CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea

Citation for Study 1719

Citation title: "A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera)".

This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S1682 (Status: Published).

Citation

Beutel R.G., Ribera I., & Bininda-emonds O. 2007. A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera). Organisms Diversity & Evolution, null.

Authors

• Beutel R.G. 0049(0)3641/949153
• Ribera I.
• Bininda-emonds O.

Abstract

A supertree for Adephaga was reconstructed based on 43 independent source treesincluding cladograms based on Hennigian and numerical cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular dataand on a backbone taxonomy. To overcome problems associated with both the size of the group and the comparative paucity of available information, our analysis was made at the genus level (requiring synonymizing taxa at different levels across the trees) and used safe taxonomic reduction to remove especially poorly known species. The final supertree contained 401 genera, making it the most comprehensive phylogenetic estimate yet published for the group. Gyrinidae comprise the basal sister group, with the interrelationships within the family being well resolved. Haliplidae appear as the sister taxon of Geadephaga + Dytiscoidea. Noteridae are the sister group of the remaining Dytiscoidea. Amphizoidae and Aspidytidae are sister groups, and Hygrobiidae forms a clade with Dytiscidae. Resolution within the species-rich Dytiscidae is generally high, but questions remain that are not sufficiently clarified. Trachypachidae are the sister group of Carabidae (including Rhysodidae), in contrast to a proposed sister group relationship between Trachypachydae and Dytiscoidea. Carabidae are only monophyletic with the inclusion of a non-monophyletic Rhysodidae, but the resolution within this megadiverse group is generally low. The non-monophyly of Rhysodidae is extremely unlikely from a morphological point of view, and this group remains the greatest enigma in adephagan systematics. Despite the insights gained through our study, our findings highlight that a combined and coordinated effort of morphologists and molecular systematists is still required to expand the phylogenetic database to enable a solid and comprehensive reconstruction of adephagan phylogeny.

About this resource

• Canonical resource URI: http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S1719
• Other versions: Nexus NeXML
• Show BibTeX reference

  		@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref14744,
  	 author = {Rolf Georg Beutel and Ignacio  Ribera and Olaf R. P.  Bininda-Emonds},
  	 title = {A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera)},
  	 year = {2007},
  	 keywords = {},
  	 doi = {},
  	 url = {},
  	 pmid = {},
  	 journal = {Organisms Diversity & Evolution},
  	 volume = {},
  	 number = {},
  	 pages = {},
  	 abstract = {A supertree for Adephaga was reconstructed based on 43 independent source treesincluding cladograms based on Hennigian and numerical cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular dataand on a backbone taxonomy. To overcome problems associated with both the size of the group and the comparative paucity of available information, our analysis was made at the genus level (requiring synonymizing taxa at different levels across the trees) and used safe taxonomic reduction to remove especially poorly known species. The final supertree contained 401 genera, making it the most comprehensive phylogenetic estimate yet published for the group. Gyrinidae comprise the basal sister group, with the interrelationships within the family being well resolved. Haliplidae appear as the sister taxon of Geadephaga + Dytiscoidea. Noteridae are the sister group of the remaining Dytiscoidea. Amphizoidae and Aspidytidae are sister groups, and Hygrobiidae forms a clade with Dytiscidae. Resolution within the species-rich Dytiscidae is generally high, but questions remain that are not sufficiently clarified. Trachypachidae are the sister group of Carabidae (including Rhysodidae), in contrast to a proposed sister group relationship between Trachypachydae and Dytiscoidea. Carabidae are only monophyletic with the inclusion of a non-monophyletic Rhysodidae, but the resolution within this megadiverse group is generally low. The non-monophyly of Rhysodidae is extremely unlikely from a morphological point of view, and this group remains the greatest enigma in adephagan systematics. Despite the insights gained through our study, our findings highlight that a combined and coordinated effort of morphologists and molecular systematists is still required to expand the phylogenetic database to enable a solid and comprehensive reconstruction of adephagan phylogeny.}
  }
  		

• Show RIS reference

  		TY  - JOUR
  ID  - 14744
  AU  - Beutel,Rolf Georg
  AU  - Ribera,Ignacio 
  AU  - Bininda-Emonds,Olaf R. P. 
  T1  - A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera)
  PY  - 2007
  KW  - 
  UR  - 
  N2  - A supertree for Adephaga was reconstructed based on 43 independent source treesincluding cladograms based on Hennigian and numerical cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular dataand on a backbone taxonomy. To overcome problems associated with both the size of the group and the comparative paucity of available information, our analysis was made at the genus level (requiring synonymizing taxa at different levels across the trees) and used safe taxonomic reduction to remove especially poorly known species. The final supertree contained 401 genera, making it the most comprehensive phylogenetic estimate yet published for the group. Gyrinidae comprise the basal sister group, with the interrelationships within the family being well resolved. Haliplidae appear as the sister taxon of Geadephaga + Dytiscoidea. Noteridae are the sister group of the remaining Dytiscoidea. Amphizoidae and Aspidytidae are sister groups, and Hygrobiidae forms a clade with Dytiscidae. Resolution within the species-rich Dytiscidae is generally high, but questions remain that are not sufficiently clarified. Trachypachidae are the sister group of Carabidae (including Rhysodidae), in contrast to a proposed sister group relationship between Trachypachydae and Dytiscoidea. Carabidae are only monophyletic with the inclusion of a non-monophyletic Rhysodidae, but the resolution within this megadiverse group is generally low. The non-monophyly of Rhysodidae is extremely unlikely from a morphological point of view, and this group remains the greatest enigma in adephagan systematics. Despite the insights gained through our study, our findings highlight that a combined and coordinated effort of morphologists and molecular systematists is still required to expand the phylogenetic database to enable a solid and comprehensive reconstruction of adephagan phylogeny.
  L3  - 
  JF  - Organisms Diversity & Evolution
  VL  - 
  IS  - 
  ER  -