Coding characters from different life stages for phylogenetic reconstruction: a case study on dragonfly adults and larvae, including a description of the larval head anatomy of Epiophlebia superstes (Odonata: Epiophlebiidae). (27th March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Blanke, Alexander; Büsse, Sebastian; Machida, Ryuichiro
• Is Part Of: Zoological journal of the Linnean Society. Volume 174:Number 4(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 718
• Page End: 732
• Publication Date: 2015-03-27
• Subjects: Zoology -- Periodicals; 590
• DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12258
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0024-4082

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>The exclusive use of characters coding for specific life stages may bias tree reconstruction. If characters from several life stages are coded, the type of coding becomes important. Here, we simulate the influence on tree reconstruction of morphological characters of Odonata larvae incorporated into a data matrix based on the adult body under different coding schemes. For testing purposes, our analysis is focused on a well‐supported hypothesis: the relationships of the suborders Zygoptera, 'Anisozygoptera', and Anisoptera. We studied the cephalic morphology of <italic>Epiophlebia</italic>, a key taxon among Odonata, and compared it with representatives of Zygoptera and Anisoptera in order to complement the data matrix. Odonate larvae are characterized by a peculiar morphology, such as the specific head form, mouthpart configuration, ridge configuration, cephalic musculature, and leg and gill morphology. Four coding strategies were used to incorporate the larval data: artificial coding (AC), treating larvae as independent terminal taxa; non‐multistate coding (NMC), preferring the adult life stage; multistate coding (MC); and coding larval and adult characters separately (SC) within the same taxon. As expected, larvae are 'monophyletic' in the AC strategy, but with anisopteran and zygopteran larvae as sister groups. Excluding larvae in the NMC approach leads to strong support for both monophyletic Odonata and Epiprocta, whereas MC erodes phylogenetic signal completely. This is an obvious result of the larval morphology leading to many multistate characters. SC results in the strongest support for Odonata, and Epiprocta receives the same support as with NMC. Our results show the deleterious effects of larval morphology on tree reconstruction when multistate coding is applied. Coding larval characters separately is still the best approach in a phylogenetic framework. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London</p> </abstract>