Sciaroidea wings

Forums: 

Hi all. Attached is a plate of some Sciaroidea/Bibionomorpha wings with my attempt to map and understand the newer terminologies suggested by Blagoderov & Grimaldi (2004) and Saigusa (2006/unpublished). This is just my preliminary ideas shared with you - where the new interpretation of M4 also ought to have consequences for the interpretation of the ta – tb concept (like used by Chandler 2002) in relation to m-cu. As you can see I have material of some interesting outgroup taxa like Sciaropota and Catotrichia from Japan.

File attachments: 

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/1382bdb183ac78ead43ec4d3ad60682d.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by vblago on

Thanks, Jostein! The most serious problem would be homology of "CuA". and, consequently, posterior veins. The single and strongly convex curved vein associated with posterior concave vein/pseudovein/fold is the main synapomorphy of Diptera. However, it is impossible to establish homology without digging deeply into fossils of all Holometabola

Cheers,

Vlad

public://picture-82.jpg
Submitted by dsamorim on

Dear Vlad and Jostein,

Hennig apparently fundamented some of his inferences considering the wing of Tanyderus very plesiomorphic and the Tipulidae s.l.-groundplan as more plesiomorphic than that of the present "Limoniidae". There seems to be sufficient ground now to consider Tanyderus as a Psychodomorpha and some of the Limoniidae clades as closer to the Diptera bauplan than tipulids s.s., with important implications for the understanding of the evolution of different body parts. For the homology of the posterior the wing vens, it suggests that "CuA1" would be M4 and that "CuA2" would be CuA.
This is not an irrelevant discussion for our interpretation within the Mycetophilidae. Please see attached the color version of with the plates with detailed consideration of homology of small parts of the wing venation in Amorim & Rindal (originally published in B&W).
Best,

Dalton

--

--- Mensagem original -----

De: "vblago" <vblago@gmail.com>
Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 25 de Agosto de 2014 11:37:51
Assunto: Thanks, Jostein! The most

Thanks, Jostein! The most serious problem would be homology of
&quot;CuA&quot;. and, consequently, posterior veins. The single and
strongly
convex curved vein associated with posterior concave
vein/pseudovein/fold is
the main synapomorphy of Diptera. However, it is impossible to
establish
homology without digging deeply into fossils of all Holometabola
Cheers,
Vlad

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/1382bdb183ac78ead43ec4d3ad60682d.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by vblago on

Dear Dalton,

You are ablolutely right, there can be little doubt that McAlpine's CuA1 is
M4 or M3+4; there is a good transformation seties in fossils and extant
taxa. However, it has been suggested that McApline's CuA2 is homologous to
M5 of Mecoptera (Shcherbakov et al., 1995). Then weak vein immediately
posterior to it and the next one (traditional A1) would become CuA and CuP,
and the traditional A2 - PCu of Snodgrass. If we want to do homology of
venation we would have to study not only basal Limoniidae, Tanyderidae etc,
but also Mecoptera, Trichoptera and Neuroptera at least. I suppose we could
look at trachation, innervation and auxillary sclerites. Pupae might be a
great help for that.

Cheers,

Vlad

public://picture-82.jpg
Submitted by dsamorim on

Vlad,

I have a male Nannochorista just put into a slide mounting. Nobody is really sure if they are sister to Diptera or a member of the Mecoptera, but I will be working on this soon and share some thoughts on M5. I also have a student working on Neuroptera, not sure if this will help or make it even more complicated... Best,

Dalton

--

--- Mensagem original -----

De: "vblago" <vblago@gmail.com>
Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 25 de Agosto de 2014 17:21:37
Assunto: Re: Thanks, Jostein! The most

Dear Dalton,

You are ablolutely right, there can be little doubt that McAlpine's
CuA1 is
M4 or M3+4; there is a good transformation seties in fossils and
extant
taxa. However, it has been suggested that McApline's CuA2 is
homologous to
M5 of Mecoptera (Shcherbakov et al., 1995). Then weak vein
immediately
posterior to it and the next one (traditional A1) would become CuA
and CuP,
and the traditional A2 - PCu of Snodgrass. If we want to do homology
of
venation we would have to study not only basal Limoniidae,
Tanyderidae etc,
but also Mecoptera, Trichoptera and Neuroptera at least. I suppose we
could
look at trachation, innervation and auxillary sclerites. Pupae might
be a
great help for that.

Cheers,

Vlad

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/1382bdb183ac78ead43ec4d3ad60682d.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by vblago on

On 25 August 2014 22:44, dsamorim <dsamorim@usp.br> wrote:

not sure if this will help or make it even more
complicated

That's why I am not sure if we have to get into this. For the purpose of
our project it is enough to establish homology whithin Sciaroidea and
Bibionomorpha, which is rather straightforward. But let's see what you
student will find. I'll check what material we have in NHM

Cheers,
Vlad

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/00040d5c781847b09be3e40ead0666be.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G

Anyhow I think we need to settle on a new Cu terminology. Check out these Mycomya, Paratinia and Acomoptera wings - should make it clear that the Cu-fork concept is wrong.

Cheers
Jostein

--

---Original Message-----
From: vblago [mailto:vblago@gmail.com]
Sent: 26. august 2014 00:16
To: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Subject: Re: Thanks, Jostein! The most

On 25 August 2014 22:44, dsamorim wrote:

> not sure if this will help or make it even more > complicated >

That's why I am not sure if we have to get into this. For the purpose of our project it is enough to establish homology whithin Sciaroidea and Bibionomorpha, which is rather straightforward. But let's see what you student will find. I'll check what material we have in NHM

Cheers,
Vlad

public://picture-82.jpg
Submitted by dsamorim on

There is a photo of exactly the same part of the wing of Paratinia sciarosoma in Amorim & Rindal 2007, Fig. 173. It actually suggests that the " cubital veins forking distally" is a secondary achievement of most Mycetophilidae due to a fusion of the basal parts of M4 and CuA. The long "cubital fork", with m-cu forking from CuA close to the wing base and connected to M1+2 is a condition seen in Palaeognoriste , Rhynchoheterotricha , Bolitophila , Chiletricha , Heterotricha , etc. Only some few mycetophilids preserve a pretty plesiomorphic condition, e.g., Drepanocercus .

--

--- Mensagem original -----

De: "Jostein Kjaerandsen" <jostein.kjarandsen@uit.no>
Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 26 de Agosto de 2014 7:04:07
Assunto: RE: Thanks, Jostein! The most

Files:
http://sciaroidea.info/sites/sciaroidea.infosciaroidea.info/files/m-cu-W...

Anyhow I think we need to settle on a new Cu terminology. Check out
these
Mycomya, Paratinia and Acomoptera wings - should make it clear that
the
Cu-fork concept is wrong.

Cheers
Jostein

-----Original Message-----
From: vblago [mailto:vblago@gmail.com]
Sent: 26. august 2014 00:16
To: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Subject: Re: Thanks, Jostein! The most

On 25 August 2014 22:44, dsamorim wrote:

> not sure if this will help or make it even more > complicated >

That's why I am not sure if we have to get into this. For the purpose
of our
project it is enough to establish homology whithin Sciaroidea and
Bibionomorpha, which is rather straightforward. But let's see what
you
student will find. I'll check what material we have in NHM

Cheers,
Vlad

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/00040d5c781847b09be3e40ead0666be.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G

Yes, I know this is not new in any way - just not firmly established so that we all use the same terminology, but that's the purpose of our project, right? For now I and many just avoid the problem by using informal terms like anterior and posterior fork. By the way, Drepanocercus spinistylus was moved to Acomoptera by Kerr (2011) and these species show a considerable intraspecific variation in the length and attachment of the "posterior" fork.

--

---Original Message-----
From: dsamorim [mailto:dsamorim@usp.br]
Sent: 26. august 2014 13:24
To: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Subject: Re: Thanks, Jostein! The most

There is a photo of exactly the same part of the wing of Paratinia sciarosoma in Amorim & Rindal 2007, Fig. 173. It actually suggests that the " cubital veins forking distally" is a secondary achievement of most Mycetophilidae due to a fusion of the basal parts of M4 and CuA. The long "cubital fork", with m-cu forking from CuA close to the wing base and connected to M1+2 is a condition seen in Palaeognoriste , Rhynchoheterotricha , Bolitophila , Chiletricha , Heterotricha , etc. Only some few mycetophilids preserve a pretty plesiomorphic condition, e.g., Drepanocercus .

----- Mensagem original -----

> De: "Jostein Kjaerandsen"
> Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
> Enviadas: Terça-feira, 26 de Agosto de 2014 7:04:07 > Assunto: RE: Thanks, Jostein! The most

> Files:
> http://sciaroidea.info/sites/sciaroidea.infosciaroidea.info/files/m-cu-W...

> Anyhow I think we need to settle on a new Cu terminology. Check out > these > Mycomya, Paratinia and Acomoptera wings - should make it clear that > the > Cu-fork concept is wrong.

> Cheers
> Jostein

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vblago [mailto:vblago@gmail.com] > Sent: 26. august 2014 00:16 > To: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info > Subject: Re: Thanks, Jostein! The most

> On 25 August 2014 22:44, dsamorim wrote:

> > not sure if this will help or make it even more > complicated >

> That's why I am not sure if we have to get into this. For the purpose > of our > project it is enough to establish homology whithin Sciaroidea and > Bibionomorpha, which is rather straightforward. But let's see what > you > student will find. I'll check what material we have in NHM

> Cheers,
> Vlad

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/ccb7b4fe129fe2e477ae6c27eb814247.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by sevcikjan on

Hi guys,
thanks for the interesting contributions!
Concerning the Acomoptera-Drepanocercus-Paratinia group, also molecular data suggest their very close relationship, so that they could well be considered as a single genus. I can also confirm the variation in wing characters in this group, but also in other groups (e.g. in Grzegorzekia collaris).
This week I should have some time to check the numbers and taxa included in the table sent by Dalton, at least for the Oriental Region. Brachyradia is missing among the Exechiini, so I will add it. Do you want to include also some approximate numbers of species (mostly undescribed) known to me in the genera not yet recorded from this region? For example, something like Austrosynapha is quite common from Thailand to Borneo, and it would be good to include it to the table, similarly Acomoptera, Grzegorzekia etc. I can put it there with a note like "unpublished" or "undescribed".
Cheers,
Jan

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:58:00 +0100
To: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Subject: RE: Thanks, Jostein! The most
From: jostein.kjarandsen@uit.no

Yes, I know this is not new in any way - just not firmly established so that
we all use the same terminology, but that's the purpose of our project,
right? For now I and many just avoid the problem by using informal terms like
anterior and posterior fork. By the way, Drepanocercus spinistylus was moved
to Acomoptera by Kerr (2011) and these species show a considerable
intraspecific variation in the length and attachment of the "posterior" fork.

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/1382bdb183ac78ead43ec4d3ad60682d.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by vblago on

On 26 August 2014 15:03, sevcikjan <sevcikjan@hotmail.com> wrote:

Brachyradia is
missing among the Exechiini, so I will add it.

I have already added missing taxa and removed duplicates in Google
spreadsheet (you all have access to it,
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1woEz0jsRC1WKb1khe0vW_qcCYwgYQeQF...).
Besides, I added best preserved fossils which might be useful for
reference. The only question was inclusion of Aphelomera Skuse (for
Neoaphelomera sydneyensis? Is it so different from other species?). I
suggest editing of google docs from now on - this way we always have the
latest version.

I asked Symon if he will be able to create a checklist for Mycetophilidae
from FGO taxonomy. It is not a trivial task, but hopefully achievable.

Cheers,

Vlad

--


Dr Vladimir Blagoderov, FLS
Department of Life Sciences
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6629 (office)
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6895 (SBIL)
Fax: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

e-mail:
vlab@nhm.ac.uk
vblago@gmail.com

Fungus Gnats Online:
www.sciaroidea.info

public://picture-82.jpg
Submitted by dsamorim on

Thanks, Jan. A sound methodological approach for a study of the mycetophilids as a whole would involve testing the synonyms proposed at the generic level in the literature. In most cases, we know they are OK, but formally demonstrating it moves the quality of the study to a higher level. But there are still some catch-all genera, with subgroups placed in separate genera. Solving demands some wider sampling on the big genera and having some few species of the smaller/synonymized genera. It would be nice to have indication of the existence of certain genera still unnoticed in the literature. We could add theses cases to the table, as suggests Jan, and add explanatory notes the right of the table.

--

--- Mensagem original -----

De: "sevcikjan" <sevcikjan@hotmail.com>
Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 26 de Agosto de 2014 11:03:09
Assunto: RE: Taxon sampling

Hi guys,
thanks for the interesting contributions!
Concerning the Acomoptera-Drepanocercus-Paratinia group, also
molecular data
suggest their very close relationship, so that they could well be
considered
as a single genus. I can also confirm the variation in wing
characters in
this group, but also in other groups (e.g. in Grzegorzekia collaris).
This week I should have some time to check the numbers and taxa
included in
the table sent by Dalton, at least for the Oriental Region.
Brachyradia is
missing among the Exechiini, so I will add it. Do you want to include
also
some approximate numbers of species (mostly undescribed) known to me
in the
genera not yet recorded from this region? For example, something like
Austrosynapha is quite common from Thailand to Borneo, and it would
be good
to include it to the table, similarly Acomoptera, Grzegorzekia etc. I
can put
it there with a note like "unpublished" or "undescribed".
Cheers,
Jan

> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:58:00 +0100
> To: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
> Subject: RE: Thanks, Jostein! The most
> From: jostein.kjarandsen@uit.no
>
> Yes, I know this is not new in any way - just not firmly
> established so
that
> we all use the same terminology, but that's the purpose of our
> project,
> right? For now I and many just avoid the problem by using informal
> terms
like
> anterior and posterior fork. By the way, Drepanocercus spinistylus
> was
moved
> to Acomoptera by Kerr (2011) and these species show a considerable
> intraspecific variation in the length and attachment of the
> "posterior"
fork.
>

Add new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Files
Files must be less than 200 MB.
Allowed file types: txt.
Scratchpads developed and conceived by (alphabetical): Ed Baker, Katherine Bouton Alice Heaton Dimitris Koureas, Laurence Livermore, Dave Roberts, Simon Rycroft, Ben Scott, Vince Smith