identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
038C76021A36FFEBFFD96A01FBEDFB79.text	038C76021A36FFEBFFD96A01FBEDFB79.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chalcolestes	<div><p>Position of  Chalcolestes</p><p>Our results support recent conclusions by Dumont et al. (2010), Gyulavári et al. (2011), Dijkstra and Kalkman (2012), and Vajda et al. (2018) that  Chalcolestes is a valid genus and should not be considered a synonym of  Lestes . Gyulavári et al. (2011) analysed COI and ITS sequences from several specimens of  C. viridis and  C. parvidens, as well as  Sympecma fusca and six taxa of European  Lestes spp. in two separate analyses. In both analyses they found that  Chalcolestes and  Lestes are separated by  Sympecma . However, as they did not analyse a combined dataset and only included European species, their results provide little information on the phylogenetic position of  Chalcolestes . More importantly, their datasets did not include any non-Lestidae outgroup taxa and if the trees they presented (Gyulavári et al., 2011, fig. 3) are rooted on  Sympecma fusca (Vander Linden, 1820),  Chalcolestes and the included representatives of  Lestes would appear to be sister groups. Even though Vajda et al. (2018) could not conclusively separate  Chalcolestes,  Lestes, and  Sympecma in their statistical morphometric analyses of male morphology, they concluded that differences in the male secondary genitalia structures support full genus status for  Chalcolestes . Furthermore, they mentioned that female genitalia morphology also supports this, as  Chalcolestes viridis has two spermathecae,  Sympecma fusca one spermatheca, and at least  Lestes barberus (Fabricius, 1798) and  Lestes virens have no spermatheca (Vajda et al., 2018, p. 254). As mentioned above, Dumont et al. (2010) is the only higher-level phylogenetic study that includes  Chalcolestes . Their results are similar to ours as  Chalcolestes is the well-supported sister group to  Indolestes . Our taxon sampling within  Lestidae is broader than that of Dumont et al. (2010) as we include the genera  Orolestes and  Austrolestes . We find that  Indolestes is placed in a strongly supported monophyletic group with  Austrolestes, and that  Chalcolestes is placed in a strongly supported monophyletic group with  Orolestes . As these two groups together form a strongly supported monophyletic group (Group 1), our results are compatible with Dumont et al. (2010), and strongly support full genus status for  Chalcolestes . Interestingly,  Chalcolestes is entirely restricted to the Western and  Central Palaearctic (Boudot &amp; Duatlova, 2015; Boudot &amp; Willigalla, 2015), while the other three genera are found in Southeast Asia ( Orolestes), Australia ( Austrolestes), or from India to Japan and Australia ( Indolestes) (GBIF.org, 24 September 2021). As our dataset does not include the genera  Platylestes (India, Southeast Asia) and  Sinhalestes (Sri Lanka) (GBIF.org, 24 September 2021), we refrain from making any biogeographical conclusions but note that  Chalcolestes may represent a dispersal into Central and Western Palaearctic by an otherwise Oriental-Australian group.</p><p>Conclusions and further directions</p><p>Three main conclusions can be drawn from our results despite the somewhat limited taxon sampling. First, there is no phylogenetic support for dividing  Lestidae into the subfamilies Lestinae and Sympecmatinae. Second,  Lestes as currently defined is almost certainly not a monophyletic group, and we agree with Dijkstra and Kalkman (2012) that a phylogenetic revision of the genus is much needed. Third,  Chalcolestes is a valid genus that is not closely related to other European genera of  Lestidae —neither  Lestes nor  Sympecma . Instead, the genus is most likely the sister group to  Orolestes and placed in a clade with otherwise Oriental-Australian genera.</p><p>Other than the much-needed revision of  Lestes sensu lato, several high profile aspects of  Lestidae phylogeny and systematics remain to be solved. The relationship and delimitation of  Austrolestes and  Indolestes remain unclear, and the two genera in combination should be the subject of a phylogenetic taxonomic revision. The higher-level phylogeny of  Lestidae should be the subject of phylogenomic analyses in the mould of Bybee et al. (2021) and include also  Platylestes and  Sinhalestes . Such a study should address the phylogenetic position of  Sympecma, identify natural divisions that can be used for a subfamily and tribal classification, and resolve the biogeography of the family including the geographical origin of  Chalcolestes .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038C76021A36FFEBFFD96A01FBEDFB79	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Simonsen, Thomas J.;Glahder, Marcus;Pape, Thomas;Olsen, Kent;Djernaes, Marie	Simonsen, Thomas J., Glahder, Marcus, Pape, Thomas, Olsen, Kent, Djernaes, Marie (2022): Rhapsody in emerald: phylogenetic framework for Lestidae with reference to the systematic position of Chalcolestes Kennedy. International Journal of Odonatology 25: 16-21, DOI: 10.48156/1388.2022.1917157, URL: https://doi.org/10.48156/1388.2022.1917157
