|
|
19. Historia evolutiva de los trilobites Isabel Rábano
Palabras clave: Trilobites, macroevolución, microevolución, Paleozoico. Evolutionary History of the Trilobites Abstract: The state of the art of the evolutionary history of the trilobites has been summarized. Heterochronic changes, as well as other evolutionary trends, played an important role in the emergence of new taxa. The basal Cambrian radiation was followed by an accelerated cladogenesis. The early Ordovician marked the appearance of the major clades that dominate subsequent trilobite history. During the Middle and Upper Devonian, trilobites were affected negatively by the global events that took place, and during the Carboniferous they were restricted to only one order until their extinction in the Upper Permian. Key words: Trilobites, macroevolution, microevolution, Paleozoic.
20. Evolución y filogenia de los crustáceos Sven Lange & Frederick R. Schram
Los verdaderos crustáceos existen desde el Cámbrico y son fácilmente reconocibles como alguno de los grupos de crustáceos tratados sumariamente en este trabajo. El reciente descubrimiento de nuevos grupos ha complicado duramente los análisis filogenéticos. La construcción de filogenias cladísticas o árboles filogenéticos comprende todos los grupos crustáceos que han sido descritos hasta apenas hace una década. Se han obtenido diversas filogenias posibles, que discutimos, y que aportan soluciones, al menos parciales, en la sistemática de los niveles basales, precisamente los que todavía presentan problemas significativos en el conocimiento de las relaciones filogenéticas de los cuatro o cinco mayores grupos de Crustacea. Por ejemplo, en la cuestión de ¿cuál es el grupo hermano? Y ¿qué grupo superior constituye el grupo hermano de todos los demás crustáceos?. Todavía habrá que esperar respuestas, posiblemente mediante la aplicación de las modernas técnicas moleculares en combinación con los estudios convencionales en paleontología. Palabras clave: Crustacea, Filogenia, Registro fósil, Análisis molecular, Cámbrico. Crustacean evolution and phylogeny Abstract: We review recent advances in the understanding of crustacean evolution and phylogeny. Some interesting ideas on early crustacean evolution come from the description of small-sized Cambrian fossils, especially those from the Orsten fauna. Some of these fossils, called crustaceomorphs, are almost crustaceans but lack of some crucial characters excluding them from being true crustaceans. The crustaceomorphs may eventually relate the acquisition of the characteristic crustacean morphology to changes in locomotion and feeding. The co-existence of crustaceomorphs and true crustaceans in the Middle and Upper Cambrian indicates that Crustacea evolved at least by the Early Cambrian. True crustaceans have existed since the Cambrian and are usually easily recognizable as belonging to one of a number of crustacean groups treated here only summarily. Recent discovery of new distinct groups has heavily influenced phylogenetic considerations. The construction of cladistic phylogenies or trees comprising all these crustacean groups have drawn on computers for little more than a decade. Several possible phylogenies have resulted from this, which we discuss, and while at least partial agreement exists on systematics at the lower levels, there are still significant problems in understanding the phylogenetic relationships of the four or five major groups. For instance substantial questions such as: which major groups are sister groups? and which major group constitute a sister group to all other crustaceans? still await answers, possibly through application of modern molecular techniques in combination with conventional fields like paleontology. Key words: Crustacea, Phylogeny, Fossil Record, Molecular analysis, Cambrian.
21. Pasando revista a la evolución de los Quelicerados Jason A. Dunlop
Palabras clave: Chelicerata, Arachnida, Merostomata, Filogenia, Datos moleculares. A review of chelicerate evolution Abstract: Chelicerates comprise arachnids, xiphosurans, pycnogonids, eurypterids and chasmataspids. They evolved from a broad clade of ‘arachnate’ arthropods, although the oldest unequivocal chelicerate is Upper Cambrian in age. Pycnogonida are probably basal chelicerates, while the division of the remaining Euchelicerata into terrestrial arachnids and aquatic merostomes is oversimplistic. Xiphosura may not be ‘primitive’ chelicerates and Chasmataspida share synapomorphies with Eurypterida. Recent studies support arachnid monophyly, although some characters support (Scorpiones + Eurypterida) and/or a Lipoctena clade (i.e. Arachnida, excluding Scorpiones). Mouthpart characters suggest Opiliones are basal arachnids and this may be true of Palpigradi too. A (Solifugae + Pseudoscorpiones) clade has been widely supported. Mites are probably monophyletic, are often placed as sister group of Ricinulei, but their relationships remain uncertain. However a Tetrapulmonata clade of (Trigonotarbida (Araneae (Amblypygi (Thelyphonida + Schizomida)))) appears convincing. Phylogenies based on molecular evidence conflict with some traditional clades which have good morphological support, but combined molecular and morphological data provides a valuable test of previous ideas about arachnid relationships. Key words: Chelicerata, Arachnida, Merostomata, Phylogeny, Fossils, Molecular data. 22. Evolución y filogenia de los Picnogónidos Tomás Munilla León
Palabras clave: Picnogónidos, Evolución, Filogenia, Fósiles. Evolution and Phylogeny of Pycnogonids Abstract: This paper present the current classification of the pycnogonids, their internal and external phylogenetic relations and the accepted fossils by the specialists. A cladogram of the extent families is the main novelty, which is based on the gradual loss of the cephalic appendages, your articles and genital pores (regressive evolution). Key words: Pycnogonids, Evolution, Phylogeny, Fossils.
23. Los Ácaros: origen, evolución y filogenia Mª Lourdes Moraza Resumen: La historia evolutiva de los ácaros podría haber comenzado en el Devónico y, tras una segunda radiación adaptativa al final del Mesozoico, se han convertido en uno de los grupos animales con mayor diversidad específica y ecológica, modos de vida, hábitos tróficos y modelos reproductivos. El éxito conseguido se debe, además de a su tamaño, a su genuino oportunismo y plasticidad. Sin embargo, el conocimiento que se tiene de estos animales, que actualmente es amplio, sigue siendo insuficiente como para dar una respuesta exacta a los problemas filogenéticos planteados, no sólo en cuanto a sus relaciones con otros arácnidos, sino también entre sus grupos taxonómicos superiores. Palabras clave: Acari, Origen, Evolución, Filogenia. Origin, Evolution and Phylogeny of Acari Abstract: The evolutionary history of Acari may have begun in the Devonian period and, after a second adaptative radiation at the end of the Mesozoic period, Acari have become one of the animal group with the broadest specific and ecological diversity, modes of living, trophic habits and reproductive models. The group`s success is due, aside from its size, to its genuine opportunism and plasticity. Our knowledge of these animals, while notable, is insufficient to fully explain phylogeny, not only with regard to other arachnids but also the group`s relationship to higher taxonomic groups. Key words: Acari, Origin, Evolution, Phylogeny.
24. Filogenia de Chilopoda: combinando secuencias de
los genes ribosómicos 18S y 28S y morfología Gregory D. Edgecombe1 , Gonzalo Giribet2
y Ward C. Wheeler3
Palabras clave: Myriapoda, Chilopoda, Filogenia, Morfología, ARNr 18S, ARNr 28S. Phylogeny of Chilopoda: Combining 18S and 28S rRNA Sequences and Morphology Abstract: Relationships within Chilopoda are assessed based on a combined analysis of morphological and molecular evidence. We survey 117 morphological characters, complete 18S rRNA sequences for 38 taxa, and sequences of the D3 region of 28S rRNA for 34 taxa, with representatives of most chilopod families. Morphological, molecular, and combined analyses using direct optimisation all support the monophyly of Scutigeromorpha, Lithobiomorpha, Scolopendromorpha, and Geophilomorpha, as well as the clades Pleurostigmophora, Epimorpha s. lat., and Epimorpha s. str., across a range of gap and transversion/transition costs. Fixed-states optimisation resolves Lithobiomorpha as paraphyletic in combined analysis, but character incongruence is greater than in analyses using direct optimisation. Key words: Myriapoda, Chilopoda, Phylogeny, Morphology, 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA.
25. Cladística Numérica, Análisis simultáneo y
Filogenia de Hexápodos James M. Carpenter y Ward C. Wheeler Resumen: Se revisan análisis cladísticos de las interrelaciones de los órdenes de hexápodos y análisis simultáneos de datos combinados morfológicos y moleculares. Palabras clave: Hexapoda, Cladística, Análisis morfológico, Análisis molecular. Numerical Cladistics, Simultaneous Analysis and Hexapod Phylogeny Abstract: Numerical cladistic analyses of the interrelationships of hexapod orders, and simultaneous analyses of combined morphological and molecular data, are reviewed. Key words: Hexapoda, Cladistics, Morphological analyses, Molecular analyses.
26. Mitos en Sistemática y Principios de Nomenclatura
Zoológica Nikita J. Kluge
Seguidamente se comentan las razones de la mitogénesis en Sistemática y d ela existencia de diferentes tipos de nomenclatura: de rangos, volumétrica y jerárquica, proponiéndose un conjunto de reglas nomenclaturales alternativas a las establecidas en el CINZ. Palabras clave: Sistemática, Hexapoda, Nomenclatura Zoológica, Nomenclatura de rangos, Nomenclatura volumétrica, Nomenclatura jerárquica, Mitos, CINZ. Myths in Systematics and Principles of Zoological Nomenclature Abstract: A series of considerations are made about myths in Systematics, using as example the case of supposed polyphyly of Hexapoda and being indicated autapomorphies of that taxon. Also are commented the reasons of the mythogenesis in Systematics and the existence of different nomenclature types: ranks, volumetric and hierarchic, setting out an assembly of new alternative nomenclature rules to the established ones in the ICZN. Key words: Systematics, Hexapoda, Zoological nomenclature, Ranking nomenclature, Volumetric nomenclature, Hierarchic nomenclature, Myths, ICZN.
27. Recientes aportaciones filogenéticas sobre los “Apterygota” Carmen Bach de Roca 1, Miguel Gaju-Ricart 2
y Arturo Compte-Sart 3
A pesar del interés que despierta la historia evolutiva de los Apterygota, no hay un acuerdo unánime sobre las diferentes hipótesis filogenéticas que se han formulado por diversos autores, en relación al conjunto de grupos que los integran. En este artículo, se hace un estudio sobre las aportaciones filogenéticas efectuadas por autores recientes y, a la vista de sus trabajos, se concluye que los Collembola, Protura y Diplura forman grupos naturales (monofiléticos), al igual que los Microcoryphia y Dicondylia. El término Ellipura para designar la unión de Collembola + Protura, debería rechazarse, al igual que la denominación Apterygota en sentido amplio. Los Monura, como orden fósil, debería incluirse dentro de los Microcoryphia con categoría de Suborden. Palabras clave: Apterygota, Parainsecta, Insecta, Hexapoda, Collembola, Protura, Diplura, Microcoryphia, Archaeognatha, Monura, Zygentoma, Thysanura, Filogenia.
Recent advances on the phylogeny of "Apterygota" Abstract: The Apterygota sensu lato are traditionally divided in two taxonomic groups: Entognatha and Ectognatha, the former with enclosed and the later with exposed mouthparts. Entognathy is a character shared by Ellipura (Collembola + Protura) and the order Diplura, whereas ectognathy is present in Microcoryphia, Zygentoma and Pterygota. Despite the growing interest in the evolutionary history of the Apterygota s.l., there is at present no agreement on a phylogenetic hypothesis concerning the different lineages within this group. In this study we review the phylogenetic relationships recently presented by different authors. We conclude that Collembola, Protura, Diplura, Microcoryphia and Dicondylia are natural (monophyletic) groups. The taxon Ellipura (Collembola plus Protura) is not supported, and should not be accepted. There is also no support to consider the Apterygota sensu lato as a monophyletic group. The fossil order Monura should be included as a Suborder of Microcoryphia Key words: Apterygota, Parainsecta, Insecta, Hexapoda, Collembola, Protura, Diplura, Microcoryphia, Archaeognatha, Monura, Zygentoma, Thysanura, Phylogeny.
28. El origen de la diversidad en las cucarachas:
perspectiva filogenética de su gregarismo, reproducción, comunicación y
ecología Philippe Grandcolas
Palabras clave: Cucaracha, Filogenia, Hábitat, Gregarismo, Conducta subsocial, Reproducción. The origin of diversity in cockroaches: a phylogenetic perspective of sociality, reproduction, communication and ecology Abstract: Cockroaches are unfortunately often characterised with recurrent received ideas. In this way, cockroaches are assumed to be a very ancient group, having evolved slowly, and keeping a generalized morphology as well as some primitive social behaviours. In addition, domestic species are thought to be representative of the whole group. These ideas are totally fallacious. First, there is not good evidence for palaeozoic datations. Second, cockroaches have produced radiations with rapidly diverging behaviours. Third, they are quite diverse and this is still difficult to infer some characters (especially behavioral) of their ancestor. Domestic species are very particular with respect to many attributes, in comparison with feral species. Recent phylogenetic hypotheses, from which paraphyletic notions have been removed, allow to infer evolutionary histories of reproductive and social behaviours. The most provocative issues deal with the inferred occurrence of both evolutionary reversals in social behaviours and evolutionary convergences and shortcuts in reproductive behaviour. Key words: Cockroach, Phylogeny, Habitat, Gregarism, Subsocial behaviour, Reproduction.
29. Filogenia y posición taxonómica de los “Homópteros” y de sus principales grupos Juan M. Nieto Nafría
Palabras clave: Hemiptera, Homoptera, Heteroptera, Sternorrhyncha, Auchenorrhyncha, Coleorrhyncha, Heteropteroidea, Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha, Prosorrhyncha, Clypeorrhyncha. Phylogeny and taxonomic position of the "Homoptera" and their main groups Abstract: The phylogeny and the taxonomic placement of the former Homoptera and their main groups are re-examined according to molecular phylogeny. The former Homoptera are splitted in three or four suborders within Hemiptera. Heteroptera is monophyletic and included within one of these suborders. Key words: Hemiptera, Homoptera, Heteroptera, Sternorrhyncha, Auchenorrhyncha, Coleorrhyncha, Heteropteroidea, Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha, Prosorrhyncha, Clypeorrhyncha.
Mª Ángeles Vázquez y Tomás López
Los heterópteros parecen ser claramente monofiléticos y casi todos los heteropterólogos aceptan la clasificación de Stys y Kerzhner (1975) en siete infraórdenes, aunque hay ciertas dudas sobre la monofília de algunos de ellos. Palabras clave: Heteroptera, Filogenia. Phylogeny of Heteroptera Abstract: A brief reference on the systematic position of Heteroptera (Hexapoda) is given, and their phylogenetic relationships with the closest orders of insects too. The most likely evolutive way of this group is analysed in this paper; and finally, the recent ideas about phylogeny on heteropteran groups are done. Heteropterans seem to be a monophyletic group. The seven infraorders of Stys and Kerhzner (1975) are recognized by most heteropterist, although monophyly of some of them have been debated. Key words: Heteroptera, Phylogeny.
31. Evolución, filogenia y clasificación de los Coleoptera (Arthropoda: Hexapoda) Ignacio Ribera Resumen: Se presenta una sinopsis del conocimiento actual de la filogenia, evolución y clasificación de los coleópteros, el grupo más numeroso de organismos vivos. La monofilia de los Coleoptera esta generalmente aceptada, al igual que su proximidad a los Neuropteroidea. El grupo hermano de Coleoptera es todavía desconocido, y aunque parece que la evidencia molecular sitúa definitivamente a los Strepsiptera junto a los Diptera, algunos autores los relacionan con los Coleoptera. El suborden Archostemata se acepta como el más primitivo dentro de los Coleoptera, pero las relaciones entre el resto (Myxophaga, Adephaga y Polyphaga) no están bien definidas. Importantes temas por resolver en la filogenia de los coleópteros son: la monofilia o polifilia de las familias acuáticas de Adephaga; la situación de los cicindélidos con respecto a Carabidae; la posición de los Scarabaeoidea respecto a Hydrophiloidea dentro de Staphyliniformia; la filogenia de Byrrhoidea (Elateriformia), y la secuencia evolutiva de las transiciones al medio acuático dentro del grupo; la monofilia de Cucujoidea (Cucujiformia); y la relación entre Chrysomeloidea y Curculionoidea (también Cucujiformia). Finalmente se hacen algunas reflexiones sobre la distinta importancia que para la clasificación (reducida) y la filogenia (potencialmente enorme) tienen algunos grupos basales con un reducido número de especies. Palabras clave: Coleoptera, Evolución, Filogenia, Clasificación. Evolution, Phylogeny and Classification of the Coleoptera (Arthropoda: Hexapoda) Abstract: A synopsis of the present knowledge of the phylogeny, evolution and classification of Coleoptera - the most speciose among the extant groups of organisms - is presented. The monophyly of Coleoptera is generally accepted, as well as their proximity to Neuropteroidea. However, its sister group is still in dispute, and although molecular evidence seems to definitively place Strepsiptera close to Diptera, there are still some authors who place them as sisters to Coleoptera. The suborder Archostemata is accepted as the most basal, but relationships among the other suborders (Myxophaga, Adephaga and Polyphaga) are less well defined. Some of the main questions to be solved in the Phylogeny of Coleoptera are: the monophyly or polyphyly of the aquatic families of Adephaga; the position of the tiger beetles with respect to Carabidae; the position of Scarabaeoidea with respect to Hydrophiloidea within Staphyliniformia; the phylogeny of Byrrhoidea (Elateriformia), and the evolutionary sequence of the transitions to the aquatic medium within the group; the monophyly of Cucujoidea (Cucujiformia); and the relationships between Chrysomeloidea and Curculionoidea (also Cucujiformia). Finally, the relative importance of small basal groups for the classification (negligible) and the phylogeny (potentially enormous) is commented. Key words: Coleoptera, Evolution, Phylogeny, Classification.
32. Filogenia y Evolución del Orden Hymenoptera José Luis Nieves-Aldrey y Félix Manuel Fontal-Cazalla
Palabras clave: Hymenoptera, Filogenia, Evolución, Clasificación, Registro fósil, Parasitoides, Diversidad. Phylogeny and Evolution of the order Hymenoptera Abstract: The state of the art on higher level phylogeny and evolution of the Hymenoptera is analysed on the light of the most recent literature on the subject. Following a brief introduction to hymenopteran definition and diversity, its actual classification, monophyly, phylogenetic origin and fossil history is outlined. The actual knowledge on the hymenopteran high level phylogenetic relationships, based both in morphological and molecular data, is summarised and discussed. On the basis of the most recent hypothesis on high level hymenopteran phylogeny, the knowledge of the evolution of the biological life-styles, with special regard to larval diet, parasitoid habit and the development of sociality is also summarised. A final compilation is made on the estimated numbers of described species and trophic habit for the 18 superfamilies and 79 recognised hymenopteran families. Key words: Hymenoptera, Phylogeny, Evolution, Classification, Fossil record, Parasitoids, Diversity.
33. Filogenia y Evolución de Lepidoptera Enrique García-Barros
Palabras clave: Lepidoptera, Filogenia, Evolución. Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera Abstract: Current knowledge on the phylogenetic relationships among the Lepidopteran superfamilies, and the relevant pertinent literature, are summarised. The characters that support the present phylogenetic hypotheses are not listed in detail. Instead, the potential role that some relevant features may have played in the evolution of this insect order is addressed. Specifically, the morphological and behavioural trends related to wing and scale morphology, female genitalia, and feeding specialization in adults and larvae, are discussed within a non- strictly technical framework. Key words: Lepidoptera, Phylogeny, Evolution.
34. La filogenia de Noctuidos, revisada (Insecta:
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) José L. Yela 1 & Ian J. Kitching 2 Resumen: La caracterización morfológica precisa de los noctuidos (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) al nivel familiar, la delimitación de subfamilias y las relaciones de parentesco entre éstas están todavía sin aclarar. Los datos son fraccionarios y las interpretaciones parcialmente contradictorias. Los principales obstáculos que dificultan alcanzar una filogenia supragenérica satisfactoria se identifican con (1) la enorme diversidad global de los noctuidos (sobre 35.000 especies descritas, la mayoría conocidas muy superficialmente), (2) su elevada disparidad morfológica (entre 18 y 39 subfamilias reconocidas actualmente, incluido el complejo nolinoide y Pantheinae), y (3) su gran homogeneidad en cuanto a su patrón estructural básico (que a su vez está sujeto a un grado de homoplasia alto). Con objeto de llegar a una propuesta filogenética de los noctuidos que sea estable en lo fundamental son necesarios datos morfológicos, biológicos y moleculares tanto de un número suficientemente elevado de especies de las distintas subfamilias como de aquellas especies que hasta el momento no han podido ser adscritas a ninguna subfamilia con suficiente fiabilidad. Al nivel morfológico, es necesario reunir datos tanto de los adultos como de los estados inmaduros. En este artículo se revisa la taxonomía subfamiliar de los noctuidos en función de la información filogenética publicada durante los últimos 15 años. Para ello se recopilan los datos disponibles con objeto de caracterizar en lo posible cada una de las subfamilias que los diferentes autores han reconocido, y se repasan críticamente las propuestas filogenéticas, resaltándose aquellos segmentos de la filogenia en los que los distintos autores muestran actualmente cierto consenso e identificándose los puntos de desacuerdo más importantes. Sobre estos últimos se discuten diversas alternativas posibles. Se expone la interpretación personal de los autores del presente trabajo sobre las relaciones de parentesco entre las subfamilias de noctuidos, basada en esquemas publicados previamente. Estos esquemas son criticados en función de nuevos datos, tanto propios como bibliográficos. Ya que los noctuidos no han podido ser caracterizados todavía por autapomorfías de una manera aceptable, se incluyen Nolidae y Pantheidae (sensu Kitching & Rawlins) provisionalmente en la familia. De manera tentativa, se reconocen 41 subfamilias: Nolinae, Chloephorinae (incluidos Sarrothripini y Camptolomini), Westermanniinae, Eariadinae, Bleninae, Risobinae, Collomeninae, Afridinae, Eligminae, Pantheinae, Aganainae, Herminiinae, Strepsimaninae, Hypeninae, Rivulinae, Catocalinae, Calpinae, Gonopterinae, Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Eustrotiinae, Eublemminae, Bagisarinae, Acronictinae, Raphiinae, Bryophilinae, Eucocytiinae, Plusiinae, Acontiinae, Aediinae (incluidos Tytini, tentativamente), Condicinae, Stiriinae (incluidos Pseudeustrotiini, tentativamente), Heliothinae, Agaristinae, Amphipyrinae, Dilobinae, Psaphidinae, Cuculliinae, Hadeninae (incluidos Eriopini y Glottulini), Ufeinae y Noctuinae. Por último, se relacionan algunas líneas de investigación sobre filogenia de noctuidos que se consideran prioritarias para el futuro inmediato. Palabras clave: Evolución, Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Filogenia, Nivel subfamiliar, Revisión. Noctuid phylogeny revisited (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Abstract: Accurate morphological characterisation of noctuid moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) at the family level, delimitation of subfamilies and their phylogenetic interrelationships have yet to be clarified. Data are fragmentary and interpretations partially contradictory. The main obstacles hindering a satisfactory morphological, suprageneric, noctuid phylogeny are identified as follows: (1) the huge global diversity (around 35,000 already described species, most very superficially known); (2) the remarkable morphological disparity of noctuids (between 18 and 39 recognised subfamilies, including the nolinoid complex and Pantheinae) and; (3) the great homogeneity of their basic structure (which in turn is subject to a high degree of homoplasy). In order to reach a more robust phylogenetic hypothesis that can be considered stable at least in its fundamentals, it is necessary to analyse morphological, biological and molecular data on both a large set of species, including both those that have been ascribed to subfamilies and those that have not. On a morphological level, data should be derived from both adults and immature stages. In this paper, noctuid subfamily taxonomy is reviewed on the basis of the phylogenetic information published during the past 15 years. Available data are compiled in order to characterise, as far as possible, the different recognised subfamilies, and previously proposed phylogenies are critically examined, highlighting those segments of the phylogeny where there is some consensus and identifying the most relevant disagreements. Several alternatives to the main disagreements are discussed. The authors’ personal interpretation of the phylogenetic relationships among noctuid subfamilies is given, based on previously published schemes. These schemes are criticised on the basis of new published and previously unpublished data. The family Noctuidae remains uncharacterised by autapomorphies, and thus Nolidae and Pantheidae (sensu Kitching & Rawlins) are provisionally included within it. Forty-one subfamilies are tentatively recognised: Nolinae, Chloephorinae (including Sarrothripini and Camptolomini), Westermanniinae, Eariadinae, Bleninae, Risobinae, Collomeninae, Afridinae, Eligminae, Pantheinae, Aganainae, Herminiinae, Strepsimaninae, Hypeninae, Rivulinae, Catocalinae, Calpinae, Gonopterinae, Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Eustrotiinae, Eublemminae, Bagisarinae, Acronictinae, Raphiinae, Bryophilinae, Eucocytiinae, Plusiinae, Acontiinae, Aediinae (tentatively including Tytini), Condicinae, Stiriinae (tentatively including Pseudeustrotiini), Heliothinae, Agaristinae, Amphipyrinae, Dilobinae, Psaphidinae, Cuculliinae, Hadeninae (including Eriopini and Glottulini), Ufeinae and Noctuinae. Further priority research lines on noctuid phylogeny are outlined. Key words: Evolution, Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Phylogeny, Review, Subfamily level.
35. Las mariposas fósiles. Razones de su escasez y su influencia sobre el conocimiento de la filogenia y distribución de Zygaenini (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) Fidel Fernández-Rubio
Palabras clave: Zygaenini, Zygaenidae, Lepidoptera, Fósiles, Paleobiogeografía. Fossil butterflies. Causes of their rarity and how they influence our knowledge of phylogeny and distribution of Zygaenini (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) Abstract: In contrast to other arthropods, lepidoptera fossil record is very fragmentary. Tribe Zygaenini, however, is a relatively special case. In this paper the information is reviewed concerning the three deposits of Zygaenini currently know, as well as their fossil species. From these data, speciation processes and paleobiogeography of the different geni of this tribe are discussed. Key words: Zygaenini, Zygaenidae, Lepidoptera, Fossils, Paleobiogeography.
|
© 1999-2001 SEA, Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa http://entomologia.rediris.es/sea - CV-e Comunidad Virtual de Entomología - http://entomologia.rediris.es - admin@entomologia.rediris.es |