Taxonomic Swap 132597
(Tehty 25-10-2023)
|
|
korvattu seuraavalla: |
|
Kommentit
A one-tribe-subfamily in my eyes is kind of obsolescent. This way, we have not two ID levels for the unidentified, but just tribe (+ genus level, sure).
"Ok for me. Thanks. There are quite some changes in the taxonomy of the whole of the ladybirdfamily (Coccinellidae).
Che, L.H., Zhang, P., Deng, S.H., Escalona, H.E., Wang, X.M., Li, Y., Pang, H., Vandenberg, N., Ślipiński, A., Tomaszewska, W.
& Liang, D. (2021) New insights into the phylogeny and evolution of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) by extensive
sampling of genes and species. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 156, 107045.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.107045
on
https://scholar.google.se/scholar?q=Che,+L.H.,+Zhang,+P.,+Deng,+S.H.,+Escalona,+H.E.,+Wang&hl=nl&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart"
(@johan_bogaert, yesterday)
I tend to follow the article from Che. The classical division in 5 subfamilies is European or West-Palearctic based. It started to rumble when Slipinski looked in the phylogeny of the Australian (and some other) ladybirds. Vandenberg was also poking from the American side. With the help of the DNA analyse it went totally overboard.
Some nice articles were published but they were mostly only breaking down the classical division;
The article from Che seems to be a little bit broader and gathering quite some interesting people from all over the world working with phylogeny on ladybirds. So it seems to be trustworthy.
Is this the final division? I don't know, but I think it will stil change still in some parts. On the other hand it seems there are already some tribes who are stable. Epilachnini is one of them.
So I agree with Boris and I think the swap from Epilachninae to Epilachnini is ok.
There was half October just a ladybird conference in France. We had some nice discussions about phylogeny and there are some changes upcoming. Henosepilachna, Ceratomegilla, ... But let's wait with this ones till it's more clear.
Hi Boris, I question this taxonomic swap. You cite a paper by Seago et al so I reached out to Ainsley Seago. She says, "Our 2011 paper was NOT a revision (just a phylogeny testing hypotheses of monophyly and evolution)" However, she suggests running this by Adam Slipinski, who was the lead researcher. -Jim McClarin