Abstract
Phylogenetic positions of the genus Longgenacris and one of its members, i.e. L. rufiantennus are controversial. The species boundaries within both of L. rufiantennus+Fruhstorferiola tonkinensis and F. viridifemorata species groups are unclear. In this study, we explored the phylogenetic positions of the genus Longgenacris and the species L. rufiantennus and the relationships among F. viridifemorata group based on the 658-base fragment of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) barcode and the complete sequences of the internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS1 and ITS2) of the nuclear ribosomal DNA. The phylogenies were reconstructed in maximum likelihood framework using IQ-TREE. K2P distances were used to assess the overlap range between intraspecific variation and interspecific divergence. Phylogenetic species concept and NJ tree, K2P distance, the statistical parsimony network as well as the generalized mixed Yule coalescent model (GMYC) were employed to delimitate the species boundaries in L. rufiantennus+F. tonkinensis and F. viridifemorata species groups. The results demonstrated that the genus Longgenacris should be placed in the subfamily Melanoplinae but not Catantopinae, and L. rufiantennus should be a member of the genus Fruhstorferiola but not Longgenacris. Species boundary delimitation confirmed the presence of oversplitting in L. rufiantennus+F. tonkinensis and F. viridifemorata species groups and suggested that each group should be treated as a single species.
Highlights
Taxonomy is a process to take or collate decisions continually
The results showed that L. maculacarina usually formed a monophyletic clade, but all individuals of L. rufiantennus fell completely into the clade of F. tonkinensis in NJ trees reconstructed both from single and combined alignment sequences (Fig 4A, S3A–S3D Fig), with only one exceptive individual for each species escaping from its own stem clade in NJ tree of ITS2 sequences, i.e. individual gh080 of L. rufiantennus clustered into a clade together with gh075 of E. maculata and individual gh016 of L. maculacarina, and individual gh041 of F. tonkinensis falled into the clade of O. longipennis (S3C Fig)
Being placed in the genus Longgenacris originally, L. rufiantennus has substantial differences from its congener L. maculacarina concerning the length of tegmina and wings, the shape of cerci in male, the subgenital plate in female as well as the structure of male genitalia, and shows no morphological difference from F. tonkinensis [16]
Summary
Taxonomy is a process to take or collate decisions continually. Any taxonomic decision taken since the inception of zoological nomenclature in 1758 has relevance today, and on into the future, no matter that decision was right or wrong [1]. Despite the existence of over lumping (cryptic species), oversplitting may exist especially in early described species groups because of the lack of type comparison, which usually lead to repeated descriptions of the same species as different ones without actual morphological difference [14]. The main morphological characters used to distinguish species in F. viridifemorata group from each other are the length of tegmen, the shape of male cercus in apical portion and teeth in the posterior margin of female subgenital plate. These characters vary even among individuals from the same population. The phylogeny of the species involved was reconstructed from molecular sequence dataset using maximum likelihood method, and the species boundary was delimited using multiple methods, including genetic distance, NJ tree, the haplotype network constructed using the statistical parsimony method [23], and analysis of the generalized mixed Yule coalescent model (GMYC) [24]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
