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
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/182165

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