@article {421, title = {Phylogeny of Lithobiidae Newport, 1844, with emphasis on the megadiverse genus Lithobius Leach, 1814 (Myriapoda, Chilopoda)}, journal = {Cladistics}, year = {2020}, month = {04/11/2020}, pages = {1-23}, abstract = {

Phylogenetic analyses based on molecular and morphological data were conducted to shed light on relationships within the mostly Palaearctic/Oriental centipede family Lithobiidae, with a particular focus on the Palaearctic genus Lithobius Leach, 1814 (Lithobiidae, Lithobiomorpha), which contains \>500 species and subspecies. Previous studies based on morphological data resolved Lithobius as nonmonophyletic, but molecular-based phylogenetic analyses have until now sampled few species. To elucidate species inter-relationships of the genus, test the validity of its classification into subgenera, and infer its relationships with other Lithobiidae, we obtained molecular data (nuclear markers: 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA; mitochondrial markers: 16S rRNA, COI) and 61 morphological characters for 44 species of Lithobius representing four of its eight subgenera and nine other representatives of Lithobiidae. The data were analyzed phylogenetically using maximum-likelihood, parsimony and Bayesian inference. This study suggests that (i) a close relationship between L. giganteus and the pterygotergine Disphaerobius loricatus highlighted in recent morphological analyses is also strongly supported by molecular data, and Pterygoterginae is formally synonymized with Lithobiinae; (ii) the Oriental/Australian genus Australobius is consistently resolved as sister group to all other sampled Lithobiidae by the molecular and combined data; (iii) the subfamily Ethopolyinae may be paraphyletic; (iv) the genus Lithobius is nonmonophyletic; (v) the subgenera Lithobius, Sigibius and Monotarsobius are nonmonophyletic and should not be used in future taxonomic studies; and (vi) there are instances of cryptic species and cases in which subspecies should be elevated to full species status, as identified for some European taxa within Lithobius.

}, issn = {0748-3007}, doi = {10.1111/cla.12431}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12431}, author = {Ganske, Anne-Sarah and Vahtera, Varpu and D{\'a}nyi, L{\'a}szl{\'o} and Edgecombe, Gregory D. and Akkari, Nesrine} } @article {53, title = {Evolution of blindness in scolopendromorph centipedes (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha): Insight from an expanded sampling of molecular data}, journal = {Cladistics}, volume = {28}, year = {2011}, month = {24/05/2011}, pages = {4-20}, abstract = {

Relative to its diversity (34 genera, 700 species), Scolopendromorpha has been undersampled in molecular phylogenetic analyses compared with the other chilopod orders. Previous analyses based on morphology have not resolved several key controversies in systematics and evolutionary morphology unambiguously. Here we apply new molecular and morphological data to scolopendromorph phylogenetics, with a focus on the evolution of blindness. The taxonomic sample includes 19 genera, many lacking previous molecular data, and diverse, cosmopolitan genera of Scolopendridae are sampled by multiple species. Phylogenetic analysis with Direct Optimization used 94 morphological characters and ca. 4.5kb of sequence data from two nuclear (18S and 28S rRNA) and two mitochondrial (16S rRNA and COI) loci. A single most-parsimonious cladogram selected after sensitivity analyses resolves Scolopendromorpha as monophyletic, and divides it into a blind clade of three families (Plutoniumidae, Cryptopidae, Scolopocryptopidae) and its ocellate sister group, Scolopendridae. Some species-rich, cosmopolitan genera (Cormocephalus, Otostigmus, Scolopendra) in Scolopendridae are non-monophyletic, and in several instances (e.g. New and Old World Scolopendra) relationships are more congruent with geographical distributions than with traditional classifications. The tribe Asanadini is particularly subject to parameter-sensitivity, nesting in the combined analysis within Scolopendrini but as sister to all other Scolopendrinae for molecular data alone. The total-evidence tree unambiguously optimizes trunk segmentation: a 23-segmented trunk has a single origin in the blind clade.

Publication date remark: The publication date in Myriatrix is Wiley\&$\#$39;s \"first published\" date of 24/05/2011 and not the issue publication date of 02/2012.

}, issn = {1096-0031}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00361.x}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00361.x}, author = {Vahtera, Varpu and Edgecombe, Gregory D. and Giribet, Gonzalo} }