Trichoptilus, AND

Alipanah, Helen, Gielis, Cees, Sari, Alireza, Sarafrazi, Alimorad & Manzari, Shahab, 2011, Phylogenetic relationships in the tribe Oxyptilini (Lepidoptera, Pterophoridae, Pterophorinae) based on morphological data of adults, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163 (2), pp. 484-547 : 526-527

TRICHOPTILUS AND MEGALORHIPIDA

In both the EW and SAW analyses, all Trichoptilus and five Megalorhipida species ( M. angusta , M. leptomeres , M. fissa , M. leucodactylus , and M. pseudodefectalis ) constituted a monophyletic clade (clade H, Fig. 16 ) and only in the consensus trees obtained from the SAW-RI-based analyses, Trichoptilus species formed a monophyletic clade. The remaining examined Megalorhipida species , viz. M. dulcis , M. deboeri , M. paraiso , and M. madoris , were placed apart from the five above-mentioned Megalorhipida species. Therefore, based upon the EW analysis, neither of these two genera were found to be monophyletic.

The examined Trichoptilus species are closely related in the wing and genitalia characteristics to those Megalorhipida species included in clade H ( Fig. 16 ). In all of these, except Megalorhipida pseudodefectalis , Trichoptilus pygmaeus , and T. vivax , the fore wing cleft is positioned behind the middle part of the wing. This finding is in conflict with that of Meyrick (1886), Gielis (1993, 1996), and Arenberger (2002). As stated by Meyrick (1886), in Trichoptilus the fore wing cleft is positioned behind the middle part of the wing. According to Gielis (1993), in Megalorhipida the fore wing cleft is in 0.4 of the wing length (not reaching to the middle part of the wing), and based on Arenberger’s (2002) idea, in both genera the fore wing cleft is in the middle part.

There are many controversies in the position of dark scale tooth/teeth on the dorsum of the third lobe of hind wing. According to Meyrick (1886), in some Trichoptilus species (i.e. T. scythrodes and T. ceramodes ) dark scale teeth are absent in this area. However, for Trichoptilus and Megalorhipida , the double dark scale teeth were considered as present by Gielis (1993), although he had already proposed the centrally placed dark scale tooth as a feature of M. leucodactylus ( Gielis, 1989) . According to Arenberger (2002), in Palaearctic species of Megalorhipida and Trichoptilus , single and single/double dark scale teeth are present in the middle of the dorsum of the third lobe of the hind wing, respectively. Based on the present study, this character is flexible in these two genera. For example, in M. leucodactylus , M. leptomeres , M. fissa , and T. varius , there is a single dark scale tooth, which is subterminal, whereas in M. pseudodefectalis , M. angusta , T. pygmaeus , and T. maceratus these are double and the distance between dark scale teeth is more than three times the length of the proximal scale tooth. Additonally, T. cryphias and T. vivax show both states. Apparently, this is an unreliable character to be used at generic, and even at species level for these genera.

Gielis (1993) and Arenberger (2002), based on their available materials, stated that vein Cu1 was absent and present in the fore wing of Megalorhipida and Trichoptilus species , respectively. In both examined T. maceratus specimens, Cu1 was absent, so it is expected that this character is indiscriminative at genus level.

According to Arenberger (2002), the ventral hair brush of the second segment of the labial palpus is present in both Trichoptilus and Megalorhipida species , and based on Gielis (1993) it is only present in Trichoptilus . We found that in all members of clade H ( Fig. 16 ), except M. angusta , the protruding ventral hair brush of the second segment of the labial palpus is narrow, and extends only from onequarter to one-third of the third segment. This is not in agreement with the finding of Arenberger (2002), i.e. extending to half of the length or end of the segment in Trichoptilus . This structure is also absent in M. angusta . Therefore, it is quite likely that the exact position of the ventral hair brush of the second segment of the labial palpus has not been studied for all known species of Trichoptilus and Megalorhipida .

The ten Trichoptilus and Megalorhipida species included in clade H ( Fig. 16 ) (five species from each genus) seem to have enough in common to be congeneric, especially bearing in mind that these five Megalorhipida species , in spite of having vein R 3 in the fore wing (unlike the Trichoptilus species ), did not gather in a distinct clade within clade H ( Fig. 16 ). The other four Megalorhipida species , viz. M. deboeri , M. dulcis , M. paraiso , and M. madoris , placed outside of clade H, of which the first three species formed a monophyletic clade in the consensus trees obtained from the EW and SAW-RI-based analyses ( Figs 16 , 17 ). These three Megalorhipida species may belong to an undescribed genus and the same could also be true for M. madoris . Furthermore, as a result of interspecific variations within Trichoptilus , its species were also not recovered as a monophyletic clade. These variations have already been alluded to by Adamczewski (1951). Therefore, it is necessary for Trichoptilus and Megalorhipida to be revised.

Adamczewski (1951) classified Trichoptilus and Megalorhipida together with Stangeia and Buckleria in the Trichoptilus generic group. In Gielis’s (1993) study, three genera, viz. Stangeia , Megalorhipida , and Trichoptilus , were recovered in a monophyletic clade based on the absence of veins R5 and Cu 2 in the fore wing. However, as revealed in the present study, Cu2 is present in M. leucodactylus , M. pseudodefectalis , and M. fissa . It is also present in some of the examined specimens of Stangeia siceliota . Therefore, it seems that the presence or absence of Cu 2 in the fore wing is an unreliable character.

Figures

Figure 16. Strict consensus trees of six equally most parsimonious trees obtained in the initial analysis using equally weighed characters. Numbers below the branches show Bremer support values and the capital letters show the clades included in Oxyptilini and are discussed in the text. Tree length = 943, consistency index = 0.4549, retention index = 0.7976.

Figure 17. Strict consensus trees of six equally most parsimonious trees obtained in the equally weighted analysis (left), and that of 380 most parsimonious trees obtained from successive approximation weighting based on maximum retention index values (right). Numbers above and below (underlined) the branches show bootstrap and jackknife values, respectively.