Limits...
Making Mosquito Taxonomy Useful: A Stable Classification of Tribe Aedini that Balances Utility with Current Knowledge of Evolutionary Relationships.

Wilkerson RC, Linton YM, Fonseca DM, Schultz TR, Price DC, Strickman DA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: We found that their phylogeny was largely weakly supported and their taxonomic rankings failed priority and other useful taxon-naming criteria.We do not challenge the phylogenetic hypotheses generated by the above-mentioned series of morphological studies.However, we reduce the ranks of the genera and subgenera of RH&K to subgenera or informal species groups, respectively, to preserve stability as new data become available.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
The tribe Aedini (Family Culicidae) contains approximately one-quarter of the known species of mosquitoes, including vectors of deadly or debilitating disease agents. This tribe contains the genus Aedes, which is one of the three most familiar genera of mosquitoes. During the past decade, Aedini has been the focus of a series of extensive morphology-based phylogenetic studies published by Reinert, Harbach, and Kitching (RH&K). Those authors created 74 new, elevated or resurrected genera from what had been the single genus Aedes, almost tripling the number of genera in the entire family Culicidae. The proposed classification is based on subjective assessments of the "number and nature of the characters that support the branches" subtending particular monophyletic groups in the results of cladistic analyses of a large set of morphological characters of representative species. To gauge the stability of RH&K's generic groupings we reanalyzed their data with unweighted parsimony jackknife and maximum-parsimony analyses, with and without ordering 14 of the characters as in RH&K. We found that their phylogeny was largely weakly supported and their taxonomic rankings failed priority and other useful taxon-naming criteria. Consequently, we propose simplified aedine generic designations that 1) restore a classification system that is useful for the operational community; 2) enhance the ability of taxonomists to accurately place new species into genera; 3) maintain the progress toward a natural classification based on monophyletic groups of species; and 4) correct the current classification system that is subject to instability as new species are described and existing species more thoroughly defined. We do not challenge the phylogenetic hypotheses generated by the above-mentioned series of morphological studies. However, we reduce the ranks of the genera and subgenera of RH&K to subgenera or informal species groups, respectively, to preserve stability as new data become available.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Strict consensus tree derived from the reanalysis of the Aedini morphology data set using unweighted parsimony with 14 ordered characters.Dark circle = nodes supported in [73] and herein; triangle = supported in RH&K [73] but not herein; square = supported herein but not in RH&K [73].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4520491&req=5

pone.0133602.g003: Strict consensus tree derived from the reanalysis of the Aedini morphology data set using unweighted parsimony with 14 ordered characters.Dark circle = nodes supported in [73] and herein; triangle = supported in RH&K [73] but not herein; square = supported herein but not in RH&K [73].

Mentions: We reanalyzed RH&K’s data in the program TNT [75,90], not for the purpose of producing a classification, but rather to test the robustness of RH&K’s [73] generic groups (Fig 3; S1 Tree, S2 Tree, S3 Tree, S4 Tree) under alternative, but similar, cladistic analyses. We assumed that if proposed relationships among genera are not robust when subjected to closely related analytical methods, they are unlikely to be robust to the introduction of new data. To gauge the stability of RH&K’s [73] generic groupings to standard parsimony-based analytical methods, we reanalyzed their data with two alternative methods: (i) unweighted parsimony jackknife analyses, identifying clades and their GC (Groups present/Contradicted) support values [74] on the resulting jackknife tree, and (ii) unweighted maximum-parsimony analyses, identifying clades occurring on the strict consensus of the resulting most parsimonious trees. For each of these analytical methods, we conducted two sets of multiple analyses, one in which all characters were unordered and one in which 14 characters were ordered, as was the case in a subset of the original analyses [73]. We performed all analyses in TNT v.1.1 [75,90], although in some cases we carried out tree-bisection and reconnection (TBR) branch-swapping on accumulated trees in PAUP* [91].


Making Mosquito Taxonomy Useful: A Stable Classification of Tribe Aedini that Balances Utility with Current Knowledge of Evolutionary Relationships.

Wilkerson RC, Linton YM, Fonseca DM, Schultz TR, Price DC, Strickman DA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Strict consensus tree derived from the reanalysis of the Aedini morphology data set using unweighted parsimony with 14 ordered characters.Dark circle = nodes supported in [73] and herein; triangle = supported in RH&K [73] but not herein; square = supported herein but not in RH&K [73].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4520491&req=5

pone.0133602.g003: Strict consensus tree derived from the reanalysis of the Aedini morphology data set using unweighted parsimony with 14 ordered characters.Dark circle = nodes supported in [73] and herein; triangle = supported in RH&K [73] but not herein; square = supported herein but not in RH&K [73].
Mentions: We reanalyzed RH&K’s data in the program TNT [75,90], not for the purpose of producing a classification, but rather to test the robustness of RH&K’s [73] generic groups (Fig 3; S1 Tree, S2 Tree, S3 Tree, S4 Tree) under alternative, but similar, cladistic analyses. We assumed that if proposed relationships among genera are not robust when subjected to closely related analytical methods, they are unlikely to be robust to the introduction of new data. To gauge the stability of RH&K’s [73] generic groupings to standard parsimony-based analytical methods, we reanalyzed their data with two alternative methods: (i) unweighted parsimony jackknife analyses, identifying clades and their GC (Groups present/Contradicted) support values [74] on the resulting jackknife tree, and (ii) unweighted maximum-parsimony analyses, identifying clades occurring on the strict consensus of the resulting most parsimonious trees. For each of these analytical methods, we conducted two sets of multiple analyses, one in which all characters were unordered and one in which 14 characters were ordered, as was the case in a subset of the original analyses [73]. We performed all analyses in TNT v.1.1 [75,90], although in some cases we carried out tree-bisection and reconnection (TBR) branch-swapping on accumulated trees in PAUP* [91].

Bottom Line: We found that their phylogeny was largely weakly supported and their taxonomic rankings failed priority and other useful taxon-naming criteria.We do not challenge the phylogenetic hypotheses generated by the above-mentioned series of morphological studies.However, we reduce the ranks of the genera and subgenera of RH&K to subgenera or informal species groups, respectively, to preserve stability as new data become available.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
The tribe Aedini (Family Culicidae) contains approximately one-quarter of the known species of mosquitoes, including vectors of deadly or debilitating disease agents. This tribe contains the genus Aedes, which is one of the three most familiar genera of mosquitoes. During the past decade, Aedini has been the focus of a series of extensive morphology-based phylogenetic studies published by Reinert, Harbach, and Kitching (RH&K). Those authors created 74 new, elevated or resurrected genera from what had been the single genus Aedes, almost tripling the number of genera in the entire family Culicidae. The proposed classification is based on subjective assessments of the "number and nature of the characters that support the branches" subtending particular monophyletic groups in the results of cladistic analyses of a large set of morphological characters of representative species. To gauge the stability of RH&K's generic groupings we reanalyzed their data with unweighted parsimony jackknife and maximum-parsimony analyses, with and without ordering 14 of the characters as in RH&K. We found that their phylogeny was largely weakly supported and their taxonomic rankings failed priority and other useful taxon-naming criteria. Consequently, we propose simplified aedine generic designations that 1) restore a classification system that is useful for the operational community; 2) enhance the ability of taxonomists to accurately place new species into genera; 3) maintain the progress toward a natural classification based on monophyletic groups of species; and 4) correct the current classification system that is subject to instability as new species are described and existing species more thoroughly defined. We do not challenge the phylogenetic hypotheses generated by the above-mentioned series of morphological studies. However, we reduce the ranks of the genera and subgenera of RH&K to subgenera or informal species groups, respectively, to preserve stability as new data become available.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus