A Molecular Phylogeny of the Subfamily Rogadinae ( Hymenoptera: Braconidae ) Based on the D2 Variable Region of 28S Ribosomal RNA

CHEN Xue-xin,PIAO Mei-Hua,J.B.WHITFIELD,HE Jun-hua
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0454-6296.2003.02.013
2003-01-01
Abstract:The D2 variable region of 28S ribosomal RNA was sequenced from ethanol preserved specimens or obtained from the literature to pro-vide the first molecular phylogenetic reconstruction of this subfamily. Evolutionary relationships were investigated by comparing the results usingthree different analysis methods (distance-based neighbor-joining, NJ; maximum parsimony, MP; and maximum likelihood, ML) and three differ-ent outgroups. The monophyly of the Rogadinae s. s. is well supported by all trees generated from molecular data. The morphologically definedtribes and the relationships within the subfamily are partially resolved. We found no evidence for a monophyletic Rogadini lineage, neither for themorphological subtribe division within the tribe, but we did find some evidence for three other tribes. Among the genera of Rogadini our resultsshow strong support for the paraphyly of this group. It can be divided into two clades, one consisting of Aleiodes + Arcaleiodes, the other ofCanalirogas + Conspinaria + Spinaria + Rogas. The clade Aleiodes + Arcaleiodes was constantly resolved using different outgroups with allAleiodes species forming a monophyletic group. Two distinct clades are found within Aleiodes, strongly corresponding to the morphologically de-fined subgeneric divisions of the genus. For the clade Canalirogas + Conspinaria + Spinaria + Rogas, we found only limited support for this cladeto be a monophyletic group. We did not find any support for the genus Spinaria to receive subtribe rank. The tribe Clinocentrini is well supportedin our analyses, and probably occupy a basal position in the phylogeny of the subfamily. We also found two well-supported clades containing thegenera Yelicones and Stiropius, corresponding to the tribes Yeliconini and Stiropiini, respectively, which were well defined by morphological data,but the placement of these two clades within the phylogeny of the subfamily is poorly resolved in this study.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?