1. Introduction
The subfamily Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) is a large group of fierce predatory insects that prey mainly on the larvae of Lepidoptera pests and can be used for biological control [1,2]. It contains seven genera with roots rhynchium worldwide, including Allorhynchium van der Vecht, 1963, Anterhynchium de Saussure, 1863, Emeryrhynchium Gusenleitner, 2007, Gibberhynchium Gusenleitner, 2002, Pararrhynchium de Saussure, 1855, Rhynchium Spinola, 1806, and Xenorhynchium van der Vecht, 1963. They are restricted to the Old World [3,4], with four, Rhynchium, Anterhynchium, Pararrhynchium and Allorhynchium, found in China. Hereafter, we refer to these four genera as the Rhynchium genera group in this study. The Rhynchium genera group has similar morphology, with a body size ranging from 8.9 mm to 15.1 mm, relatively stout, and slightly narrower first than the second gastral segment [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Because of the highly similar morphologies of these genera, it is sometimes challenging to tell them apart from each other, and therefore delineating their relationships is a significant exploration.
The phylogenetic relationships within the Rhynchium genera group have been discussed in a previous study based on morphological features and mitochondrial genomes [15], but uncertainties and conflicting classification schemes remain among genera and subgenera and on the taxonomic status of certain species. Firstly, the taxonomic status of Anterhynchium (Dirhynchium) is controversial. Dirhynchium van der Vecht, 1963 has long been regarded as a subgenus of Anterhynchium [8,9,10,11] based on morphology. This, however, conflicts with the mitochondrial phylogenetic analysis which suggested that the subgenus Dirhynchium should be elevated to genus [16]. Meanwhile, the taxonomy of wasps in Anterhynchium is still poor. As Selis and Carpenter systematically revised African Anterhynchium and did a phylogenetic analysis based on morphological characters to move several species from this genus to other genera [17], are there more revisions including the division of subgenera in this genus that needs to be improved in other regions? Secondly, the taxonomic status of the species Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus (Giordani Soika 1941) remains uncertain. Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus (Giordani Soika 1941) was transferred from the genus Lissodynerus with the synonymy of the genus Lissodynerus as Pararrhynchium by Carpenter and Brown based on morphological characters [18]. Originally, P. septemfasciatus feanus (Giordani Soika 1941) was described as Ancistrocerus septemfasciatus var. feanus Giordani Soika, 1941 in the genus Ancistrocerus, and then was combined within the genus Lissodynerus by Giordani Soika [19,20], which was supported by Tan et al. and Li et al. [5,21]. In a systematic taxonomic collection of the subfamily Eumeninae in China, Tan et al. placed P. septemfasciatus feanus in the genus Lissodynerus based on the prestigma of the forewing, which is longer than half the length of the pterostigma [5]. Meanwhile, in our previous study of the subfamily Eumeninae based on mitochondrial genomes [16], the species P. septemfasciatus feanus ran out of the genus Pararrhynchium. Resolving these above uncertainties requires more in-depth research.
With advancing sequencing technologies and increasing genomic data, low-coverage whole genome sequencing is becoming a popular technique in phylogenetic studies due to its simple sample preparation and low cost [22]. Universal single-copy orthologs (USCOs) are selected from OrthoDB orthologous groups that contain genes present as single-copy orthologs in at least 90% of the species and are of particular importance in providing the basis to infer species phylogenetics [23]. Due to their slow evolutionary rate, less saturation than other markers, and not crossing over with most types of paralogous genes, Ultraconserved elements (UCEs) are another set of increasingly used markers for phylogenetic analysis [24,25]. Therefore, reconstructing phylogenetic relationships with USCOs and/or UCEs has been successfully applied to a range of species, such as springtails, bees, rodents, and monocots [26,27,28,29]. At present, although systematic phylogenetic analysis of all major lineages of Hymenoptera based on protein-coding genes has been conducted [30], phylogenetic studies of the subfamily Eumeninae based on nuclear data are still poorly. In this paper, we aim to investigate the phylogenetic relationships of Rhynchium and its related genera in the subfamily Eumeninae using low-coverage whole genome sequencing with USCOs and UCEs, which could also serve as new molecular markers for the subfamily Eumeninae.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sampling and Sequencing
Here, we sampled 10 species of the Rhynchium genera group with two species for each of the genera Rhynchium, Allorhynchium, and Pararrhynchium, and four species of the two subgenera Anterhynchium and Dirhynchium in the genus Anterhynchium (detail information is shown in Table 1, more information see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials). Specimens of the 10 species were netted, smothered in collection tubes, immersed in 95% ethanol, and stored at −20 °C at the Institute of Entomology and Molecular Biology, Chongqing Normal University. The head and gaster were removed to reduce contamination of the intestinal flora; and the remaining tissue was sent to Novogene Bioinformatics Technology Co., Ltd. (Tianjin, China) for sequencing. Genomic DNA was extracted and purified using the DNeasy DNA Extraction Kit (Qiagen). The qualified libraries were pooled and sequenced on Illumina platforms with PE150.
We chose two species in Vespinae as outgroups, including the genomic assemblies of Dolichovespula media (GCA_911387685.1) and Vespa crabro (GCA_910589235.2) from NCBI.
2.2. Genome Assembly and Matrix Generation
BBTools v38.96 [31] was used for quality control. The duplications were removed by clumpify.sh; low-quality reads were trimmed with bbduk.sh; reads shorter than 15 bp and containing more than 5 consecutive Ns after trimming were discarded; remaining reads were then normalized with bbnorm.sh to reduce the complexity and speed up the assembling. The reads were assembled de novo and scaffolded by using SPAdes v3.15.5 [32]; the gaps were filled by GapCloser v1.12 [33] in the SOAPdenovo2 to replace base N with base A\T\G\C. The completeness of the assemblies was evaluated by using BUSCO v5.4.3 with the Hymenoptera database (
Two different marker sets (USCO and UCE) were extracted separately from the 10 genomes. Universal single-copy orthologs (USCOs) were extracted with BUSCO v5.4.3 [34] against Hymenoptera reference gene sets (n = 5991). USCO amino acid sequences were used for subsequent analyses. Each protein-coding gene sequence was aligned with the L-INS-I method in MAFFT v7.490 [35], and each alignment was trimmed with BMGE [36] to remove unreliable homologous regions and decrease compositional heterogeneity. Those alignments that violated the stationary, reversible, and homogeneous (SRH) assumptions [37] were further excluded using ‘--symtest’ implemented in IQ-TREE v2.0 [38]. The trimmed alignments were subsequently concatenated using FASConCAT-g v1.05 [39]; three USCO amino acid matrices (USCO50, USCO90, and USCO100) with the completeness of 50%, 90%, and 100% were constructed, representing the lowest ratio of taxa for all partitions (see S1 in the Supplementary Materials). Ultraconserved element probes have been designed in several insect orders, including Hymenoptera. The Hymenoptera 2.5 kv2 bait set [40], containing 31,827 baits targeting 2590 loci, was used as the reference probe set. The UCEs of the 10 assembled genomes were extracted by PHYLUCE v1.6.3 [41]. Three UCE matrices, including UCE60, UCE90, and UCE100, were generated in a similar way to the construction of USCO matrices, including MAFFT alignment, BMGE trimming, FASConCAT-g concatenation, and IQ-TREE filtering for SRH model violations, for subsequent analyses (see S1 in the Supplementary Materials).
2.3. Phylogenetic Analyses
We used partitioned maximum likelihood (ML), heterologous model, and multi-species coalescent model (MSC) methods to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of the Rhynchium genera group. For the partitioned ML analyses, we used the MODELFINDER [42] to select the most appropriate substitution model for each partition by employing the relaxed hierarchical clustering algorithm ‘-rclusterf 10’ in IQ-TREE [43]. The best protein substitution model for the USCO matrices was ‘LG + I + G’, and the best substitution model for the UCE matrices was ‘GTR + I + G’. The full IQ-TREE command line used was ‘iqtree2 -s example.phy -p example.nex -m MFP + MERGE --symtest-remove-bad -B 1000 -alrt 1000 --prefix -rcluster 10’. To avoid the influence of heterotachous evolutionary sequences on phylogenetic inference, we also used the General Heterogeneous Evolution on a Single Topology (GHOST) [44] model in IQ-TREE with ‘-m LG + FO*H4’ for USCO amino acids and with ‘-m GTR + FO*H4’ for UCE nucleotides. Simultaneously, 1000 replicates of SH-aLRT [45] and 1000 replicates of UFBoot2 [46] were performed for all ML analyses to obtain species trees. For the multi-species coalescent model analyses, individual gene trees were estimated from the previous steps of matrix generation, and ASTRAL-III v5.7.1 [47] was used with default parameters to infer species trees, with the advantage of highly accurate support values and fast computation speed [48]. Although support values such as bootstrap or posterior probability give statistical confidence in the species tree topology, there may still be significant underlying gene tree discordance [49] even for branches with 100% support. Therefore, genealogical consistency between species and gene trees was quantified with the gene concordance factor (gCF) and the site concordance (sCF) using IQ-TREE.
In addition, site heterogeneity has been highlighted as more important than protein-wise heterotactic (partitioning) in phylogenomic analyses [50]. To avoid long-branch attraction (LBA) artifacts, we also applied site-heterogeneous models in ML inference. The posterior mean site frequency (PMSF) [51] model was performed for each USCO matrix by specifying a profile mixture model LG + C20 + F + G in IQ-TREE.
2.4. Hypothesis Testing
Following the phylogenetic analyses, one node showed inconsistent results with analyses based on information from individual genes (ASTRAL and partitioned ML) and analyses of the different matrices using profile mixture models (GHOST and PMSF). Gene tree heterogeneity, such as incomplete lineage sorting, is a known source of erroneous inference in summary coalescent methods [52]. We suspected that the discordance between our results was due to uninformative genes in gene-wise partitioning and gene trees. First, using likelihood-mapping (LMAP) [53] as implemented in IQ-TREE, we evaluated whether individual genes contained sufficient information to distinguish between different topologies at the two competing nodes. For the recalcitrant node, four clusters of taxa were defined (Vespinae, Rhynchium s.s., Pararhynchium venkataramani, and Allorhynchium s.s.) (Figure 1). The topologies 1 and 2 were of interest; the topology 3, which was equally conceivable given the unrooted tree with four clusters but had not been in any of the earlier analyses, could have been recovered. Then, we tested the resultant two alternative topologies (T1, T2) with the matrix UCE90 using approximately the unbiased (AU), weighted Kishino–Hasegawa (WKH), and weighted Shimodaira–Hasegawa (WSH) tests under the partitioned model ‘-m GTR + I + G’ in IQ-TREE: T1, (Allorhynchium s.s. + Pararrhynchium venkataramani) + remaining taxa; T2, Allorhynchium s.s. + (Pararrhynchium venkataramani + remaining taxa). The tree estimated from previous ASTRAL inference on matrix UCE90 was used as the guide tree and the starting tree.
2.5. Divergence Time Analyses
Divergence times were estimated using MCMCTree in PAML v4.9j [54] based on the nucleotide sequences of UCEs. We performed divergence analyses for three matrices (UCE60, UCE90, and UCE100) representing three different data sizes (2,396,740, 2,159,911, and 1,933,308 sites, respectively, Table 2) to evaluate the potential influence of the data size on the branch lengths. For input trees, topology T2 estimated from previous ASTRAL analyses was preferred, and calibration fossils were searched on paleobiodb (
3. Results
3.1. Genome Assembly and Matrix Generation
We sequenced approximately 15 G raw data for each sample, with 72 to 100 sequence coverage. The sizes of the assemblies range from 152.99 Mb (Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus) to 211.49 Mb (Allorhynchium chinense). The number of scaffolds ranges from 15,712 to 187,058, the N50 of the assemblies from 23.39 to 670.26 kb, the max read length from 842.5 kb to 4723.7 kb, and the GC content from 36.31% to 38.76%. Additional statistics, including average read coverage, the number of scaffolds, assembly size, maximum read length, and N50, are provided in Table 1.
The completeness of genome assemblies was 91.50–95.60%, of which 0.10–0.20% were duplications, and 1.40–3.60% were fragmented (Figure 2 and Table 1). The sequences of the same ortholog were merged into a FASTA file, resulting in 5811 USCOs with amino acid sequences ranging from 2,423,609 to 3,551,689. For UCE, a total of 2312 UCEs with 2,585,262 nucleotide sites were extracted. After sequence alignment, screening, and trimming, the six matrices used for phylogenetic analysis included 4398–5560 USCOs and 1726–2312 UCEs with 2,423,609–3,327,612 amino acid sites and 2,159,911–2,475,217 nucleotide sites, respectively (Table 2).
3.2. Phylogenetic Relationships among the Rhynchium Genera Group
Two topologies of the Rhynchium genera group were inferred based on the matrices and inference models, with the majority of nodes consistent except for the position of Pararrhynchium venkataramani in both topologies (see S2 in the Supplementary Materials). Under the first topology (T1), Pararrhynchium venkataramani was sister to a clade comprising Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus, and Allorhynchium; under the second topology (T2), Pararrhynchium venkataramani was sister to a clade comprising (Anterhynchium + (Dirhynchium + Rhynchium)). The partitioning analyses of all matrices and the GHOST model and PMSF model of all USCO matrices supported topology 1 (T1). However, the GHOST model of UCE matrices supported topology 2 (T2), and ASTRAL analyses of UCEs and USCOs (USCO100 excluded) recovered topology 2 (T2) (Table 3). All tree files are available in the Supplementary Materials S3.
Furthermore, we conducted an LMAP test for the relationships of Pararrhynchium venkataramani with others. The T2 was supported by USCOs matrices (more than 79.5%) and UCEs matrices (100%) (Figure 3). Meanwhile, T2 was strongly supported by all hypothesis tests (AU, WKH, and WSH) and T1 was strongly rejected (Table 4). Combining LMAP tests and hypothesis tests, the results supported the monophyletic Anterhynchium as a sister group to a clade comprising two genera Dirhynchium and Rhynchium. Meanwhile, Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus and Pararrhynchium venkataramani were separated, not clustered on a branch (Figure 4).
3.3. Molecular Dating of the Rhynchium Genera Group
All the runs of data matrices have ESS values greater than 200, and a strong correlation (R2 > 0.99) of the convergence plots indicates good convergence between parallel runs (Figure 5). The MCMCTree results (Figure 6) show that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the Rhynchium genera group was inferred to be the Cretaceous (95.74 million years (Ma), 83.09–107.58 at 95% highest posterior density (HPD)). The crown groups of Allorhynchium and Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus originated during the Cretaceous–Paleogene (71.93 Ma, 41.27–96.98); the crown age of Allorhynchium was estimated at the Paleogene–Quaternary (13.98 Ma, 1.42–33.35); the origins of Pararrhynchium and the clade containing Dirhynchium, Rhynchium, and Anterrhynchium occurred during the Cretaceous (88.35 Ma, 76.29–100.04); the origins of the clade comprising Dirhynchium and Rhynchium also occurred during the Cretaceous–Paleogene (71.47 Ma, 62.96–80.86); the crown age of Rhynchium falls at the Paleogene (60.24 Ma, 59.15–61.54), consistent with the timing of the fossil node; Dirhynchium and Anterrhynchium occurred during the Paleogene–Quaternary (14.57 Ma, 1.11–36.5; 13.98 Ma, 1.42–33.35, respectively).
4. Discussion
4.1. Sources of Gene Tree Discordance
In our studies, phylogenetic results were incongruent depending on the inferred models. Partitioned ML, GHOST (USCO matrices), and PMSF analyses favored topology 1, while GHOST (UCE matrices) and a coalescent approach based on gene trees recovered topology 2. In the two topological trees, the support values such as bootstrap were high, but the gene concordance factor (gCF) and the novel site concordance factor (sCF) values (gCF < 30, sCF < 35, see S2 in the Supplementary Materials) for the inconsistent node was relatively low, demonstrating that systematic errors due to gene tree conflicts are the main reason for the inconsistency of the two phylogenetic trees.
Gene tree conflicts in closely related species are commonly due to genealogical discordances, such as ILS [58,59,60], which have been detected in hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, and grasshoppers [61,62,63,64,65]. MSC implemented by ASTRAL incorporates a higher degree of biological realism than the conventional concatenation-based models, which is expected to produce more plausible reconstructions [47]. In the present study, most of the ASTRAL analyses (except the USCO100 matrix) support T2, Pararrhynchium venkataramani was sister to a clade comprising (Anterhynchium + (Dirhynchium + Rhynchium)). In addition, accounting for the heterogeneity of substitution patterns between sites and genes in proteins [51], we also applied site-heterogeneous models to mitigate possible long-branch attraction (LBA) artifacts. Interestingly, the phylogenetic trees obtained from the site-heterogeneous model (partitioned and GHOST) and the site-homogeneous model (LG + PMSF(C20)) based on the USCO matrices were congruent, suggesting that there’s little LBA bias in this study. The inconsistent phylogenetic trees obtained by partitioned ML, GHOST, MSC, and PMSF models, were tested by LMAP tests, which support T2 by both the USCO and UCE matrices, so ILS is the main source of conflict in the gene tree of this study.
UCEs have grown in appeal among hymenopteran systematists who employ hybrid enrichment or occasionally transcriptome sequencing techniques [66,67,68], while the application of USCOs as tools for phylogenetic inference in Hymenoptera is still in its infancy. The successful application of USCOs and UCEs in bees [27] suggests that low-coverage whole genomes could resolve uncertainty in phylogenetic analyses of Hymenoptera, providing a new set of molecular markers. We used both USCOs and UCE markers from low-coverage whole genomes for phylogenetic reconstruction and finally obtained consistent results with maximum support for all nodes. Once again, it has been proven that phylogenetic reconstructions in Hymenoptera using USCOs and UCEs from low-coverage whole genomes are feasible.
4.2. Phylogenetic Relationships
The best-supported topology shows the clade consisting of Pararrhynchium, Anterhynchium, Dirhynchium, and Rhynchium is monophyletic; Allorhynchium and Lissodynerus are more distantly related to the other four genera.
In one clade, a monophyletic Anterhynchium is the sister to a clade comprising Dirhynchium and Rhynchium. Anterhynchium, Dirhynchium, and Rhynchium form a monophyletic lineage that shares a common feature: propodeum and metanotum at different levels in lateral view [5,8,9,10,11,14,15]. This supports the elevation of Dirhynchium to a valid genus, as it is proposed based on a mitogenomic analysis [16] and corroborated by morphological differences. Current diagnostic characters of Dirhynchium are as follows: basal narrow part of the first gastral sternum with dense transverse striae through the whole width, the third and following gastral terga very coarsely punctate at the base, male mandible not deeply emarginated on the inner side. However, the diagnostic characters of the nominotypical subgenus Anterhynchium are distinctly different from Dirhynchium: narrow basal part of the first gastral sternum smooth or with only a narrow median band of fine, short, and shiny transverse striae, gastral terga only finely punctate at the base, male mandible deeply emarginated on the inner side near the middle [8,9,10,11]. Therefore, we propose a new genus, Dirhynchium van der Vecht, 1963.
In the phylogeny, the species Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus is more closely related to Allorhynchium van der Vecht, 1963 rather than Pararrhynchium venkataramani, indicating the species does not belong to the genus Pararrhynchium. Considering P. septemfasciatus was transferred from Lissodynerus as a synonym Pararrhynchium [18], and Lissodynerus septemfasciatus was the type species of the genus Lissodynerus, the genus Lissodynerus should be restituted as a valid genus, not a synonym of the genus Pararrhynchium. The result is consistent with the analysis of mitochondrial genomes [16]. Further analyses with more specimens are needed to investigate whether the rest of the species previously included in the genus Lissodynerus should be all returned to Lissodynerus or some of them should be transferred to the genus Pararrhynchium as it already happened in the study of Carpenter & Brown [18].
4.3. Effects of Continental Drifts on the Distribution of Rhynchium Genera Group
The Rhynchium genera group is distributed in the Old World only, including the Australian, Ethiopian, Oriental, and Palearctic regions. The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the Rhynchium genera group was inferred in the Cretaceous (95.74 Ma), which is consistent with the results of the evolutionary history of the Hymenoptera [30]. The Rhynchium genera group might have spread in various plates according to the migration history of the Old World. During the Cretaceous, the Pangaea [69] split up and Africa collided with Europe, leading to the formation of the Alps [70]. In addition, following the separation of the Gondwanaland during the Late Jurassic (~135 Ma) to India and Oceania, the Eurasian subcontinent was formed after the collision between India and Asia in Southern Tibet in the Eocene (56–33.9 Ma) [71]. Consequently, the continents of the Old World except Australia had been connected from the Cretaceous–Paleogene (84–45 Ma) until the present day [71], which might be the reason that the Rhynchium genera group is distributed in the Old World. Moreover, the presence of many islands between Australia and the Eurasian subcontinent, such as the Philippine Islands and New Guinea, might raise the dispersal of the Rhynchium genera group to Australia through these islands just as the Ropalidia species groups in the vespid wasps [72,73].
Meanwhile, the ocean might be a limiting factor in the distributions of the Rhynchium genera group in the New World. During the Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous (~110 Ma), the second breakup of Gondwana rifting of South America and Southern Africa [74] led to the formation of the South Atlantic basin [75,76]. In addition, during the Jurassic (~169.7 Ma) the Pacific Ocean basin was born and is by far the oldest preserved oceanic crust within the global oceans [77]. The estimated age of the MRCA of Rhynchium genera group in the Cretaceous is later than the formation of the ocean, which might consequently lead to the no distribution of this group in the New World.
5. Conclusions
Overall, our phylogenetic analyses based on different combinations of data matrices and models yielded consistent trees. However, the inconsistency of one node between analyses reaffirms the necessity of a large data set and model selection for phylogenetics [26]. Combining methodological suitability with morphological evidence, the topology recovered using the MSC model was preferred. Rhynchium, Dirhynchium, Anterhynchium, and Pararrhynchium comprise a monophyletic group; Allorhynchium and Lissodynerus are distinct from the other four taxa. Of these, it was corroborated that Dirhynchium van der Vecht, 1963 should be upgraded to a valid genus, and Lissodynerus Giordani Soika, 1993 should be restituted as a valid genus, not a synonymy of Pararrhynchium de Saussure, 1855. Considering the limitations of the sample, the attribution of the other species previously placed in Lissodynerus requires further investigation. This study is the first phylogenetic study using USCOs and UCEs extracted from low-coverage whole genomes in Eumeninae, providing a reference for further studies on the phylogeny of the subfamily Eumeninae.
Conceptualization, T.-J.L. and S.-L.H.; methodology, S.-L.H. and M.D.; software, S.-L.H. and M.D.; validation, T.-J.L.; formal analysis, M.D.; investigation, T.-J.L.; resources, B.C.; data curation, M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.; writing—review and editing, T.-J.L., S.-L.H. and B.C.; visualization, M.D.; supervision, T.-J.L.; project administration, T.-J.L.; funding acquisition, T.-J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The data presented in this study are openly available from the National Center for Biotechnology Information at
We are extremely grateful to Yi-Fan Liu (Beijing Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for providing the alcohol specimens of Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Likelihood mapping analyses (LMAP). Possible topologies for the position of Pararrhynchium venkataramani based on four clusters of taxa.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. BUSCO completeness: complete (C), complete single-copy (S, light blue), complete duplicated (D, black), fragmented (F, yellow), and missing (M, red).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Likelihood maps for the position of Pararrhynchium venkataramani from two matrices with contrasting distributions of quartets.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Phylogeny of the Rhynchium genera group inferred from matrix UCE90 using the MSC model implemented in ASTRAL. Node labels show BPP/gCF/sCF.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. The Rhynchium genera group divergence time estimation performed by using MCMCTree on the ASTRAL topology. Node numbers and node bars represent 95% CIs of the estimated divergence times integrated from all MCMC runs. Asterisk mark node constrained with the fossil.
Summary for 10 newly-sequenced low-coverage whole genomic samples.
| Species | Accession Number | Average Read Coverage (X) | BUSCO Completeness (%) | The Number of |
Assembly Size |
Max Read Length |
N50 |
GC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhynchium brunneum | SAMN36845277 | 78.85 | 94.6 | 42,348 | 194.79 | 1170.58 | 134.32 | 37.24 |
| Rhynchium quinquecinctum | SAMN36845333 | 78.26 | 94.0 | 48,619 | 196.27 | 1281.6 | 105.73 | 37.24 |
| Allorhynchium argentatum | SAMN36845335 | 84.95 | 95.3 | 49,682 | 180.81 | 894.85 | 160.54 | 37.27 |
| Allorhynchium chinense | SAMN36845336 | 72.63 | 91.5 | 187,058 | 211.49 | 318.76 | 23.39 | 36.31 |
| Anterhynchium (A.) abdominale | SAMN36845337 | 83.57 | 94.0 | 60,405 | 183.79 | 586.96 | 63.68 | 38.61 |
| Anterhynchium (A.) mellyi | SAMN36845339 | 90.69 | 94.7 | 23,487 | 169.37 | 842.5 | 112.22 | 38.66 |
| Anterhynchium (Dirhynchium) flavomarginatum | SAMN36845338 | 86.10 | 94.4 | 23,366 | 178.40 | 786.82 | 74.28 | 37.83 |
| Anterhynchium (Dirhynchium) coracinum | SAMN36845334 | 86.89 | 94.3 | 21,837 | 176.77 | 739.09 | 68.99 | 37.69 |
| Pararrhynchium septemfasciatus feanus | SAMN36845341 | 100.40 | 95.6 | 15,712 | 152.99 | 4723.7 | 670.26 | 38.53 |
| Pararrhynchium venkataramani | SAMN36845340 | 85.82 | 92.5 | 51,762 | 178.97 | 728.23 | 51.56 | 38.76 |
Summary of USCOs (amino acid) and UCEs (nucleotide) matrices.
| Matrix | Average Missing Taxa per Locus (%) | Number of Loci | Number of Sites | Missing Sites (%) | Average Locus Length |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USCO50 | 2.99 | 5714 | 3,467,928 | 3.19 | 606.92 |
| USCO90 | 1.05 | 5115 | 2,945,110 | 1.18 | 575.78 |
| USCO100 | 0 | 4398 | 2,423,609 | 0.01 | 551.07 |
| UCE60 | 2.56 | 2138 | 2,396,740 | 2.56 | 1121.02 |
| UCE90 | 0.77 | 1928 | 2,159,911 | 0.85 | 1120.29 |
| UCE100 | 0 | 1726 | 1,933,308 | 0.24 | 1120.11 |
Summary of topological hypotheses recovered under different analyses.
| Matrix | Partitioning | GHOST | ASTRAL | PMSF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USCO50 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T1 |
| USCO90 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T1 |
| USCO100 | T1 | T1 | T1 | T1 |
| UCE60 | T1 | T2 | T2 | - |
| UCE90 | T1 | T2 | T2 | - |
| UCE100 | T1 | T2 | T2 | - |
Results of the hypothesis tests.
| Topologies | logL | deltaL | bp-RELL | P-WKH | P-WSH | P-AU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | −8,408,349.19 | 964.1 | 0 * | 0 * | 0 * | 2.88 × 10−6 |
| T2 | −8,407,385.093 | 0 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Best-fit hypotheses are given in boldface. 0 * means that the value < 0. AU, approximately unbiased; RELL, resampled estimated log-likelihood; WKH, weighted Kishino–Hasegawa; WSH, weighted Shimodaira–Hasegawa.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Jennings, D.T.; Houseweart, M.W. Predation by Eumenid Wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae) on Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Other Lepidopterous Larvae in Spruce-Fir Forests of Maine. Ann. Èntomol. Soc. Am.; 1984; 49, pp. 39-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aesa/77.1.39]
2. Cowan, D.P. The Social Biology of Wasps; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 33-73.
3. Carpenter, J.M.; Gusenleitner, J.; Madl, M. A catalogue of the Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) of the Ethiopian Region excluding Malagasy Subregion. Part I: Introduction, Key to Genera, Genera Aethiopicodynerus Gusenleitner 1997 to Cyrtolabulus van der Vecht 1969. Linz. Biol. Beitr.; 2009; 41, pp. 513-638.
4. Carpenter, J.M.; Gusenleitner, J.; Madl, M. A Catalogue of the Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) of the Ethiopian Region excluding Malagasy Subregion. Part II: Genera Delta de Saussure 1885 to Zethus Fabricius 1804 and Species Incertae Sedis. Linz. Biol. Beitr.; 2010; 42, pp. 95-315.
5. Tan, J.L.; Carpenter, J.M.; Achterberg, C. An illustrated key to the genera of Eumeninae from China, with a checklist of species (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). ZooKeys; 2018; 740, pp. 109-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.740.22654] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29674892]
6. Girish Kumar, P.; Sharma, G. A review of the genus Allorhynchium van der vecht, 1963 (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae) from the Indian subcontinent. Prommalia; 2015; 3, pp. 20-34.
7. Luo, L.; Zhang, Q.H.; Chen, B.; Li, T.J. Additions to the knowledge of the genus Allorhynchium van der Vecht, 1963 from China (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae). J. Hymenopt. Res.; 2020; 77, pp. 119-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.77.52309]
8. Kim, J.K. Taxonomic review of the genus Anterhynchium Saussure (Eumeninae, Vespidae, Hymenoptera) from East Asia. Korean J. Entomol.; 2003; 33, pp. 105-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5967.2003.tb00058.x]
9. Kumar, P.G. A taxonomic study on the genus Anterhynchium de Saussure (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae) from Indian subcontinent. Rec. Zool. Surv. India; 2013; 113, pp. 139-158.
10. Selis, M. The genus Anterhynchium in the Philippine Islands (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Eumeninae). Fragm. Entomol.; 2017; 49, pp. 175-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/fe.2017.261]
11. van der Vecht, J. Studies on Indo–Australian and East Asiatic Eumenidae (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea). Zool. Verh.; 1963; 60, pp. 3-116.
12. Li, T.J.; Chen, B. Descriptions of four new species of Pararrhynchium de Saussure (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae) from China, with one newly recorded species and a key to Chinese species. Orient. Insects; 2017; 52, pp. 175-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00305316.2017.1390500]
13. Kumar, P.G.; Carpenter, J.M.; Kishore, L. A review of the genus Pararrhynchium de Saussure (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae) from India with the description of a new species. Halteres; 2017; 8, pp. 85-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.894185]
14. Kumar, P.G.; Sharma, G. A taxonomic study on the genus Rhynchium Spinola (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae) from the India subcontinent. Rec. Zool. Surv. India; 2013; 113, pp. 105-122.
15. Pham, P.H.; Kumar, P.G. Taxonomic notes on the genus Rhynchium Spinola (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae) from Vietnam, with a first checklist of the species worldwide. Ecol. Montenegrina; 2016; 7, pp. 530-537. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37828/em.2016.7.22]
16. Luo, L.; Carpenter, J.M.; Chen, B.; Li, T.J. First Comprehensive Analysis of Both Mitochondrial Characteristics and Mitogenome-Based Phylogenetics in the Subfamily Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Insects; 2022; 13, 529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects13060529] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35735866]
17. Selis, M.; Carpenter, J.M. Revision of the Afrotropical species of the genus Anterhynchium de Saussure (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae). Zootaxa; 2023; 5233, pp. 1-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5233.1.1]
18. Carpenter, J.M. Catalogue of the Australian Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Zootaxa; 2021; 4919, pp. 1-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4919.1.1]
19. Giordani Soika, A. Contributo alla conoscenza degli Eumenidi dell’Australia e della Nuova Guinea (Hym. Vespoidea). Bolletino Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Venezia; 1993; 42, pp. 125-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4474083]
20. Giordani Soika, A. Ricerche sistematiche su alcuni generi di eumenidi della regione orientale e della Papuasia (Hymenoptera, Vespoidea). Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Giacomo Doria; 1994; 90, pp. 1-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4474084]
21. Li, T.J.; Chen, B. Two newly recorded genera Stenodyneriellus and Lissodynerus with three new species from China (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae). J. Hymenopt. Res.; 2016; 49, pp. 111-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/JHR.49.7487]
22. Lemmon, E.M.; Lemmon, A.R. High-Throughput Genomic Data in Systematics and Phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.; 2013; 44, pp. 99-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135822]
23. Scornavacca, C.; Delsuc, F.; Galtier, N. Phylogenetics in the Genomic Era 2020, Open Access Book. Available online: https://hal.inria.fr/PGE (accessed on 25 February 2021).
24. Derti, A.; Roth, F.P.; Roth, F.P.; Wu, C.T. Mammalian ultraconserved elements are strongly depleted among segmental duplications and copy number variants. Nat. Genet.; 2006; 38, pp. 1216-1220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng1888] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16998490]
25. McCormack, J.E.; Faircloth, B.C.; Crawford, N.G.; Gowaty, P.A.; Brumfield, R.T.; Glenn, T.C. Ultraconserved elements are novel phylogenomic markers that resolve placental mammal phylogeny when combined with species-tree analysis. Genome Res.; 2012; 22, pp. 746-754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.125864.111] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22207614]
26. Yu, D.Y.; Ding, Y.H.; Tihelka, E.; Chen, Y.C.; Hu, F.; Liu, M.Q.; Zhang, F. Phylogenomics of Elongate-Bodied Springtails Reveals Independent Transitions from Aboveground to Belowground Habitats in Deep Time. Syst. Biol.; 2022; 71, pp. 1023-1031. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syac024] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35289913]
27. Zhang, D.; Niu, Z.Q.; Luo, A.R.; Orr, M.C.; Ferrari, R.R.; Jin, J.F.; Wu, Q.T.; Zhang, F.; Zhu, C.D. Testing the systematic status of Homalictus and Rostrohalictus with weakened cross-vein groups within Halictini (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) using low-coverage whole-genome sequencing. Insect Sci.; 2022; 29, pp. 1819-1833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.13034] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35289982]
28. Parada, A.; Hanson, J.; D’Eiía, G. Ultraconserved Elements Improve the Resolution of Difficult Nodes within the Rapid Radiation of Neotropical Sigmodontine Rodents (Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae). Syst. Biol.; 2021; 70, pp. 1090-1100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syab023]
29. Timilsena, P.R.; Wafula, E.K.; Barrett, C.F.; Ayyampalayam, S.; McNeal, J.R.; Rentsch, J.D.; McKain, M.R.; Heyduk, K.; Harkess, A.; Villegente, M. et al. Phylogenomic resolution of order- and family-level monocot relationships using 602 single-copy nuclear genes and 1375 BUSCO genes. Front. Plant Sci.; 2022; 13, 876779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.876779]
30. Peters, R.S.; Krogmann, L.; Mayer, C.; Donath, A.; Gunkel, S.; Meusemann, K.; Kozlov, A.; Podsiadlowski, L.; Petersen, M.; Lanfear, R. et al. Evolutionary History of the Hymenoptera. Curr. Biol.; 2017; 27, pp. 1013-1018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.027]
31. Bushnell, B. BBtools. 2014; Available online: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bbmap/ (accessed on 25 February 2022).
32. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D. et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol.; 2012; 19, pp. 455-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2012.0021]
33. Xu, M.; Guo, L.; Gu, S.; Wang, O.; Zhang, R.; Peters, B.A.; Fan, G.; Liu, X.; Xu, X.; Deng, L. et al. TGS-GapCloser: A fast and accurate gap closer for large genomes with low coverage of error-prone long reads. Gigascience; 2020; 9, giaa094. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giaa094]
34. Waterhouse, R.M.; Seppey, M.; Simao, F.A.; Manni, M.; Ioannidis, P.; Klioutchnikov, G.; Kriventseva, E.V.; Zdobnov, E.M. BUSCO Applications from Quality Assessments to Gene Prediction and Phylogenomics. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2018; 35, pp. 543-548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx319]
35. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2013; 30, pp. 772-780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23329690]
36. Criscuolo, A.; Gribaldo, S. BMGE (Block Mapping and Gathering with Entropy): Selection of phylogenetic informative regions from multiple sequence alignments. BMC Evol. Biol.; 2010; 10, 210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-210]
37. Naser-Khdour, S.; Minh, B.Q.; Zhang, W.; Stone, E.A.; Lanfear, R. The prevalence and impact of model violations in phylogenetic analysis. Genome Biol. Evol.; 2019; 11, pp. 3341-3352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evz193] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31536115]
38. Minh, B.Q.; Schmidt, H.A.; Chernomor, O.; Schrempf, D.; Woodhams, M.D.; von Haeseler, A.; Lanfear, R. IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2020; 37, pp. 1530-1534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa015] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32011700]
39. Kück, P.; Longo, G.C. FASconCAT-G: Extensive functions for multiple sequence alignment preparations concerning phylogenetic studies. Front. Zool.; 2014; 11, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12983-014-0081-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25426157]
40. Branstetter, M.G.; Longino, J.T.; Ward, P.S.; Faircloth, B.C. Enriching the ant tree of life: Enhanced UCE bait set for genome-scale phylogenetics of ants and other Hymenoptera. Methods Ecol. Evol.; 2017; 8, pp. 768-776. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12742]
41. Faircloth, B.C. PHYLUCE is a software package for the analysis of conserved genomic loci. Bioinformatics; 2016; 32, pp. 786-788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv646]
42. Kalyaanamoorthy, S.; Minh, B.Q.; Wong, T.K.F.; von Haeseler, A.; Jermiin, L.S. ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods.; 2017; 14, pp. 587-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4285]
43. Lanfear, R.; Calcott, B.; Kainer, D.; Mayer, C.; Stamatakis, A. Selecting optimal partitioning schemes for phylogenomic datasets. BMC Evol. Biol.; 2014; 14, 82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-82]
44. Crotty, S.M.; Minh, B.Q.; Bean, N.G.; Holland, B.R.; Tuke, J.; Jermiin, L.S.; von Haeseler, A. GHOST: Recovering historical signal from heterotachously-evolved sequence alignments. Syst. Biol.; 2020; 69, pp. 249-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz051]
45. Guindon, S.; Dufayard, J.F.; Lefort, V.; Anisimova, M.; Hordijk, W.; Gascuel, O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum–likelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol.; 2010; 59, pp. 307-321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syq010] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20525638]
46. Hoang, D.T.; Chernomor, O.; von Haeseler, A.; Minh, B.Q.; Vinh, L.S. UFBoot2: Improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2018; 35, pp. 518-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx281]
47. Zhang, C.; Rabiee, M.; Sayyari, E.; Mirarab, S. ASTRAL-III: Polynomial time species tree reconstruction from partially resolved gene trees. BMC Bioinform.; 2018; 19, 153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2129-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29745866]
48. Sayyari, E.; Mirarab, S. Fast coalescent-based computation of local branch support from quartet frequencies. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2016; 33, pp. 1654-1668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw079] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27189547]
49. Salichos, L.; Rokas, A. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature; 2013; 497, pp. 327-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12130] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657258]
50. Wang, H.C.; Susko, E.; Roger, A.J. The relative importance of modeling site pattern heterogeneity versus partition-wise heterotachy in phylogenomic inference. Syst. Biol.; 2019; 68, pp. 1003-1019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz021]
51. Wang, H.C.; Minh, B.Q.; Susko, E.; Roger, A.J. Modeling site heterogeneity with posterior mean site frequency profiles accelerates accurate phylogenomic estimation. Syst. Biol.; 2018; 67, pp. 216-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syx068]
52. Molloy, E.K.; Warnow, T. To include or not to include: The impact of gene filtering on species tree estimation methods. Syst. Biol.; 2018; 67, pp. 285-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syx077]
53. Strimmer, K.; von Haeseler, A. Likelihood-mapping: A simple method to visualize phylogenetic content of a sequence alignment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 1997; 94, pp. 6815-6819. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.13.6815]
54. Yang, Z. PAML 4: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2007; 24, pp. 1586-1591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm088]
55. Piton, L. Paléontologie du Gisement Éocéne de Menat (Puy-de-Dôme) (Flore et Faune); Pascal and Francis: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 1940; pp. 1-303.
56. dos Reis, M.; Yang, Z. Approximate Likelihood Calculation on a Phylogeny for Bayesian Estimation of Divergence Times. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2011; 28, pp. 2161-2172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr045] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310946]
57. Rambaut, A.; Drummond, A.J.; Xie, D.; Baele, G.; Suchard, M.A. Posterior summarisation in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol.; 2018; 67, pp. 901-904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29718447]
58. Oliver, J.C. Microevolutionary processes generate phylogenomic discordance at ancient divergences. Evolution; 2013; 67, pp. 1823-1830. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.12047] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23730773]
59. Pollard, D.; Iyer, V.N.; Moses, A.M.; Eisen, M.B. Widespread discordance of gene trees with species tree in Drosophila: Evidence for incomplete lineage sorting. PLoS Genet.; 2006; 2, e173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020173]
60. Pag’es, M.; Bazin, E.; Galan, M.; Chaval, Y.; Claude, J.; Herbreteau, V.; Michaux, J.; Piry, S.; Morand, S.; Cosson, J.F. Cytonuclear discordance among Southeast Asian black rats (Rattus rattus complex). Mol. Ecol.; 2013; 22, pp. 1019-1034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mec.12149]
61. Ebersberger, I.; Galogoczy, P.; Taudien, S.; Taenzer, S.; Platzer, M.; von Haeseler, A. Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2007; 24, pp. 2266-2276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm156]
62. Syring, J.; Farrell, K.; Businský, R.; Cronn, R.; Liston, A. Widespread Genealogical Nonmonophyly in Species of Pinus Subgenus Strobus. Syst. Biol.; 2007; 56, pp. 163-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150701258787]
63. Takahashi, K.; Terai, Y.; Nishida, M.; Okada, N. Phylogenetic relationships and ancient incomplete lineage sorting among cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika as revealed by analysis of the insertion of retroposons. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2001; 18, pp. 2057-2066. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003747]
64. Jennings, W.B.; Edwards, S.V. Speciational history of Australian grassfinches (Poephila) inferred from thirty gene trees. Evolution; 2005; 59, pp. 2033-2047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01072.x]
65. Carstens, B.C.; Knowles, L.L. Estimating species phylogeny from gene-tree probabilities despite incomplete lineage sorting: An example from Melanoplus grasshoppers. Syst. Biol.; 2007; 56, pp. 400-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150701405560]
66. Bossert, S.; Murray, E.A.; Almeida, E.A.B.; Brady, S.G.; Blaimer, B.B.; Danforth, B.N. Combining transcriptomes and ultraconserved elements to illuminate the phylogeny of Apidae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.; 2019; 130, pp. 121-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.10.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30326287]
67. Branstetter, M.G.; Müller, A.; Griswold, T.L.; Orr, M.C.; Zhu, C.D. Ultraconserved element phylogenomics and biogeography of the agriculturally important mason bee subgenus Osmia (Osmia). Syst. Entomol.; 2021; 46, pp. 453-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/syen.12470]
68. Pisanty, G.; Richter, R.; Martin, T.; Dettman, J.; Cardinal, S. Molecular phylogeny, historical biogeography and revised classification of andrenine bees (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.; 2021; 170, 107151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107151]
69. Cox, C.B.; Ladle, R.J.; Moore, P.D. Biogeography, an Ecological and Evolutionary Approach; 10th ed. Science Ecology & Organismal Biology John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019.
70. Wright, N.M.; Seton, M.; Williams, S.E.; Müller, R.D. The Late Cretaceous to recent tectonic history of the Pacific Ocean basin. Earth-Sci. Rev.; 2016; 154, pp. 138-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.11.015]
71. Willis, B. Principles of paleogeography. Science; 1910; 31, pp. 241-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.31.790.241] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17729643]
72. Saito, F.; Kojima, J. Taxonomy and biogeography of Australian species of the Ropalidia stigma group and R. variegata group (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Entomol. Sci.; 2005; 8, pp. 179-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2005.00111.x]
73. Luo, L.; Huang, P.; Chen, B.; Li, T.J. Mitochondrial composition of and diffusion limiting factors of three social wasp genera Polistes, Ropalidia, and parapolybia (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). BMC Ecol. Evol.; 2022; 22, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-022-02017-6]
74. Heine, C.; Zoethout, J.; Müller, R.D. Kinematics of the South Atlantic rift. Solid Earth; 2013; 4, pp. 215-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/se-4-215-2013]
75. Perez-Diaz, L.; Eagles, G. Constraining South Atlantic growth with seafloor spreading data. Tectonics; 2014; 33, pp. 1848-1873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014TC003644]
76. Granot, R.; Dyment, J. The Cretaceous opening of the South Atlantic Ocean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.; 2015; 414, pp. 156-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2015.01.015]
77. Tominaga, M.; Sager, W.W.; Tivey, M.A.; Lee, S.M. Deep-tow magnetic anomaly study of the Pacific Jurassic Quiet Zone and implications for the geomagnetic polarity reversal timescale and geomagnetic field behavior. Solid Earth; 2008; 113, B07710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005527]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.