Filogenia e diversificação Bethylidae (Hymenoptera, Chrysidoidea): reconstruindo a história do grupo através de moléculas

• Autor(a) principal: Nunes, Rosana dos Reis Abrantes
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (riUfes)
• Texto Completo: http://repositorio.ufes.br/handle/10/4366
• topic: Zoologia; Bethylidae; Filogenia; Biologia - Classificação; Himenóptero; 57

Bethylidae (Chrysidoidea; Apoidea) are parasitoids wasps that play important ecological roles, such as populational control of beetles and micromoths. This family presents a world wide distribution and according to fossil data its diversisfication started during the late Creataceous. The taxonomy of this group is controversial and has been through many modifications since its description by Halliday, in 1839. Currently there are recognized five living subfamilies (Bethylinae, Pristocerinae, Epyrinae, Scleroderminae and Mesitiinae) and one fossil subfamily (Lancepyrinae) placed in 102 genera of which 89 are extant. Previous studies have indicated that the association of molecular markers with morphological data are helpful to understand the phylogenetic relations in Hymenoptera; in elucidating its classification and for the elaboration of hypothesis about the origin and diversification of the clades. In the present work, we used sequences of two mitochondrial genes (small subunit of the ribosomal 16S and cytochrome oxidase subunit I) and one nuclear gene (large subunit of the ribosomal 28S). The sequences were analysed individually or concatenated to infer the relationships within the members of Bethylidae in different hierarchic levels besides estimating the region and age of diversification of the main lineages of the family. Divergence time estimates were used to date the cladogenesis of the main lineages of Bethylidae. In order to determine where the lineages diverged we elaborated an estimative based on historical events of divergence and vicariance. Our data corroborate the monophyly of Bethylidae and of the suffamilies Pristocerinae, Epyrinae and Mesitiinae, besides the group composed of Scleroderminae + Mesitiinae. The sharing of the most recent common ancestor between Bethylidae and Chrysidoidea happened about 139 million years ago and the splitting of Bethylidae into two main lineages took place about 130 million years ago. Data about the reconstruction of the ancestral areas point to the emergence of the lineage that parasites Lepidoptera in the area comprised between Australia and India-Madagascar, while the origin of the lineage that parasites Coleoptera was pointed to the southeastern region of the Gondwana continent, which would correspond today to India, Madagascar and Arabia. Some groups were outlined within each subfamily for not being well resolved taxonomically, while for other groups it was evidenced the need for more detailed molecular and morphological studies to delimit taxonomic units and to elucidate phylogenetic relationships. In Bethylinae the genera Lytopsenella and Eupsenella were recovered as sister and basal-group of all other genera. Goniozus is poliphyletic and should be represented for morethan one genus. The subdivision of Pristocerinae into well defined lineages was congruent with morphological sinapomorphies of the group. Pristocera was recovered as paraphyletic in relation to Kathepyris, raising questions about the identity of these two genera. Epyrinae and 9 Scleroderminae have had a confusing taxonomic history and the molecular phylogeny demonstrated the need for deeper phylogenetic studies. In Epyrinae, Epyris was recovered as polyphyletic. In Scleroderminae, the position of Discleroderma is uncertain and the genus Glenossema, Tuberepyris and Solepyris were included in Epyrinae and not in Scleroderminae as prescribed in morphology-based studies. The subdivision of Mesitiinae into tribes was not recovered, being considered an artificial cluster. The incorporation of a molecular tool brought new insights in cladistics studies and demonstrated to be efficient in recovering the clusters proposed 100 years ago by Kieffer and additionally revealed unpublished relationships. We believe that the current scenario brings fresh perspectives into cladistics studies, indicating new approaches and groups to be investigated using more robust and specific morphological and molecular approaches