Archaeobalbini Viidalepp 1981
Creators: name: Murillo-Ramos, Leidys
name: Brehm, Gunnar
name: Sihvonen, Pasi
name: Hausmann, Axel
name: Holm, Sille
name: Ghanavi, Hamid Reza
name: Õunap, Erki
name: Truuverk, Andro
name: Staude, Hermann
name: Friedrich, Egbert
name: Tammaru, Toomas
name: Wahlberg, Niklas
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Geometridae

description: Archaeobalbini Viidalepp, 1981, <b>status revised</b> (original spelling: Archeobalbini, justified emendation in Hausmann (1996)) Type genus: <i>Archaeobalbis</i> Prout, 1912 (synonymized with <i>Herochroma</i> Swinhoe, 1893 in <i>Holloway (1996)</i>) Material examined: <i>Herochroma curvata</i> Han &amp; Xue, 2003, <i>H. baba</i> Swinhoe 1893, <i>Metallolophia inanularia</i> Han &amp; Xue, 2004, <i>M. cuneataria</i> Han &amp; Xue, 2004, <i>Actenochroma muscicoloraria</i> (Walker, 1862), <i>Absala dorcada</i> Swinhoe, 1893, <i>Metaterpna batangensis</i> Hang &amp; Stüning, 2016, <i>M. thyatiraria</i> (Oberthür, 1913), <i>Limbatochlamys rosthorni</i> Rothschild, 1894, <i>Psilotagma pictaria</i> (Moore, 1888), <i>Dindica para</i> Swinhoe, 1893, <i>Dindicodes crocina</i> (Butler, 1880), <i>Lophophelma erionoma</i> (Swinhoe, 1893), <i>L. varicoloraria</i> (Moore, 1868), <i>L. iterans</i> (Prout, 1926) and <i>Pachyodes amplificata</i> (Walker, 1862). This lineage splits into four groups: <i>Herochroma</i> Swinhoe, 1893 <i>+</i> <i>Absala</i> Swinhoe, 1893 <i>+</i> <i>Actenochroma</i> Warren, 1893 is the sister lineage of the rest of Archaeobalbini that were recovered as three clades with unresolved relationships comprising the genera <i>Limbatochlamys</i> Rothschild, 1894, <i>Psilotagma</i> Warren, 1894, <i>Metallolophia</i> Warren, 1895, <i>Metaterpna</i> Yazaki, 1992, <i>Dindica</i> Warren, 1893, <i>Dindicodes</i> Prout, 1912, <i>Lophophelma</i> Prout, 1912 and <i>Pachyodes</i> Guenée, 1858. This tribe can be diagnosed by the combination of DNA data from six genetic markers, see for instance <i>Pachyodes amplificata</i> CAD (MG015522), COI (MG014818), EF1a (MG015409), GAPDH (MG014941), MDH (MG015057) and RpS5 (MG015638). Branch support values in IQ-TREE confirm the monophyly of this clade (SH-like = 88.3, UFBoot2 = 64). GenBank accession numbers are shown in Supplementary Material. Amorphological diagnosis requires further research. <i>Xenozancla</i> Warren, 1893 (unnamed G3) is sister to the clade comprising Dysphaniini and Pseudoterpnini <i>s.str</i>. <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i> did not include <i>Xenozancla</i> in their analyses and suggested a sister relationship of Dysphaniini and Pseudoterpnini, but with low support. According to <i>Ban et al. (2018)</i>, <i>Xenozancla</i> is more closely related to Pseudoterpnini <i>s.str</i>. than to Dysphaniini. However, due to low support, <i>Ban et al. (2018)</i> did not propose a taxonomic assignment for <i>Xenozancla</i>, which is currently not assigned to a tribe. Although our IQ-TREE results show that <i>Xenozancla</i> is sister to a clade comprising Dysphaniini and Pseudoterpnini <i>s.str</i>., the RAxML analysis did not recover the same phylogenetic relationships. Instead, Dysphaniini + Pseudoterpnini <i>s.str</i>. are found to be sister taxa, but <i>Xenozancla</i> is placed close to <i>Rhomborista monosticta</i> (Wehrli, 1924). As in <i>Ban et al. (2018)</i>, our results do not allow us to reach a conclusion about the phylogenetic affinities of these tribes, due to low support of nodes. The Australian genus <i>Crypsiphona</i> Meyrick, 1888 (unnamed G4) was placed close to Hemitheini. <i>Crypsiphona</i> has been assigned to Pseudoterpnini (e. g. <i>Pitkin, Han &amp; James, 2007</i>, <i>Õunap &amp; Viidalepp, 2009</i>), but is recovered as a separate lineage in our tree. Given the isolated position of <i>Crypsiphona</i>, the designation of a new tribe could be considered, but due to low support of nodes in our analyses, further information (including morphology) is needed to confirm the phylogenetic position of this genus. In our phylogenetic hypothesis, a large clade including the former tribes Lophochoristini, Heliotheini, Microloxiini, Thalerini, Rhomboristini, Hemistolini, Comostolini, Jodini and Thalassodini is recovered as sister to the rest of Geometrinae. These results are in full agreement with <i>Ban et al. (2018)</i>, who synonymized all of these tribes with Hemitheini. Although the monophyly of Hemitheini is strongly supported, our findings recovered only a few monophyletic subtribes. For example, genera placed in Hemitheina were intermixed with those belonging to Microloxiina, Thalassodina and Jodina. Moreover, many genera which were unassigned to tribe, were recovered as belonging to Hemitheini. Our findings recovered <i>Lophostola</i> Prout, 1912 as sister to all Hemitheini. These results are quite different from those found by <i>Ban et al. (2018)</i> who suggested Rhomboristina as being sister to the rest of Hemitheini. In contrast, our results recovered Rhomboristina mingled with Hemistolina. These different results are probably influenced by the presence of African and Madagascan <i>Lophostola</i> in our analysis. In our opinion the subtribe concept, as applied in Hemitheini earlier, is not practical and we do not advocate its use in geometrid classification.
description: Published as part of <i>Murillo-Ramos, Leidys, Brehm, Gunnar, Sihvonen, Pasi, Hausmann, Axel, Holm, Sille, Ghanavi, Hamid Reza, Õunap, Erki, Truuverk, Andro, Staude, Hermann, Friedrich, Egbert, Tammaru, Toomas &amp; Wahlberg, Niklas, 2019, A comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Geometridae (Lepidoptera) with a focus on enigmatic small subfamilies, pp. 1-39 in PeerJ 7</i> on pages 24-25, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7386, http://zenodo.org/record/5767530
description: {"references": ["Holloway J. 1996. The moths of Borneo, part 9: Geometridae (incl. Orthostixini), Oenochrominae, Desmobathrinae, Geometrinae. Ennominae Malayan Nature Journal 49: 147 - 326.", "Guenee A. 1858. Histoire naturelle des insectes (Lepidoptera), Species General des Lepidopteres. Tom IX. X. Uranides et Phalenites I. II. Paris: Roret, 304.", "Sihvonen P, Mutanen M, Kaila L, Brehm G, Hausmann A, Staude HS. 2011. Comprehensive molecular sampling yields a robust phylogeny for geometrid moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). PLOS ONE 6 (6): e 20356 DOI 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0020356.", "Ban X, Jiang N, Cheng R, Xue D, Han H. 2018. Tribal classification and phylogeny of Geometrinae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) inferred from seven gene regions. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 184 (3): 653 - 672 DOI 10.1093 / zoolinnean / zly 013.", "Pitkin LM, Han HX, James S. 2007. Moths of the tribe Pseudoterpnini (Geometridae: Geometrinae): a review of the genera. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 150 (2): 343 - 412 DOI 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.2007.00287. x.", "Ounap E, Viidalepp J. 2009. Description of Crypsiphona tasmanica sp. nov. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Geometrinae), with notes on limitations in using DNA barcodes for delimiting species. Australian Journal of Entomology 48 (2): 113 - 124 DOI 10.1111 / j. 1440 - 6055.2009.00695. x."]}