Skip Navigation

Systematic Biology 2004 53(3):400-421; doi:10.1080/10635150490445869
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lin, C.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Wood, T. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lin, C.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Wood, T. K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2004 Society of Systematic Biologists

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution of Maternal Care in Membracine Treehoppers

Chung-Ping Lin1,3, Bryan N. Danforth1 and Thomas K. Wood2

1 Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853–0901, USA
2 Department of Entomology and Applied Ecology, Townsend Hall, University of Delaware Newark DE 19717–1303, USA

Edited by Karl Kjer: Associate Editor


   Abstract

The treehopper subfamily Membracinae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Membracidae) comprises the majority of genera and species diversity in the New World tropics. These treehoppers exhibit a wide range of social behaviors, making them an excellent group for studying patterns of social evolution in insects. However, to date the tribal and generic relationships have remained unclear. We reconstructed the phylogeny of the Membracinae using a combined mitochondrial (COI, COII, tRNA-Leu, and 12S) and nuclear (Wg) gene data set. A total of 2608 aligned nucleotide sites were obtained for 112 species, representing 25 of 38 currently recognized genera and all four tribes. A strict consensus of five equally parsimonious trees recovered the subfamily and three of its four tribes. The majority rule consensus tree derived from the Bayesian analyses based on the GTR+I+G and mixed-models recovered many clades shared with the parsimony trees and is identical to the single best tree inferred from maximum likelihood analysis, aside from the rearrangement of one node. A comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear genes indicated that Wg provided higher consistency index (CI), data decisiveness (DD), partitioned Bremer support (PBS) than any of the mitochondrial genes analyzed. The combined mitochondrial and nuclear DNA provide strong support for the monophyly of the subfamily and three of its four tribes (Aconophorini, Hoplophorionini, and Hypsoprorini). Membracini is paraphyletic with respect to Hoplophorionini and contains two lineages, the Membracini sensu strictu and the newly resurrected tribe Bolbonotini. Our analyses show that there is a strong phylogenetic component to the evolution of maternal care. Given the widespread occurrence of maternal care within the subfamily, this trait is estimated to have ≤3 origins, two reversals, and one loss. Our results suggest that the evolution of maternal care in insects may not be as evolutionarily labile as previously thought.

Keywords: Bayesian analysis; maximum likelihood; Membracidae; mitochondrial gene; nuclear gene; phylogeny; social evolution; treehoppers

Received February 28, 2003; Revised August 14, 2003; Accepted December 9, 2003


3 Present address: Division of Biological Sciences, Tucker Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211–7400, USA; E-mail: linchung{at}missouri.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
J. P. Huelsenbeck and B. Rannala
Frequentist Properties of Bayesian Posterior Probabilities of Phylogenetic Trees Under Simple and Complex Substitution Models
Syst Biol, December 1, 2004; 53(6): 904 - 913.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.