Ennominae Duponchel 1845
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
Ennominae

description: Ennominae Duponchel, 1845 Ennominae are the most species-rich subfamily of geometrids. The loss of vein M2 on the hindwing is probably the best apomorphy (<i>Holloway, 1994</i>), although vein M2 is present as tubular in a few ennomine taxa (<i>Staude, 2001</i>; <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>). Ennominae are a morphologically highly diverse subfamily, and attempts to find further synapomorphies shared by all major tribal groups have failed. The number of tribes as well as phylogenetic relationships among tribes are still debated (see <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i> for an overview). Moreover, the taxonomic knowledge of this subfamily in tropical regions is still poor. <i>Holloway (1994)</i> recognized 21 tribes, <i>Beljaev (2006)</i> 24 tribes, and <i>Forum Herbulot (2007)</i> 27 tribes. To date, four molecular studies have corroborated the monophyly of Ennominae (<i>Yamamoto &amp; Sota, 2007</i>; <i>Wahlberg et al., 2010</i>; <i>Õunap et al., 2011</i>, <i>Sihvonen et al., 2011</i>), with <i>Young (2006)</i> being the only exception who found Ennominae paraphyletic. Moreover, four large-scale taxonomic revisions (without a phylogenetic hypothesis) were published by <i>Pitkin (2002)</i> for the Neotropical region, <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen (2015)</i>, <i>Müller et al. (2019)</i> for the Western Palaearctic region, and <i>Holloway (1994)</i> for Borneo. More detailed descriptions of taxonomic changes in Ennominae will be given by G. Brehm et al. (2019, unpublished data) and L. MurilloRamos et al. (2019, unpublished data). We here discuss general patterns and give details for taxonomic acts not covered in the other two papers. Our findings recover Ennominae as a monophyletic entity, but results were not highly supported in RAxML (RBS = 67) compared to IQ-TREE (SH-Like =100, UFBoot2 = 99). The lineage comprising Geometrinae and Oenochrominae is recovered as the sister clade of Ennominae. In previous studies, <i>Wahlberg et al. (2010)</i> sampled 49 species of Ennominae, <i>Õunap et al. (2011)</i> sampled 33 species, and <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i> 70 species including up to eight markers per species. All these studies supported the division of Ennominae into “boarmiine” and “ennomine” moths (<i>Holloway, 1994</i>). This grouping was proposed by <i>Forbes (1948)</i> and <i>Holloway (1994)</i>, who suggested close relationships between the tribes Boarmiini, Macariini, Cassymini and Eutoeini based on the bifid pupal cremaster and the possession of a fovea in the male forewing. The remaining tribes were defined as “ennomines” based on the loss of a setal comb on male sternum A3 and the presence of a strong furca in male genitalia. Both <i>Wahlberg et al. (2010)</i> and <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i> found these two informal groupings to be reciprocally monophyletic. In our analyses, 653 species with up to 11 markers were sampled, with an emphasis on Neotropical taxa, which so far had been poorly represented in the molecular phylogenetic analyses. Our results recovered the division into two major subclades (Fig. 6), a core set of ennomines in a well-supported clade, and a poorly supported larger clade that includes the “boarmiines” among four other lineages usually thought of as "ennomines". The traditional “ennomines” are thus not found to be monophyletic in our analyses, questioning the utility of such an informal name. Our phylogenetic hypothesis supports the validation of numerous tribes proposed previously, in addition to several unnamed clades. We validate 23 tribes (<i>Forum Herbulot, 2007</i>; <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>): Gonodontini, Gnophini, Odontoperini, Nacophorini, Ennomini, Campaeini, Alsophilini, Wilemaniini, Prosopolophini, Diptychini, Theriini, Plutodini, Palyadini, Hypochrosini, Apeirini, Epionini, Caberini, Macariini, Cassymini, Abraxini, Eutoeini and Boarmiini. We hereby propose one new tribe: Drepanogynini <b>trib. nov.</b> (Table 2). Except for the new tribe, most of the groups recovered in this study are in concordance with previous morphological classifications (<i>Holloway, 1994</i>; <i>Beljaev, 2006</i>, <i>2016</i>; <i>Forum Herbulot, 2007</i>; <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>; <i>Müller et al., 2019</i>). Five known tribes and two further unnamed lineages (E1, E2 in Fig. 6) form the core Ennominae: Gonodontini, Gnophini, Odontoperini, Nacophorini and Ennomini. Several Neotropical clades that conflict with the current tribal classification of Ennominae will be described as new tribes by G. Brehm et al. (2019, unpublished data). Gonodontini and Gnophini are recovered as sister taxa. Gonodontini was defined by <i>Forbes (1948)</i> and studied by <i>Holloway (1994)</i>, who showed synapomorphies shared by <i>Gonodontis</i> Hübner, (1823), <i>Xylinophylla</i> Warren, 1898 and <i>Xenimpia</i> Warren, 1895. Our results recovered the genus <i>Xylinophylla</i> as sister of <i>Xenimpia</i> and <i>Psilocladia</i> Warren, 1898. <i>Psilocladia</i> is an African genus currently unassigned to tribe (see <i>Sihvonen, Staude &amp; Mutanen, 2015</i> for details). Considering the strong support and that the facies and morphology are somewhat similar to other analyzed taxa in Gonodontini, we formally include <i>Psilocladia</i> in Gonodontini (Table 2). Gnophini are monophyletic and we formally transfer the African genera <i>Oedicentra</i> Warren, 1902 and <i>Hypotephrina</i> Janse, 1932, from unassigned to Gnophini (Table 2). The total number of species, and number of included genera in Gnophini are still uncertain (<i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>; <i>Müller et al., 2019</i>). Based on morphological examination, <i>Beljaev (2016)</i> treated Angeronini as a synonym of Gnophini. The costal projection on male valva bearing a spine or group of spines was considered as a synapomorphy of the group. Using molecular data, <i>Yamamoto &amp; Sota (2007)</i> showed a close phylogenetic relationship between <i>Angerona</i> Duponchel, 1829 (Angeronini) and <i>Chariaspilates</i> Wehrli, 1953 (Gnophini). Similar results were shown by <i>Sihvonen et al.</i> <i>(2011)</i> who recovered <i>Angerona</i> and <i>Charissa</i> Curtis, 1826 as sister taxa, and our results also strongly support treating Angeronini as synonym of Gnophini. <i>Holloway (1994)</i> suggested close affinities among Nacophorini, Azelinini and Odontoperini on the basis of larval characters. In a morphology-based phylogenetic study, <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen (2015)</i> suggested multiple setae on the proleg on A6 of the larvae as a synapomorphy of the group. Our results also support a close relationship of Nacophorini, Azelinini and Odontoperini. These clades will be treated in more detail by G. Brehmetal. (2019, unpublisheddata). Following the ideas of <i>Pitkin (2002)</i>, <i>Beljaev (2008)</i> synonymized the tribes Ourapterygini and Nephodiini with Ennomini. He considered the divided vinculum in male genitalia and the attachment of muscles <i>m</i> 3 as apomorphies of the Ennomini, but did not provide a phylogenetic analysis. <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i> supported Beljaev’ s assumptions and recovered <i>Ennomos</i> Treitschke, 1825 (Ennomini), <i>Ourapteryx</i> Leach, 1814 (Ourapterygini) and <i>Nephodia</i> Hübner, 1823 (Nephodiini) as belonging to the same clade. Our comprehensive analysis confirms those previous findings and we agree with Ennomini as the valid tribal name for this large clade. This clade will be treated in more detail by G. Brehm et al. (2019, unpublisheddata). Campaeini, Alsophilini, Wilemaniini and Prosopolophini grouped together in a well-supported clade (SH-like = 100, UFBoot2 = 99). Previous molecular analyses have shown an association of Colotoini [= Prosopolophini] and Wilemaniini (<i>Yamamoto &amp; Sota, 2007</i>; <i>Sihvonen et al., 2011</i>), although no synapomorphies are known to support synonymization (<i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>). The Palaearctic genera <i>Compsoptera</i> Blanchard, 1845, <i>Apochima</i> Agassiz, 1847, <i>Dasycorsa</i> Prout, 1915, <i>Chondrosoma</i> Anker, 1854 and <i>Dorsispina</i> Nupponen &amp; Sihvonen, 2013, are potentially part of the same complex (<i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>, Sihvonen pers. obs.), but they were not included in the current study. Campaeini is a small group including four genera with Oriental, Palaearctic and Nearctic distribution, apparently closely related to Alsophilini and Prosopolophini, but currently accepted as a tribe (<i>Forum Herbulot, 2007</i>; <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>). Our results support the close phylogenetic affinities among these tribes, but due to the limited number of sampled taxa, we do not propose any formal changes. The genus <i>Declana</i> Walker, 1858 is recovered as an isolated clade sister to Diptychini. This genus is endemic to New Zealand, but to date has not been assigned to tribe. According to our results, <i>Declana</i> could well be defined as its own tribe. However, the delimitation of this tribe is beyond the scope of our paper and more genera from Australia and New Zealand should first be examined. Aclose relationship between Nacophorini and Lithinini was suggested by <i>Pitkin (2002)</i>, based on the similar pair of processes of the anellus in the male genitalia. Pitkin also noted a morphological similarity in the male genitalia (processes of the juxta) shared by Nacophorini and Diptychini. In a study of the Australasian fauna, <i>Young (2008)</i> suggested the synonymization of Nacophorini and Lithinini. This was further corroborated by <i>Sihvonen, Staude &amp; Mutanen (2015)</i> who found that Diptychini were nested within some Nacophorini and Lithinini. However, none of the studies proposed formal taxonomic changes because of limited taxon sampling. In contrast, samples in our analyses cover all biogeographic regions and the results suggest that true Nacophorini is a clade which comprises almost exclusively New World species. This clade is clearly separate from Old World “nacophorines” (cf. <i>Young, 2003</i>) that are intermixed with Lithinini and Diptychini. We here formally transfer Old World nacophorines to Diptychini and synonymize Lithinini <b>syn. nov.</b> with Diptychini (Table 2). Further formal taxonomic changes in the Nacophorini complex are provided by G. Brehm et al. (2019, unpublished data). <i>Theria</i> Hübner 1825, the only representative of Theriini in this study, clustered together with <i>Lomographa</i> Hübner, 1825 (Baptini in <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>), in a well-supported clade, agreeing with the molecular results of <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i>. The placement of <i>Lomographa</i> in Caberini (<i>Rindge, 1979</i>; <i>Pitkin, 2002</i>) is not supported by our study nor by that of <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i>. The monophyly of <i>Lomographa</i> has not been tested before, but we show that one Neotropical and one Palaearctic <i>Lomographa</i> species indeed group together. Our results show that Caberini are not closely related to the Theriini + Baptini clade, unlike in earlier morphology-based hypotheses (<i>Rindge, 1979</i>; <i>Pitkin, 2002</i>). Morphologically, Theriini and Baptini are dissimilar, therefore we recognize them as valid tribes (see description and illustrations in <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen, 2015</i>). According to our results, 11 molecular markers were not enough to infer phylogenetic affinities of Plutodini (represented by one species of <i>Plutodes</i>). Similar results were found by <i>Sihvonen et al. (2011)</i>, who in some analyses recovered <i>Plutodes</i> as sister of <i>Eumelea</i>. Our analyses are congruent with those findings. IQ-TREE results suggest that <i>Plutodes</i> is sister to Palyadini, but RAxML analyses recovered <i>Eumelea</i> as the most probable sister of <i>Plutodes</i>. Given that our analyses are not in agreement on the sister-group affinities of <i>Plutodes</i>, we do not make any assumptions about its phylogenetic position. Instead, we emphasize that further work needs to be done to clarify the phylogenetic positions of <i>Plutodes</i> and related groups. Hypochrosini is only recovered in a well-defined lineage if the genera <i>Apeira</i> Gistl, 1848 (Apeirini), <i>Epione</i> Duponchel, 1829 (Epionini), <i>Sericosema</i> (Caberini), <i>Ithysia</i> (Theriini), <i>Capasa</i> Walker, 1866 (unassigned) and <i>Omizodes</i> Warren, 1894 (unassigned) were transferred to Hypochrosini. <i>Skou &amp; Sihvonen (2015)</i> already suggested aclose association of Epionini, Apeirini and Hypochrosini. We think that synonymizing these tribes is desirable. However, due to the limited number of sampled taxa we do not propose any formal changes until more data becomes available. We do suggest, however, formal taxonomic changes for the genera <i>Capasa</i> and <i>Omizodes</i> from unassigned to Hypochrosini (Table 2). The southern African genus <i>Drepanogynis</i> is paraphyletic and has earlier been classified as belonging in Ennomini, and later in Nacophorini (<i>Krüger, 2002</i>). In our phylogeny, it is intermixed with the genera <i>Sphingomima</i> Warren, 1899, and <i>Thenopa</i> Walker, 1855. <i>Hebdomophruda errans</i> Prout, 1917 also clusters together with these taxa, apart from other <i>Hebdomophruda</i> Warren, 1897 species, which suggests that this genus is polyphyletic. These genera form a clade sister to the lineage that comprises several Hypochrosini species. Considering that our analysis strongly supports this clade, we place <i>Thenopa</i>, <i>Sphingomima</i> and <i>Drepanogynis</i> in a tribe of their own.
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 25-29, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7386, http://zenodo.org/record/5767530
description: {"references": ["Holloway J. 1994. The moths of Borneo, part 11: family Geometridae, subfamily Ennominae. Malayan Nature Journal 47: 1 - 309.", "Staude HS. 2001. A revision of the genus Callioratis Felder (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Diptychinae). Metamorphosis 12: 125 - 156.", "Skou P, Sihvonen P. 2015. The Geometrid moths of Europe. Vol. 5: Ennominae I. Stenstrup: Apollo Books.", "Beljaev EA. 2006. A morphological approach to the Ennominae phylogeny (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). Spixiana 29: 215 - 216.", "Forum Herbulot. 2007. World list of family-group names in Geometridae. Available at http: // www. herbulot. de / famgroup. htm (accessed 3 August 2018).", "Yamamoto S, Sota T. 2007. Phylogeny of the Geometridae and the evolution of winter moths inferred from a simultaneous analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2): 711 - 723 DOI 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2006.12.027.", "Wahlberg N, Snall N, Viidalepp J, Ruohomaki K, Tammaru T. 2010. The evolution of female flightlessness among Ennominae of the Holarctic forest zone (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55 (3): 929 - 938 DOI 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2010.01.025.", "Ounap E, Javois J, Viidalepp J, Tammaru T. 2011. Phylogenetic relationships of selected European Ennominae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). European Journal of Entomology 108 (2): 267 - 273 DOI 10.14411 / eje. 2011.036.", "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.", "Young CJ. 2006. Molecular relationships of the Australian Ennominae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) and implications for the phylogeny of the Geometridae from molecular and morphological data. Zootaxa 1264 (1): 1 - 147 DOI 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1264.1.1.", "Pitkin L. 2002. Neotropical Ennomine moths: a review of the genera (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 135 (2 - 3): 121 - 401 DOI 10.1046 / j. 1096 - 3642.2002.01200. x.", "Muller B, Erlacher S, Hausmann A, Rajaei H, Sihvonen P, Skou P. 2019. Ennominae II. In: Hausmann A, Sihvonen P, Rajaei H, Skou P, eds. Geometrid Moths of Europe. Vol. 6. Leiden: Brill, 906.", "Forbes WTM. 1948. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. II. Memoirs of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station 274: 1 - 263.", "Beljaev E. 2016. Annotated catalogue of the insects of Russian Far East. Volume II. Lepidoptera. Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 812.", "Sihvonen P, Staude HS, Mutanen M. 2015. Systematic position of the enigmatic African cycad moths: an integrative approach to a nearly century old problem (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Diptychini). Systematic Entomology 40 (3): 606 - 627 DOI 10.1111 / syen. 12125.", "Beljaev EA. 2008. A new concept of the generic composition of the geometrid moth tribe Ennomini (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) based on functional morphology of the male genitalia. Entomological Review 88 (1): 50 - 60 DOI 10.1134 / S 0013873808010089.", "Young CJ. 2008. Characterization of the Australian Nacophorini using adult morphology, and phylogeny of the Geometridae based on morphological characters. Zootaxa 1736 (1): 1 - 141 DOI 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1736.1.1.", "Young CJ. 2003. The place of the Australian Nacophorini in the Geometridae. Spixiana 26: 199 - 200.", "Rindge FH. 1979. A revision of the North American moths of the genus Lomographa (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). American Museum Novitates 2673: 1 - 18.", "Kruger M. 2002. Revision of Afrotropical Ennominae of the Drepanogynis group IV: the genus Drepanogynis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Transvaal Museum Monograph 13: 1 - 220 incl. 442 figs."]}