[Taxacom] Order Homoptera probably not paraphyletic after all

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Tue Feb 24 16:08:43 CST 2015


Hi Mike,                                Oh, I agree that the Coleorrhyncha made Order Homoptera paraphyletic, and that it should be placed in Heteroptera as the basalmost group.  But it is a very small group (just one living family if I recall correctly), and I doubt that its inclusion would have changed the conclusions of the PLOS ONE paper.  
        Yes, it would definitely be nice to repeat their study with more complete sampling.  However, I strongly suspect that the long branch attraction problem that they have uncovered is real, and that more sampling would probably not make that much difference in their overall phylogeny (Homoptera and Heteroptera as sister groups).  Only time will tell.  In any case, I always thought having separate Orders Homoptera and Heteroptera was useful even when Homoptera was paraphyletic (before Coleorrhyncha was moved to Heteroptera).                                        -----------Ken             
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:16:10 -0700
> From: mivie at montana.edu
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Order Homoptera probably not paraphyletic after all
> 
> The idea of sister-groups Homoptera and Hemiptera is not well supported, 
> and this has been the case for decades.  Actually dating back to China 
> in the 1920s.  North Americans resisted this fact for some reason, but 
> has now come to understand it better. The analysis that Ken gleefully 
> cites is good only in giving the answer he is looking for.  Really bad 
> taxon sampling, showing little understanding of the issues with this 
> group.  Best supported to date is a single linkage tree with the 
> Homopterans the first 2 (or more depending on finding support for a 
> monphylletic Auchenorrhyncha), the Coleorrhyncha next and then the 
> Enicocephalomorphs and Dipiscoromorphs before the half-wing synapomorphy 
> that holds the groups most dabblers consider to be Hemiptera together.
> 
> Mike
> 
>  From a teaching standpoint, the combined Order is far easier to explain 
> to students using a phyllogenetic framework.
> On 2/24/2015 12:44 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> > I grew up with Hempitera as the order and Homoptera and Heteroptera as
> > monophyletic suborders. Only when I transitioned to the northern hemisphere
> > did I run into their ranking as orders. Looks like there are two options
> > for ranking these groups.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,                                 Many entomologists today regard
> >> Homoptera as paraphyletic, and therefore have dumped them in with the
> >> Heteroptera into an expanded Hemiptera sensu lato.  I never have liked this
> >> great expansion of Hemiptera to also include all the Homoptera, (and of
> >> course, it is not necessary if one considers paraphyletic taxa as natural
> >> and useful).                         In any case, a fairly recent paper
> >> (published a little over 2 years ago) was published in PLOS ONE which
> >> presents molecular evidence that Homoptera is probably holophyletic after
> >> all, and a sister group to Heteroptera.  They show that most trees actually
> >> show a holophyletic (strictly monophyletic) Homoptera, and that those few
> >> trees showing a paraphyletic Homoptera are skewed due to long branch
> >> attraction with outgroup taxa.                So for those of you who still
> >> use Order Homoptera and Order Heteroptera, instead of a huge heterogenous
> >> Order Hemiptera, I applaud you.  If Homoptera isn't paraphyletic, there is
> >> no reason for the paraphyly haters to over split (or in this case overlump)
> >> this perfectly good taxon.  Here's a weblink to the paper:
> >> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048778
> >>                     ------------------Cheers,
> >>                        Ken
> >> Kinman---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> 
> -- 
> __________________________________________________
> 
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
> 
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
> 
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list