with respect to the monotypic Polythysanini. A preliminary biogeographical analysis supports ancestral restriction to the New World, followed by dispersal and/or vicariance splitting most of the family into a largely New World versus a largely Old World clade."

10aARSENURINAE10aBUNAEINI10aCAD10aCERATOCAMPINAE10aCERCOPHANINAE10aDDC10aHEMILEUCINAE10aMICRAGONINI10aOXYTENINAE10aPERIOD10aPHYLOGENY10aPOLYTHYSANA10aSATURNIIDAE10aSATURNIINAE10aUROTINI10aWINGLESS1 aRegier, J.C.1 aGrant, M.C.1 aMitter, C.1 aCook, C.P.1 aPeigler, R.S.1 aRougerie, R. uhttps://sphingidae.myspecies.info/node/2151902842nas a2200241 4500008004100000024001700041245012500058210006900183300000900252490000700261520213500268653000802403653000802411653001402419653001402433653001602447653001602463100001702479700001502496700001802511700002202529856004902551 2002 eng d aPapyrus 677100aMonophyly, composition, and relationships within Saturniinae (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae): evidence from two nuclear genes0 aMonophyly composition and relationships within Saturniinae Lepid a9-210 v333 a

"The approximately 1500 species of Saturniidae or wild silk moths, which include some of the largest of all lepidopterans, have provided important model systems for studies of ecology, developmental genetics, and behavior. Such studies would benefit from a robust comparative framework, but there has been little phylogenetic analysis of this family. To address this, we use nuclear gene sequences to test hypotheses about the monophyly and internal relationships of the large and geographically widespread subfamily Saturniinae (63 genera, 644 spp.). Extending our previous examination of the genera of Attacini, we analyze coding sequence from elongation factor-1α (1240 nt) and dopa decarboxylase (typically 1051 nt) in 64 species representing four of five tribes in Saturniinae, 11 of 16 genera in Saturniini, and outgroups in Saturniidae and other bombycoids. The results support a recent postulate that Saturniinae, largely Oriental and Palearctic in distribution, should include the African Micragonini. The alternative that Micragonini or some subgroup thereof constitute its own subfamily (previously called Ludiinae) is shown to result in a paraphyletic Saturniinae. Micragonini group strongly with the tribe Bunaeini, also African. Monophyly for Saturniinae, including Micragonini, is strongly supported, as is a basal split between Attacini + Saturniini and Bunaeini + Micragonini. As a consequence, a postulated affinity to the African tribes of two Madagascan endemic Saturniini, thus rendering Saturniini paraphyletic, is rejected. However, there is no strong evidence either way on monophyly of Saturniini versus paraphyly with respect to the clearly monophyletic Attacini (atlas moths and relatives). This result reflects generally weak resolution of deeper divergences in Saturnini. Several lower-level groupings within Saturniini are strongly corroborated, including the tailed-hindwinged 'moon moths' (Argema, Actias, Graellsia) that specialize on resinous hostplants, and Saturnia sensu lato, a consolidation of eight small, former genera."

10aDDC10aDNA10aEF-1ALPHA10aPHYLOGENY10aSATURNIIDAE10aSATURNIINAE1 aRegier, J.C.1 aMitter, C.1 aPeigler, R.S.1 aFriedlander, T.P. uhttps://sphingidae.myspecies.info/node/2151803937nas a2200337 4500008004100000024001700041245010700058210006900165260001200234300001000246490000700256520300900263653001503272653001603287653001603303653000803319653001503327653001203342653002603354653002303380653001403403653001803417653001603435653001403451653002003465100001403485700001703499700001503516700001903531856004903550 2011 eng d aPapyrus 855300aIncreased gene sampling yields robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera)0 aIncreased gene sampling yields robust support for higherlevel cl c01/2011 a31-430 v363 a

"This study has as its primary aim the robust resolution of higher-level relationships within the lepidopteran superfamily Bombycoidea. Our study builds on an earlier analysis of five genes (∼6.6 kbp) sequenced for 50 taxa from Bombycoidea and its sister group Lasiocampidae, plus representatives of other macrolepidoteran superfamilies. The earlier study failed to yield strong support for the monophyly of and basal splits within Bombycoidea, among others. Therefore, in an effort to increase support specifically for higher-level nodes, we generated 11.7 kbp of additional data from 20 genes for 24 of 50 bombycoid and lasiocampid taxa. The data from the genes are all derived from protein-coding nuclear genes previously used to resolve other lepidopteran relationships. With these additional data, all but a few higher-level nodes are strongly supported. Given our decision to minimize project costs by augmenting genes for only 24 of the 50 taxa, we explored whether the resulting pattern of missing data in the combined-gene matrix introduced a nonphylogenetic bias, a possibility reported by others. This was achieved by comparing node support values (i.e. nonparametric bootstrap values) based on likelihood and parsimony analyses of three datasets that differ in their number of taxa and level of missing data: 50 taxa/5 genes (dataset A), 50 taxa/25 genes (dataset B) and 24 taxa/25 genes (dataset C). Whereas datasets B and C provided similar results for common nodes, both frequently yielded higher node support relative to dataset A, arguing that: (i) more data yield increased node support and (ii) partial gene augmentation does not introduce an obvious nonphylogenetic bias. A comparison of single-gene bootstrap analyses identified four nodes for which one or two of the 25 genes provided modest to strong support for a grouping not recovered by the combined-gene result. As a summary proposal, two of these four groupings (one each within Bombycoidea and Lasiocampidae) were deemed sufficiently problematic to regard them as unresolved trichotomies. Since the alternative groupings were always highly localized on the tree, we did not judge a combined-gene analysis to present a problem outside those regions. Based on our robustly resolved results, we have revised the classification of Bombycoidea: the family Bombycidae is restricted to its nominate subfamily, and its tribe Epiini is elevated to subfamily rank (Epiinae stat.rev.), whereas the bombycid subfamily Phiditiinae is reinstated as a separate family (Phiditiidae stat.rev.). The bombycid subfamilies Oberthueriinae Kuznetzov & Stekolnikov, 1985, syn.nov. and Prismostictinae Forbes, 1955, syn.nov., and the family Mirinidae Kozlov, 1985, syn.nov. are established as subjective junior synonyms of Endromidae Boisduval, 1828. The family Anthelidae (Lasiocampoidea) is reincluded in the superfamily Bombycoidea."

10aBOMBYCIDAE10aBOMBYCOIDEA10aCARTHAEIDAE10aDNA10aENDROMIDAE10aEPIINAE10aHIGHER CLASSIFICATION10aMAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD10aMIRINIDAE10aOBERTHUERINAE10aPHIDITIIDAE10aPHYLOGENY10aPRISMOSTICTINAE1 aZwick, A.1 aRegier, J.C.1 aMitter, C.1 aCummings, M.P. uhttps://sphingidae.myspecies.info/node/2151403932nas a2200589 4500008004100000024001700041245011800058210006900176260001200245300001100257490000600268520247700274653001102751653001102762653001102773653001202784653000802796653001602804653001402820653001402834653000802848653000802856653000802864653000802872653001202880653001002892653002602902653001602928653002002944653002302964653001002987653001402997653001503011653001403026100001703040700001503057700001403072700001803086700001803104700001903122700001603141700001703157700001203174700001603186700001703202700001403219700001303233700001503246700001503261700001703276856004903293 2013 eng d aPapyrus 176000aA large-scale, higher-Level, molecular phylogenetic study of the insect order Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies)0 alargescale higherLevel molecular phylogenetic study of the insec c03/2013 ae585680 v83 a

"Background: Higher-level relationships within the Lepidoptera, and particularly within the species-rich subclade Ditrysia, are
generally not well understood, although recent studies have yielded progress. We present the most comprehensive
molecular analysis of lepidopteran phylogeny to date, focusing on relationships among superfamilies.

Methodology / Principal Findings: 483 taxa spanning 115 of 124 families were sampled for 19 protein-coding nuclear
genes, from which maximum likelihood tree estimates and bootstrap percentages were obtained using GARLI. Assessment
of heuristic search effectiveness showed that better trees and higher bootstrap percentages probably remain to be
discovered even after 1000 or more search replicates, but further search proved impractical even with grid computing.
Other analyses explored the effects of sampling nonsynonymous change only versus partitioned and unpartitioned total
nucleotide change; deletion of rogue taxa; and compositional heterogeneity. Relationships among the non-ditrysian
lineages previously inferred from morphology were largely confirmed, plus some new ones, with strong support. Robust
support was also found for divergences among non-apoditrysian lineages of Ditrysia, but only rarely so within Apoditrysia.
Paraphyly for Tineoidea is strongly supported by analysis of nonsynonymous-only signal; conflicting, strong support for
tineoid monophyly when synonymous signal was added back is shown to result from compositional heterogeneity.

Conclusions / Significance: Support for among-superfamily relationships outside the Apoditrysia is now generally strong.
Comparable support is mostly lacking within Apoditrysia, but dramatically increased bootstrap percentages for some nodes
after rogue taxon removal, and concordance with other evidence, strongly suggest that our picture of apoditrysian
phylogeny is approximately correct. This study highlights the challenge of finding optimal topologies when analyzing
hundreds of taxa. It also shows that some nodes get strong support only when analysis is restricted to nonsynonymous
change, while total change is necessary for strong support of others. Thus, multiple types of analyses will be necessary to
fully resolve lepidopteran phylogeny."

10a109FIN10a265FIN10a268FIN10a3007FIN10aACC10aAPODITRYSIA10aBARCODING10aBOOTSTRAP10aCAD10aCOI10aDDC10aDNA10aENOLASE10aGARLI10aHIGHER CLASSIFICATION10aLEPIDOPTERA10aMACROHETEROCERA10aMAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD10aMTDNA10aPHYLOGENY10aROGUE TAXA10aTINEOIDEA1 aRegier, J.C.1 aMitter, C.1 aZwick, A.1 aBazinet, A.L.1 aCumming, M.P.1 aKawahara, A.Y.1 aSohn, J.-C.1 aZwickl, D.J.1 aCho, S.1 aDavis, D.R.1 aBaixeras, J.1 aBrown, J.1 aParr, C.1 aWeller, S.1 aLees, D.C.1 aMitter, K.T. uhttps://sphingidae.myspecies.info/node/2151303668nas a2200361 4500008004100000024001700041245016700058210006900225300001200294490000700306520265600313653001502969653001602984653001603000653000803016653000803024653000803032653001203040653001603052653002103068653002303089653001403112653001103126653001403137653001603151653001503167653001303182100001703195700001503212700001503227700001503242856004903257 2008 eng d aPapyrus 802200aA phylogenetic study of the 'bombycoid complex' (Lepidoptera) using five protein-coding nuclear genes, with comments on the problem of macrolepidopteran phylogeny0 aphylogenetic study of the bombycoid complex Lepidoptera using fi a175-1890 v333 a

"This study had two aims. First, we tested the monophyly of and relationships within the ‘bombycoid complex’, an assembly of approximately 5300 species postulated by Minet to represent 12 families in three superfamilies, by sequencing five protein-coding nuclear gene regions (CAD, DDC, enolase, period, wingless; approximately 6750 bp total) in 66 representatives of most of the subfamilies and tribes. Second, we sought initial evidence on the utility of these genes for estimating relationships among Macrolepidoptera more broadly (11 superfamilies total), by adding representatives of eight families from four other superfamilies, and by assessing the phylogenetic information content of the individual genes and partitions thereof. Analysis of the combined data by likelihood and parsimony upholds monophyly for the bombycoid complex and for Bombycoidea sensu stricto (includes Anthelidae, see below), but with weak bootstrap support. Minet’s assignment of Phiditiinae to Bombycoidea rather than to Noctuoidea is strongly upheld, but Anthelidae, placed in Lasiocampoidea by Minet, group securely within Bombycoidea sensu stricto. Within the latter, the basal split segregates a strongly supported ‘BALE’ group [Apatelodinae + (Eupterotidae + (Brahmaeidae + Lemoniidae))]. The remaining families form a consistently but weakly supported clade, within which the basal split segregates the very strongly supported ‘CAPOPEM’ group [Carthaeidae, Anthelidae, Phiditiinae, (Prismostictini + (Endromidae + (Oberthueriini + Mirinidae)))]. The remaining bombycoids are grouped, very weakly, as Sphingidae + (Bombycinae + Saturniidae). All multiply-sampled families are strongly recovered, in both outgroups and ingroups, except that Bombycidae sensu Minet are rendered decisively polyphyletic. All genes make important contributions to the combined data results, and there is little strong conflict among genes or between synonymous and nonsynonymous change, although two instances of inter-gene conflict were notable, one in Lasiocampidae and one in Mimallonidae. Overall, about 75% of nodes are strongly supported (i.e. bootstrap value ≥80%). Superfamilies are recovered, but not always strongly, whereas relationships among superfamilies are recovered only weakly and inconsistently; even within the reasonably well-sampled Bombycoidea sensu stricto, a (to us) surprising number of interfamily relationships remain uncertain. Thus, it seems clear that substantially more genes, plus additional taxon sampling in most superfamilies, will be required to resolve macrolepidopteran phylogeny."

10aBOMBYCIDAE10aBOMBYCOIDEA10aBRAHMAEIDAE10aCAD10aDDC10aDNA10aENOLASE10aLEPIDOPTERA10aMACROLEPIDOPTERA10aMAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD10aPARSIMONY10aPERIOD10aPHYLOGENY10aSATURNIIDAE10aSPHINGIDAE10aWINGLESS1 aRegier, J.C.1 aCook, C.P.1 aMitter, C.1 aHussey, A. uhttps://sphingidae.myspecies.info/node/2149600772nas a2200265 4500008004100000024001700041245011300058210006900171260000900240300001200249490000700261653001600268653001900284653000800303653000800311653001400319653002300333653001400356653001500370100001700385700001500402700002200417700001800439856004900457 2001 eng d aPapyrus 666200aRe: phylogenetic relationships in Sphingidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera): initial evidence from two nuclear genes0 aRe phylogenetic relationships in Sphingidae Insecta Lepidoptera  c2001 a311-3160 v2010aBOMBYCOIDEA10aCLASSIFICATION10aDDC10aDNA10aEF-1ALPHA10aMAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD10aPARSIMONY10aSPHINGIDAE1 aRegier, J.C.1 aMitter, C.1 aFriedlander, T.P.1 aPeigler, R.S. uhttps://sphingidae.myspecies.info/node/19695