Phylogenetic relationships of nonbiting midges in the subfamilyTanypodinae (Diptera:Chironomidae) inferred from morphology

Abstract

AbstractThe nonbiting midge subfamily Tanypodinae represents one of the most diverse lineages ofChironomidae. Despite the wide distribution and high diversity of tanypodine chironomids, the evolutionary history of the subfamily remains poorly understood. Here, we present the first phylogenetic analysis of the subfamily Tanypodinae based on morphological data. Cladistic analyses were conducted using 86 morphological characters from 115 species belonging to 54 tanypodine genera, including the eight currently recognised tribes:Anatopyniini,Clinotanypodini,Coelopyniini,Macropelopiini,Natarsiini,Pentaneurini,Procladiini andTanypodini. We use characters from fourth‐instar larvae, pupae and adults of both sexes. We examine the effects of implied weighting by reanalysing the data with varying values of concavity constant (k). Our analysis supports the monophyly ofTanypodinae withPodonominae as its sister group. All previously proposed tribes are recovered as monophyletic assemblages under a wide range of weighting factors. Under these conditions, the genusFittkauimyiais the sister group of the remaining Macropelopiini and is erected as a new monobasic tribe,Fittkauimyiinitrib.n. The tribePentaneurini is recovered as monophyletic with some internal relationships resolved. The genusParamerina, recovered as sister ofReomyia + Zavrelimyia, is formally synonymised withZavrelimyiasyn.n., based on morphological similarity in all three life stages and treated as a subgenus of the latter. Finally, the recently suggested synonymies ofGressittiusandGuassutanypuswithAlotanypusand the establishment of the subgeneraConchapelopia(Helopelopia),Macropelopia(Bethbilbeckia),Monopelopia(Cantopelopia),Thienemannimyia(Hayesomyia) andZavrelimyia(ReomyiaandSchineriella) are investigated. Our results support all proposed changes, except for the subgenus‐level status ofHelopelopiaandCantopelopia.We suggest re‐establishment ofHelopelopiaas a genus, but refrain from promoting genus‐level status ofCantopelopiaat present because the apparent sister‐relationship betweenMonopelopia + Nilotanypuslikely is due to wing vein reduction caused by miniaturisation.This published work has been registered in ZooBank,http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DF012C17‐AFB3‐4904‐83DC‐30DD94D0B376.