Ctenotillini Brothers & Lelej, 2017

Brothers, Denis J. & Lelej, Arkady S., 2017, Phylogeny and higher classification of Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) based on morphological reanalyses, Journal of Hymenoptera Research 60, pp. 1-97 : 14

Ctenotillini Brothers & Lelej trib. n.

Type genus.

Ctenotilla Bischoff, 1920. A group including four terminals ( Mimecomutilla s.s. - Ctenotilla ) was found to be monophyletic in all analyses with high resampling support and almost always with Pristomutilla just basal to it, although generally without support; Pristomutilla was more distant in the analysis in which the most-polymorphic characters had been deleted (Fig. 8 ), but the five terminals formed a monophyletic group in the analysis of males only (Fig. 10 ), and they were greatly disrupted in the analysis of females only (Fig. 9 ). As discussed above, inclusion of Pristomutilla here seems justified. Given the uncertainties surrounding Pristomutilla , it is notable that the Ctenotillini has resampling support (although very low, here GC = 8), but it is not supported by any unique synapomorphies; there is a single unambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphy for both additive and non-additive characters: 111.0, flagellomere I <0.6 × length of flagellomere II in males (also in most smicromyrmines, some ephutines and some scattered terminals elsewhere). There are also four ambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphies, the most significant being: 34.1, prementum with posterior dome-like tubercle in females (also in a very few scattered terminals elsewhere, and absent in some Pristomutilla ); 52.4, posterodorsal margin of propodeum with>3 spines in females (also in Lynchiatilla , Ceratotilla and Acanthomutilla , and no spines in Mimecomutilla s.s. and Mimecotilla ). Despite the fairly poor support for this group as reflected in the trees, we propose that it be formally recognized, specially since it appears as sister to the remaining Mutillinae , with some resampling support, in the proposed final arrangement (Fig. 13 ). The tribe is Afrotropical, Oriental and Palaearctic in distribution, with 13 sub/genera; females are known for 77% and males for 92% of those taxa.

Figures

Figure 8. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 2024, ci = 0.21, ri = 0.63), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups both sexes, 198 characters (32 of the original 230 deleted, those found to be polymorphic in at least 10 % of terminals) many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 81). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).

Figure 9. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 1134, ci = 0.19, ri = 0.61), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups, females only, 97 characters many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 81). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).

Figure 10. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 1622, ci = 0.20, ri = 0.63), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups, males only, 140 characters many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 71). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).

Figure 13. Tree based on preferred tree (see Fig. 5) but with branches re-arranged to make the potential recognizable groups (see Fig. 12) monophyletic (length = 2858, ci = 0.19, ri = 0.60). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling; the highest values obtained when resampling all non-additive or mostly additive characters, using equal weights and implied weights (N = 5), are shown. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).