Pyrgomorphidae, Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1874

Zahid, Sundus, Mariño-Pérez, Ricardo & Song, Hojun, 2021, Molecular phylogeny of the grasshopper family Pyrgomorphidae (Caelifera Orthoptera) reveals rampant paraphyly and convergence of traditionally used taxonomic characters, Zootaxa 4969 (1), pp. 101-118 : 107

Phylogeny of Pyrgomorphidae

Both ML analysis and Bayesian analysis resulted in identical topologies ( Fig. 2 ). Nodal support values were generally high across the phylogeny. Our study recovered Pyrgomorphidae as monophyletic, but neither of the two subfamilies (or groups ‘A’ and ‘B’) was recovered as monophyletic. The subfamily Orthacridinae resulted in three lineages scattered across the phylogeny: (i) a single lineage including an Australian endemic genus Psedna ; (ii) a clade consisting of the Old World group Caprorhinus and Colemania ; and (iii) a clade consisting of the Mexican endemic genera, Sphenacris , Ichthiacris , Pyrgotettix , Sphenotettix , Ichthyotettix , and Piscacris . Considering Kevan’s series, we included multiple members of the Series III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, and none of these series was recovered as monophyletic. Of the tribes for which we included multiple taxa, we recovered Dictyophorini , Omurini sensu Mariño-Pérez and Song (2019) , and Pyrgomorphini as monophyletic. Sphenariini , Ichthiacridini , Ichthyotettigini , and Phymateini were found to be paraphyletic. When we compared our tree with the morphological phylogeny by Mariño-Pérez and Song (2018), we found a large number of discordances between the two in terms topology, and none of their four clades was recovered as monophyletic ( Fig. 3 ).

Figures

FIGURE 2. Molecular phylogeny of Pyrgomorphidae based on mitochondrial genome data. Branches are color-coded according to the currently recognized subfamily. Letters in bracket next to each terminal corresponds to Kevan’s Group and Series. Bootstrap support values from the maximum likelihood tree and posterior probability values from the Bayesian analyses are shown.

FIGURE 3. Comparison between morphological phylogeny by Mariño-Pérez & Song (2018) (left) and our molecular phylogeny (right).