21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Publish your biodiversity research with us!

      Submit your article here.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Revised classification and catalogue of global Nepticulidae and Opostegidae (Lepidoptera, Nepticuloidea)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract

          A catalogue of all named Nepticulidae and Opostegidae is presented, including fossil species. The catalogue is simultaneously published online in the scratchpad http://nepticuloidea.info/ and in Catalogue of Life ( http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/database/id/172). We provide a historical overview of taxonomic research on Nepticuloidea and a brief ‘state of the art’. A DNA barcode dataset with 3205 barcodes is made public at the same time, providing DNA barcodes of ca. 779 species, of which 2563 are identified as belonging to 444 validly published species. We recognise 862 extant and 18 fossil species of Nepticulidae in 22 extant genera and the fossil form genus Stigmellites . We count 192 valid Opostegidae species in 7 genera, without fossils. We also list seven dubious Nepticulidae names that cannot be placed due to absent type material and poor descriptions, 18 unavailable names in Nepticulidae that cannot be placed and we also list the 33 names (including four fossils) that once were placed as Nepticulidae or Opostegidae but are now excluded. All synonyms and previous combinations are listed. The generic classification follows the Molecular phylogeny that is published almost simultaneously. Subfamilies and tribes are not recognised, Trifurculinae Scoble, 1983 is synonymised with Nepticulidae Stainton, 1854 and Opostegoidinae Kozlov, 1987 is synonymised with Opostegidae Meyrick, 1893. The status of Casanovula Hoare, 2013, Etainia Beirne, 1945, Fomoria Beirne, 1945, Glaucolepis Braun, 1917, Menurella Hoare, 2013, Muhabbetana Koçak & Kemal, 2007 and Zimmermannia Hering, 1940 is changed from subgenus to full genus, whereas two genera are considered synonyms again: Manoneura Davis, 1979, a synonym of Enteucha Meyrick, 1915 and Levarchama Beirne, 1945, a synonym of Trifurcula Zeller, 1848. We propose 87 new combinations in Nepticulidae and 10 in Opostegidae , largely due to the new classification, and re-examination of some species. We propose the following 37 new synonymies for species (35 in Nepticulidae , 2 in Opostegidae ):

          Stigmella acerifoliella Dovnar-Zapolski, 1969 (unavailable, = Stigmella acerna Puplesis, 1988), Stigmella nakamurai Kemperman & Wilkinson, 1985 (= Stigmella palionisi Puplesis, 1984), Nepticula amseli Skala, 1941 (unavailable = Stigmella birgittae Gustafsson, 1985), Stigmella cathepostis Kemperman & Wilkinson, 1985 (= Stigmella microtheriella (Stainton, 1854)), Stigmella populnea Kemperman & Wilkinson, 1985 (= Stigmella nivenburgensis (Preissecker, 1942)), Nepticula obscurella Braun, 1912 (revised synonymy, = Stigmella myricafoliella (Busck, 1900)), Nepticula mandingella Gustafsson, 1972 (= Stigmella wollofella (Gustafsson, 1972)), Stigmella rosaefoliella pectocatena Wilkinson & Scoble, 1979 (= Stigmella centifoliella (Zeller, 1848)), Micropteryx pomivorella Packard, 1870 (= Stigmella oxyacanthella (Stainton, 1854)), Stigmella crataegivora Puplesis, 1985 (= Stigmella micromelis Puplesis, 1985), Stigmella scinanella Wilkinson & Scoble, 1979 (= Stigmella purpuratella (Braun, 1917)), Stigmella palmatae Puplesis, 1984 (= Stigmella filipendulae (Wocke, 1871)), Stigmella sesplicata Kemperman & Wilkinson, 1985 (= Stigmella lediella (Schleich, 1867)), Stigmella rhododendrifolia Dovnar-Zapolski & Tomilova, 1978 (unavailable, = Stigmella lediella (Schleich, 1867)), Stigmella oa Kemperman & Wilkinson, 1985 (= Stigmella spiculifera Kemperman & Wilkinson, 1985), Stigmella gracilipae Hirano, 2014 (= Stigmella monticulella Puplesis, 1984), Nepticula chaoniella Herrich-Schäffer, 1863 (= Stigmella samiatella (Zeller, 1839)), Bohemannia piotra Puplesis, 1984 (= Bohemannia pulverosella (Stainton, 1849)), Bohemannia nipponicella Hirano, 2010 (= Bohemannia manschurella Puplesis, 1984), Sinopticula sinica Yang, 1989 (= Glaucolepis oishiella (Matsumura, 1931)), Trifurcula collinella Nel, 2012 (= Glaucolepis magna (A. Laštuvka & Z. Laštuvka, 1997)), Obrussa tigrinella Puplesis, 1985 (= Etainia trifasciata (Matsumura, 1931)), Microcalyptris vittatus Puplesis, 1984 and Microcalyptris arenosus Falkovitsh, 1986 (both = Acalyptris falkovitshi (Puplesis, 1984)), Ectoedemia castaneae Busck, 1913, Ectoedemia heinrichi Busck, 1914 and Ectoedemia helenella Wilkinson, 1981 (all three = Zimmermannia bosquella (Chambers, 1878)), Ectoedemia chloranthis Meyrick, 1928 and Ectoedemia acanthella Wilkinson & Newton, 1981 (both = Zimmermannia grandisella (Chambers, 1880)), Ectoedemia coruscella Wilkinson, 1981 (= Zimmermannia mesoloba (Davis, 1978)), Ectoedemia piperella Wilkinson & Newton, 1981 and Ectoedemia reneella Wilkinson, 1981 (both = Zimmermannia obrutella (Zeller, 1873)), Ectoedemia similigena Puplesis, 1994 (= Ectoedemia turbidella (Zeller, 1848)), Ectoedemia andrella Wilkinson, 1981 (= Ectoedemia ulmella (Braun, 1912)), Nepticula canadensis Braun, 1917 (= Ectoedemia minimella (Zetterstedt, 1839)), Opostega rezniki Kozlov, 1985 (= Opostega cretatella Chrétien, 1915), Pseudopostega cyrneochalcopepla Nel & Varenne, 2012 (= Pseudopostega chalcopepla (Walsingham, 1908)). Stigmella caryaefoliella (Clemens, 1861) and Zimmermannia bosquella (Chambers, 1878) are taken out of synonymy and re-instated as full species. Lectotypes are designated for Trifurcula obrutella Zeller, 1873 and Nepticula grandisella Chambers, 1880.

          Related collections

          Most cited references133

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation.

          Species numbers are increasing rapidly. This is due mostly to taxonomic inflation, where known subspecies are raised to species as a result in a change in species concept, rather than to new discoveries. Yet macroecologists and conservation biologists depend heavily on species lists, treating them as accurate and stable measures of biodiversity. Deciding on a standardized, universal species list might ameliorate the mismatch between taxonomy and the uses to which it is put. However, taxonomic uncertainty is ultimately due to the evolutionary nature of species, and is unlikely to be solved completely by standardization. For the moment, at least, users must acknowledge the limitations of taxonomic species and avoid unrealistic expectations of species lists.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Species-Level Para- and Polyphyly in DNA Barcode Gene Trees: Strong Operational Bias in European Lepidoptera

            The proliferation of DNA data is revolutionizing all fields of systematic research. DNA barcode sequences, now available for millions of specimens and several hundred thousand species, are increasingly used in algorithmic species delimitations. This is complicated by occasional incongruences between species and gene genealogies, as indicated by situations where conspecific individuals do not form a monophyletic cluster in a gene tree. In two previous reviews, non-monophyly has been reported as being common in mitochondrial DNA gene trees. We developed a novel web service “Monophylizer” to detect non-monophyly in phylogenetic trees and used it to ascertain the incidence of species non-monophyly in COI (a.k.a. cox1) barcode sequence data from 4977 species and 41,583 specimens of European Lepidoptera, the largest data set of DNA barcodes analyzed from this regard. Particular attention was paid to accurate species identification to ensure data integrity. We investigated the effects of tree-building method, sampling effort, and other methodological issues, all of which can influence estimates of non-monophyly. We found a 12% incidence of non-monophyly, a value significantly lower than that observed in previous studies. Neighbor joining (NJ) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods yielded almost equal numbers of non-monophyletic species, but 24.1% of these cases of non-monophyly were only found by one of these methods. Non-monophyletic species tend to show either low genetic distances to their nearest neighbors or exceptionally high levels of intraspecific variability. Cases of polyphyly in COI trees arising as a result of deep intraspecific divergence are negligible, as the detected cases reflected misidentifications or methodological errors. Taking into consideration variation in sampling effort, we estimate that the true incidence of non-monophyly is ∼23%, but with operational factors still being included. Within the operational factors, we separately assessed the frequency of taxonomic limitations (presence of overlooked cryptic and oversplit species) and identification uncertainties. We observed that operational factors are potentially present in more than half (58.6%) of the detected cases of non-monophyly. Furthermore, we observed that in about 20% of non-monophyletic species and entangled species, the lineages involved are either allopatric or parapatric—conditions where species delimitation is inherently subjective and particularly dependent on the species concept that has been adopted. These observations suggest that species-level non-monophyly in COI gene trees is less common than previously supposed, with many cases reflecting misidentifications, the subjectivity of species delimitation or other operational factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Biology of the Leaf Miners

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Zookeys
                Zookeys
                ZooKeys
                ZooKeys
                Pensoft Publishers
                1313-2989
                1313-2970
                2016
                31 October 2016
                : 628
                : 65-246
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Naturalis Biodiversity Center, PO Box 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Landcare Research Ltd., Private Bag 92–170, Auckland, New Zealand
                [3 ]Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, MRC 105, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013–7012, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Erik J. van Nieukerken ( nieukerken@ 123456naturalis.nl )

                Academic editor: T. Simonsen

                Article
                10.3897/zookeys.628.9799
                5126388
                a33dab08-2744-455c-a53f-6dadf21cda2f
                Erik J. van Nieukerken, Camiel Doorenweerd, Robert J. B. Hoare, Donald R. Davis

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 8 July 2016
                : 25 August 2016
                Categories
                Catalogue

                Animal science & Zoology
                taxonomy,leaf miners,checklist,history,new synonyms,new combinations
                Animal science & Zoology
                taxonomy, leaf miners, checklist, history, new synonyms, new combinations

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content18

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors88