The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020)
- Autores
- Gustafson, Grey T.; Miller, Kelly B.; Michat, Mariano Cruz; Alarie, Yves; Baca, Stephen M.; Balke, Michael; Short, Andrew E. Z.
- Año de publicación
- 2021
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Arguably no other group within Coleoptera has received as robust and sustained investigation into their phylogenetic relationships as aquatic beetles. Among this ecological guild, evolutionary relationships of the families within Dytiscoidea, a clade comprising the charismatic diving beetles (Dytiscidae) and their close relatives, have received particular attention. Very recently, four different studies were published investigating the phylogeny of Dytiscoidea, three of which utilized phylogenomic data, the most recent by Cai etal. (2020). Cai et al. (2020) (hereafter CEA) approached investigating theevolutionary relationships among dytiscoid families by reanalysing the transcriptomic dataset of Vasilikopoulos et al. (2019) using different evolutionary models and data trimming regimes. CEAs analyses recovered three different topologies for relationships amongst Dytiscoidea, two of which have been recovered in several previous studies. The primary difference among these topologies is the placement of Hygrobiidae, either as sister to (Dytiscidae (Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae)), sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae, or as sister to Dytiscidae. In CEA, topologies shown in Fig. 1A, C both received maximal (e.g. bootstrap values of 100 and posterior probabilities of 100%) to strong support respectively via their preferred model of evolution. Whereas CEAs recovery of Hygrobiidae sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae was not as strongly supported, Gustafson et al. (2020) recovered this topology primarily with strong to maximal support across all analyses with comprehensive taxon sampling of Dytiscoidea. Rather than treating the three topologies recovered both within their own study and elsewhere as equally viable hypotheses, CEA dismissed the relationships shown in Fig. 1A, B as the result of phylogenetic methodological error, promoting Fig. 1C as their preferred tree because it is consistent with morphology-based views of dytiscoid relationships. Here, we address (i) the manner in which CEA approached reconciling conflicting hypotheses about the evolution of Dytiscoidea; and (ii) the misconception that dytiscoid relationships shown in Fig. 1C are the most consistent with morphology-based views in relation to those of Fig. 1A, B.
Fil: Gustafson, Grey T.. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos
Fil: Miller, Kelly B.. University of New Mexico. Department of Biology; Estados Unidos
Fil: Michat, Mariano Cruz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada; Argentina
Fil: Alarie, Yves. Laurentian University. Department of Biology; Canadá
Fil: Baca, Stephen M.. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos
Fil: Balke, Michael. Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen; Alemania
Fil: Short, Andrew E. Z.. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos - Materia
-
HYDRADEPHAGA
HYGROBIIDAE
DYTISCIDAE
AMPHIZOIDAE
ASPIDYTIDAE - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/182165
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_4b394aae5724b8d4f55bc3a61caa5f41 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/182165 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020)Gustafson, Grey T.Miller, Kelly B.Michat, Mariano CruzAlarie, YvesBaca, Stephen M.Balke, MichaelShort, Andrew E. Z.HYDRADEPHAGAHYGROBIIDAEDYTISCIDAEAMPHIZOIDAEASPIDYTIDAEhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Arguably no other group within Coleoptera has received as robust and sustained investigation into their phylogenetic relationships as aquatic beetles. Among this ecological guild, evolutionary relationships of the families within Dytiscoidea, a clade comprising the charismatic diving beetles (Dytiscidae) and their close relatives, have received particular attention. Very recently, four different studies were published investigating the phylogeny of Dytiscoidea, three of which utilized phylogenomic data, the most recent by Cai etal. (2020). Cai et al. (2020) (hereafter CEA) approached investigating theevolutionary relationships among dytiscoid families by reanalysing the transcriptomic dataset of Vasilikopoulos et al. (2019) using different evolutionary models and data trimming regimes. CEAs analyses recovered three different topologies for relationships amongst Dytiscoidea, two of which have been recovered in several previous studies. The primary difference among these topologies is the placement of Hygrobiidae, either as sister to (Dytiscidae (Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae)), sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae, or as sister to Dytiscidae. In CEA, topologies shown in Fig. 1A, C both received maximal (e.g. bootstrap values of 100 and posterior probabilities of 100%) to strong support respectively via their preferred model of evolution. Whereas CEAs recovery of Hygrobiidae sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae was not as strongly supported, Gustafson et al. (2020) recovered this topology primarily with strong to maximal support across all analyses with comprehensive taxon sampling of Dytiscoidea. Rather than treating the three topologies recovered both within their own study and elsewhere as equally viable hypotheses, CEA dismissed the relationships shown in Fig. 1A, B as the result of phylogenetic methodological error, promoting Fig. 1C as their preferred tree because it is consistent with morphology-based views of dytiscoid relationships. Here, we address (i) the manner in which CEA approached reconciling conflicting hypotheses about the evolution of Dytiscoidea; and (ii) the misconception that dytiscoid relationships shown in Fig. 1C are the most consistent with morphology-based views in relation to those of Fig. 1A, B.Fil: Gustafson, Grey T.. University of Kansas; Estados UnidosFil: Miller, Kelly B.. University of New Mexico. Department of Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Michat, Mariano Cruz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada; ArgentinaFil: Alarie, Yves. Laurentian University. Department of Biology; CanadáFil: Baca, Stephen M.. University of Kansas; Estados UnidosFil: Balke, Michael. Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen; AlemaniaFil: Short, Andrew E. Z.. University of Kansas; Estados UnidosWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2021-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/182165Gustafson, Grey T.; Miller, Kelly B.; Michat, Mariano Cruz; Alarie, Yves; Baca, Stephen M.; et al.; The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020); Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Systematic Entomology (print); 46; 3; 2-2021; 473-4860307-6970CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/syen.12471info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:11:03Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/182165instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:11:04.131CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
title |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
spellingShingle |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) Gustafson, Grey T. HYDRADEPHAGA HYGROBIIDAE DYTISCIDAE AMPHIZOIDAE ASPIDYTIDAE |
title_short |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
title_full |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
title_fullStr |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
title_full_unstemmed |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
title_sort |
The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020) |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Gustafson, Grey T. Miller, Kelly B. Michat, Mariano Cruz Alarie, Yves Baca, Stephen M. Balke, Michael Short, Andrew E. Z. |
author |
Gustafson, Grey T. |
author_facet |
Gustafson, Grey T. Miller, Kelly B. Michat, Mariano Cruz Alarie, Yves Baca, Stephen M. Balke, Michael Short, Andrew E. Z. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Miller, Kelly B. Michat, Mariano Cruz Alarie, Yves Baca, Stephen M. Balke, Michael Short, Andrew E. Z. |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
HYDRADEPHAGA HYGROBIIDAE DYTISCIDAE AMPHIZOIDAE ASPIDYTIDAE |
topic |
HYDRADEPHAGA HYGROBIIDAE DYTISCIDAE AMPHIZOIDAE ASPIDYTIDAE |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Arguably no other group within Coleoptera has received as robust and sustained investigation into their phylogenetic relationships as aquatic beetles. Among this ecological guild, evolutionary relationships of the families within Dytiscoidea, a clade comprising the charismatic diving beetles (Dytiscidae) and their close relatives, have received particular attention. Very recently, four different studies were published investigating the phylogeny of Dytiscoidea, three of which utilized phylogenomic data, the most recent by Cai etal. (2020). Cai et al. (2020) (hereafter CEA) approached investigating theevolutionary relationships among dytiscoid families by reanalysing the transcriptomic dataset of Vasilikopoulos et al. (2019) using different evolutionary models and data trimming regimes. CEAs analyses recovered three different topologies for relationships amongst Dytiscoidea, two of which have been recovered in several previous studies. The primary difference among these topologies is the placement of Hygrobiidae, either as sister to (Dytiscidae (Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae)), sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae, or as sister to Dytiscidae. In CEA, topologies shown in Fig. 1A, C both received maximal (e.g. bootstrap values of 100 and posterior probabilities of 100%) to strong support respectively via their preferred model of evolution. Whereas CEAs recovery of Hygrobiidae sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae was not as strongly supported, Gustafson et al. (2020) recovered this topology primarily with strong to maximal support across all analyses with comprehensive taxon sampling of Dytiscoidea. Rather than treating the three topologies recovered both within their own study and elsewhere as equally viable hypotheses, CEA dismissed the relationships shown in Fig. 1A, B as the result of phylogenetic methodological error, promoting Fig. 1C as their preferred tree because it is consistent with morphology-based views of dytiscoid relationships. Here, we address (i) the manner in which CEA approached reconciling conflicting hypotheses about the evolution of Dytiscoidea; and (ii) the misconception that dytiscoid relationships shown in Fig. 1C are the most consistent with morphology-based views in relation to those of Fig. 1A, B. Fil: Gustafson, Grey T.. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos Fil: Miller, Kelly B.. University of New Mexico. Department of Biology; Estados Unidos Fil: Michat, Mariano Cruz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada; Argentina Fil: Alarie, Yves. Laurentian University. Department of Biology; Canadá Fil: Baca, Stephen M.. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos Fil: Balke, Michael. Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen; Alemania Fil: Short, Andrew E. Z.. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos |
description |
Arguably no other group within Coleoptera has received as robust and sustained investigation into their phylogenetic relationships as aquatic beetles. Among this ecological guild, evolutionary relationships of the families within Dytiscoidea, a clade comprising the charismatic diving beetles (Dytiscidae) and their close relatives, have received particular attention. Very recently, four different studies were published investigating the phylogeny of Dytiscoidea, three of which utilized phylogenomic data, the most recent by Cai etal. (2020). Cai et al. (2020) (hereafter CEA) approached investigating theevolutionary relationships among dytiscoid families by reanalysing the transcriptomic dataset of Vasilikopoulos et al. (2019) using different evolutionary models and data trimming regimes. CEAs analyses recovered three different topologies for relationships amongst Dytiscoidea, two of which have been recovered in several previous studies. The primary difference among these topologies is the placement of Hygrobiidae, either as sister to (Dytiscidae (Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae)), sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae, or as sister to Dytiscidae. In CEA, topologies shown in Fig. 1A, C both received maximal (e.g. bootstrap values of 100 and posterior probabilities of 100%) to strong support respectively via their preferred model of evolution. Whereas CEAs recovery of Hygrobiidae sister to Amphizoidae + Aspidytidae was not as strongly supported, Gustafson et al. (2020) recovered this topology primarily with strong to maximal support across all analyses with comprehensive taxon sampling of Dytiscoidea. Rather than treating the three topologies recovered both within their own study and elsewhere as equally viable hypotheses, CEA dismissed the relationships shown in Fig. 1A, B as the result of phylogenetic methodological error, promoting Fig. 1C as their preferred tree because it is consistent with morphology-based views of dytiscoid relationships. Here, we address (i) the manner in which CEA approached reconciling conflicting hypotheses about the evolution of Dytiscoidea; and (ii) the misconception that dytiscoid relationships shown in Fig. 1C are the most consistent with morphology-based views in relation to those of Fig. 1A, B. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-02 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/182165 Gustafson, Grey T.; Miller, Kelly B.; Michat, Mariano Cruz; Alarie, Yves; Baca, Stephen M.; et al.; The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020); Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Systematic Entomology (print); 46; 3; 2-2021; 473-486 0307-6970 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/182165 |
identifier_str_mv |
Gustafson, Grey T.; Miller, Kelly B.; Michat, Mariano Cruz; Alarie, Yves; Baca, Stephen M.; et al.; The enduring value of reciprocal illumination in the era of insect phylogenomics: a response to Cai et al. (2020); Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Systematic Entomology (print); 46; 3; 2-2021; 473-486 0307-6970 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/syen.12471 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1844614005962833920 |
score |
13.070432 |