Molecular Phylogeny of the Ant Subfamily Formicinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from China Based on Mitochondrial Genes

Zhilin Chen,Chunwen Lu,Yuan Chen,Duoduo Ye,Shan Yi Zhou

doi:10.13102/sociobiology.v60i2.135-144

Abstract

To resolve long-standing discrepancies in the relationships among genera within the ant subfamily Formicinae, a phylogenetic study of Chinese Formicine ants based on three mitochondria genes (Cyt b, COI, COII) was conducted. Phylogenetic trees obtained in the current study are consistent with several previously reported trees based on morphology, and specifically confirm and reinforce the classifications made by Bolton (1994). The tribes Lasiini, Formicini, Plagiolepidini and Camponotini are strongly supported, while Oecophyllini has moderate support despite being consistent across all analyses. We have also established that the genus Camponotus and Polyrhachis are indeed not monophyletic. Additionally, we found strong evidence for Polyrhachis paracamponota, as described by Wu and Wang in 1991, to be corrected as Camponotus based on molecular, morphological and behavioral data.

Highlights

Ants are one of the most successful groups of eusocial insects
The transitions of nucleotide substitution were more common than transversion with a transition
(Lasius + (Nylanderia + Prenolepis)) in all three trees. These analyses showed that Nylanderia is a sister genus of Prenolepis with very strong support (1.0 PP, 90% Neighbour Joining (NJ) bootstrap, 89% Maximum Parsimony (MP) bootstrap)

Summary

Introduction

Ants are one of the most successful groups of eusocial insects. They act as an important part of the animal biomass in tropical rainforests and occupy key positions in many terrestrial environments (Wilson & Hölldobler 2005). Resolving the phylogeny of major ant lineages is vital for understanding the factors contributing to their success. Previous studies based on morphological (Baroni Urbani et al 1992, Bolton 2003), fossil-based (Grimaldi et al 1997, Dlussky 1999, Ward & Brady 2003, Bolton 2003), and molecular (Astruc et al 2004, Saux et al 2004, Ward & Brady 2003,Ward & Downie 2005, Ward et al 2005, Brady et al 2006, Moreau et al 2006, Ouellette et al 2006) data provided useful framework for understanding the relationships among ant subfamilies. The genus-level phylogeny and classification of ant subfamilies remain controversial in many respects

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion