Wing morphometrics as a possible tool for the diagnosis of the Ceratitis fasciventris, C. anonae, C. rosa complex (Diptera, Tephritidae).

Joannes Van Cann,Kurt Jordaens,Marc De Meyer,Massimiliano Virgilio

doi:10.3897/zookeys.540.9724

Abstract

Previous attempts to resolve the Ceratitis FAR complex (Ceratitis fasciventris, Ceratitis anonae, Ceratitis rosa, Diptera, Tephritidae) showed contrasting results and revealed the occurrence of five microsatellite genotypic clusters (A, F1, F2, R1, R2). In this paper we explore the potential of wing morphometrics for the diagnosis of FAR morphospecies and genotypic clusters. We considered a set of 227 specimens previously morphologically identified and genotyped at 16 microsatellite loci. Seventeen wing landmarks and 6 wing band areas were used for morphometric analyses. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance detected significant differences both across morphospecies and genotypic clusters (for both males and females). Unconstrained and constrained ordinations did not properly resolve groups corresponding to morphospecies or genotypic clusters. However, posterior group membership probabilities (PGMPs) of the Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC) allowed the consistent identification of a relevant proportion of specimens (but with performances differing across morphospecies and genotypic clusters). This study suggests that wing morphometrics and PGMPs might represent a possible tool for the diagnosis of species within the FAR complex. Here, we propose a tentative diagnostic method and provide a first reference library of morphometric measures that might be used for the identification of additional and unidentified FAR specimens.

Highlights

“True” fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) are represented by more than 4,000 phytophagous species of which 25–30% feed on fruits
PERMANOVAs revealed differences in multivariate patterns of 7 male and 7 female C. rosa specimens for both wing landmarks and wing band areas (Tab. 1) while it neither detected significant effects related to wing nor to measurement error
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of wing landmarks of the C. rosa specimens used in the methodological test (Suppl. material 5) showed separation between males and females, while measures of (a) left and right wings, (b) repeated images and (c) repeated scoring were largely overlapping

Summary

Introduction

“True” fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) are represented by more than 4,000 phytophagous species of which 25–30% feed on fruits. Fruit fly pests include a number of economically important species complexes that cannot be adequately resolved by morphological or molecular characters (Schutze et al 2012, Schutze et al 2015a, Selivon et al 2005, Virgilio et al 2008, Virgilio et al 2013) and for which pest management proves to be problematic (e.g. see Schutze et al 2015a) These include the so-called Ceratitis FAR complex, a small group of morphologically similar species including C. fasciventris (Bezzi, 1920), C. anonae Graham, 1908 and the main agricultural pest C. rosa Karsch, 1887 (the Natal fruit fly). We used wing morphometrics to verify the diagnosis of a group of Ceratitis FAR specimens that were characterised previously by morphology and microsatellite genotyping

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion