Geometridae Leach, 1815

Murillo-Ramos, Leidys, Brehm, Gunnar, Sihvonen, Pasi, Hausmann, Axel, Holm, Sille, Ghanavi, Hamid Reza, Õunap, Erki, Truuverk, Andro, Staude, Hermann, Friedrich, Egbert, Tammaru, Toomas & Wahlberg, Niklas, 2019, A comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Geometridae (Lepidoptera) with a focus on enigmatic small subfamilies, PeerJ 7, pp. 1-39 : 15-18

Geometridae Leach, 1815

The phylogenetic hypothesis presented in this study is by far the most comprehensive to date in terms of the number of markers, sampled taxa and geographical coverage. In total, our sample includes 814 genera, thus representing 41% of the currently recognized Geometridae genera ( Scoble & Hausmann, 2007). Previous phylogenetic hypotheses were based mainly on the European fauna and many clades were ambiguously supported due to low taxon sampling. The general patterns of the phylogenetic relationships among the subfamilies recovered in our study largely agrees with previous hypotheses based on morphological characters and different sets of molecular markers ( Holloway, 1997; Abraham et al., 2001; Yamamoto & Sota, 2007; Sihvonen et al., 2011). However, the results of our larger dataset differ in many details and shed light on the phylogenetic relationships of several, poorly resolved, small subfamilies.

Sterrhinae are recovered as the sister subfamily to the remaining Geometridae . This result is not in concordance with Sihvonen et al. (2011), Yamamoto & Sota (2007) and Regier et al. (2009), who found a sister group relationship between Sterrhinae and Larentiinae which in turn were sister to the rest of Geometridae . Sihvonen et al. (2011) showed the Sterrhinae + Larentiinae sister relationship with low support, while Yamamoto & Sota (2007) and Regier et al. (2009) included only a few samples in their analyses. Our analyses include representatives from almost all known tribes currently included in Sterrhinae and Larentiinae . The higher number of markers, improved methods of analysis, the broader taxon sampling as well as the stability of our results suggests that Sterrhinae are indeed the sister group to the remaining Geometridae . Sterrhinae (after transfer of Ergavia , Ametris and Macrotes , see details below), Larentiinae , Archiearinae , Geometrinae and Ennominae were highly supported as monophyletic. Oenochrominae and Desmobathrinae formed polyphyletic and paraphyletic assemblages, respectively.

Table 2 Summary of formally proposed taxonomic changes.

Transfer from Archiearinae to Ennominae

Acalyphes Turner, 1926 , to Ennominae : Diptychini

Dirce Prout, 1910 , to Ennominae : Diptychini

Transfer from Oenochrominae to Desmobathrinae (Desmobathrini) :

Nearcha Guest, 1887

Racasta Walker, 1861

Zanclopteryx Herrich-Schäffer, 1855

Transfer from Oenochrominae to Epidesmiinae :

Abraxaphantes Warren, 1894

Adeixis Warren 1987

Dichromodes Guenée 1858

Ecphyas Turner, 1929

Epidesmia Duncan & Westwood, 1841

Phrixocomes Turner, 1930

Phrataria Walker, 1863

Systatica Turner, 1904

New tribe combinations in Ennominae

Psilocladia Warren, 1898 , from unassigned to Gonodontini

Oedicentra Warren, 1902 , from Boarmiini to Gnophini

Hypotephrina Janse, 1932 , from unassigned to Gnophini

Capusa Walker, 1857 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Mictodoca Meyrick, 1892 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Furcatrox McQuillan, 1996 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Amelora Guest, 1897 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Archephanes Turner, 1926 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Thalaina Walker, 1855 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Niceteria Turner, 1929 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Neazata Warren, 1906 from Caberini to Diptychini

Idiodes Guenée, 1858 from unassigned to Diptychini

Panhyperochia Krüger, 2013 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Mauna Walker, 1865 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini

Pareclipsis Warren, 1894 , from unassigned to Diptychini

Crambometra Prout, 1915 , from unassigned to Diptychini Hebdomophruda Warren, 1897 , from Nacophorini to Diptychini Pareclipsis Warren, 1894 , from unassigned to Diptychini

Capasa Walker 1866 , from unassigned to Hypochrosini

Omizodes Warren, 1894 , from unassigned to Hypochrosini Metallospora Warren, 1905 , from unassigned to Cassymini

Obolcola Walker, 1862 , from unassigned to Abraxini

Chelotephrina Fletcher, 1958 from unassigned to Abraxini

Cassephyra Holloway, 1994 from Cassymini to Abraxini

Thenopa Walker, 1855 from unassigned to Drepanogynini Drepanogynis Guenée, 1858 from Nacophorini to Drepanogynini

The monophylies of Oenochrominae and Desmobathrinae have long been questioned.

Morphological studies addressing Oenochrominae or Desmobathrinae have been limited and the majority of genera have never been examined in depth. In addition, it has been very difficult to establish the boundaries of these subfamilies on the basis of morphological structures ( Scoble & Edwards, 1990). Sihvonen et al. (2011) showed that neither Oenochrominae nor Desmobathrinae were monophyletic, but these results were considered preliminary due to the limited number of sampled taxa, and as a consequence no formal transfers of taxa were proposed.

The systematic status of Orthostixinae remains uncertain because it was not included in our study. Sihvonen et al. (2011) included the genus Naxa Walker, 1856 , formally placed in Orthostixinae , and found it to be nested within Ennominae . However, only three genes were successfully sequenced from this taxon, and its position in the phylogenetic tree turned out to be highly unstable in our analyses. It was thus excluded from our dataset.

Orthostixis Hübner, 1823 , the type genus of the subfamily, needs to be included in future analyses.