Dasymutillini Brothers & Lelej, 2017

Brothers, Denis J. & Lelej, Arkady S., 2017, Phylogeny and higher classification of Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) based on morphological reanalyses, Journal of Hymenoptera Research 60, pp. 1-97 : 11

Dasymutillini Brothers & Lelej trib. n.

Type genus.

Dasymutilla Ashmead, 1899. This group is paraphyletic in most analyses, although, interestingly, monophyletic in the tree derived from males only (Fig. 10 ) and that from the matrix with duplicated terminals reflecting maximum polymorphisms (Fig. 7 ), and almost so in the tree derived from the reduced matrix in which the most polymorphic characters had been deleted (Fig. 8 ). Using Fig. 13 as the base, moving the terminals to reflect the arrangement in the preferred tree (Fig. 5 ) (except in retaining the Euspinolia - Hoplocrates group as sister to the remaining pseudomethocines) actually added four steps, making the proposed final arrangement preferable in this regard. The group is not supported by resampling nor by any unique and unambiguously placed synapomorphies, but there is a single unique but ambiguously placed synapomorphy for both additive and non-additive characters: 10.2, eye strongly convex in females (but also in several other sphaeropthalmines and Seyrigilla , and less convex in Odontomyrme ). There are also some ambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphies, the most significant being: 135.2, mesoscutal notaulus absent in winged males (but also in most pseudomethocines, a few sphaeropthalmines s.s. and scattered terminals elsewhere, and present in Gogoltilla and Tobantilla ). It is not surprising that Dasymutilla was shown to be paraphyletic in the analysis of duplicated terminals (Fig. 7 ), since it is generally recognized that the genus is highly variable (and even very difficult to separate from Traumatomutilla André), although recent reviews have not suggested the recognition of further genera or even subgenera; we tried to capture some of that variability in the selection of exemplars. The tribe is Neotropical, Australian and Nearctic in distribution, with 24 sub/genera; females are known for 100% and males for 95% of those taxa.

Figures

Figure 5. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 2828, ci = 0.19, ri = 0.61), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups, both sexes, 230 characters many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 81). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).

Figure 7. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 3822, ci = 0.14, ri = 0.75), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups (but each duplicated and recoded so as to reflect maximal character-state differences for polymorphisms, and taxa retained as monophyletic collapsed in the figure, see text), both sexes, 230 characters many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 169). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Names in bold are of " terminals " shown not to be monophyletic.

Figure 8. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 2024, ci = 0.21, ri = 0.63), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups both sexes, 198 characters (32 of the original 230 deleted, those found to be polymorphic in at least 10 % of terminals) many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 81). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).

Figure 10. Single most-parsimonious tree (raw length = 1622, ci = 0.20, ri = 0.63), of 101 sub / genera of Mutillidae and 4 outgroups, males only, 140 characters many additive and all with implied weighting (N = 5, k = 71). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).

Figure 13. Tree based on preferred tree (see Fig. 5) but with branches re-arranged to make the potential recognizable groups (see Fig. 12) monophyletic (length = 2858, ci = 0.19, ri = 0.60). Group support (GC) values shown for all groups supported by resampling; the highest values obtained when resampling all non-additive or mostly additive characters, using equal weights and implied weights (N = 5), are shown. Terminals in bold are those whose placements differ by more than mere taxonomic level in the classifications of DB and LN (see Appendix 1).