Chlorodontoperini , Murillo-Ramos, Sihvonen & Brehm 2019, new tribe

Chlorodontoperini Murillo-Ramos, Sihvonen & Brehm, new tribe LSIDurn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:0833860E-A092-43D6-B2A1-FB57D9F7988D Type genus: Chlorodontopera Warren, 1893 Material examined: Taxa in the molecular phylogeny: Chlorodontopera discospilata (Moore, 1867) and Chlorodontopera mandarinata (Leech, 1889). Some studies (Inoue, 1961; Holloway, 1996) suggested the morphological similarities of Chlorodontopera Warren, 1893 with members of Aracimini. Moreover, Holloway (1996) considered this genus as part of Aracimini. Our results suggest a sister relationship of Chlorodontopera with a large clade comprising Aracimini, Neohipparchini, Timandromorphini, Geometrini, Nemoriini and Comibaenini. Considering that our analysis strongly supports Chlorodontopera as an independent lineage (branch support SH-like = 99 UFBoot2 = 100, RBS = 99), we introduce the monobasic tribe Chlorodontoperini. This tribe can be diagnosed by the combination of DNA data from six genetic markers (exemplar Chlorodontopera discospilata) CAD (MG015448), COI (MG014735), EF1a (MG015329), GAPDH (MG014862), MDH (MG014980) and RpS5 (MG015562). Ban et al. (2018) did not introduce a new tribe because the relationship between Chlorodontopera and Euxena Warren, 1896 was not clear in their study. This relationship was also been proposed by Holloway (1996) based on similar wing patterns. Further analyses are needed to clarify the affinities between Chlorodontopera and Euxena. The tribe Chlorodontoperini is diagnosed by distinct discal spots with pale margins on the wings, which are larger on the hindwing; a dull reddish-brown patch is present between the discal spot and the costa on the hindwing, and veins M3 and CuA1 are not stalked on the hindwing (Ban et al., 2018). In the male genitalia, the socii are stout and setose and the lateral arms of the gnathos are developed, not joined. Sternite 3 of the male has setal patches (see Holloway, 1996 for illustrations). Formal taxonomic changesare listedin Table 2. Aracimini, Neohipparchini, Timandromorphini, Geometrini and Comibaenini were recovered as monophyletic groups. These results are in full agreement with Ban et al. (2018). However, the phylogenetic position of Eucyclodes Warren, 1894 is uncertain (unnamed G2). The monophyly of Nemoriini and Synchlorini is not supported. Instead, Synchlorini are nested within Nemoriini (support branch SH-like = 98.3, UFBoot2 = 91, RBS = 93). Our findings are in concordance with Sihvonen et al. (2011) and Ban et al. (2018), but our analyses included a larger number of markers and a much higher number of taxa. Thus, we formally synonymize Synchlorini syn. nov. with Nemoriini (Table 2). The monophyly of Pseudoterpnini sensu Pitkin, Han & James (2007) could not be recovered. Similar results were shown by Ban et al. (2018) who recovered Pseudoterpnini s.l. including all the genera previously studied by Pitkin, Han & James (2007), forming a separate clade from Pseudoterpna Hübner, 1823 + Pingasa Moore, 1887. Our results showed African Mictoschema Prout, 1922 falling within Pseudoterpnini s.str., and it is sister to Pseudoterpna and Pingasa. Asecond group of Pseudoterpnini s.l. was recovered as an independent lineage clearly separate from Pseudoterpnini s.str. (SH-like = 88.3, UFBoot2 = 64). Ban et al. (2018) did not introduce a new tribe due to the morphological similarities and difficulty in finding apomorphies of Pseudoterpnini s.str. In addition, their results were weakly supported. Considering that two independent studies have demonstrated the paraphyly of Pseudoterpnini sensu Pitkin et al. (2007), we see no reason for retaining the wide concept of this tribe. Instead, we propose the revival of the tribe status of Archaeobalbini.
Published as part of Murillo-Ramos, Leidys, Brehm, Gunnar, Sihvonen, Pasi, Hausmann, Axel, Holm, Sille, Ghanavi, Hamid Reza, Õunap, Erki, Truuverk, Andro, Staude, Hermann, Friedrich, Egbert, Tammaru, Toomas & Wahlberg, Niklas, 2019, A comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Geometridae (Lepidoptera) with a focus on enigmatic small subfamilies, pp. 1-39 in PeerJ 7 on pages 23-24, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7386, http://zenodo.org/record/5767530
{"references":["Inoue H. 1961. Lepidoptera: Geometridae. Insecta Japonica 4: 1 - 106.","Holloway J. 1996. The moths of Borneo, part 9: Geometridae (incl. Orthostixini), Oenochrominae, Desmobathrinae, Geometrinae. Ennominae Malayan Nature Journal 49: 147 - 326.","Ban X, Jiang N, Cheng R, Xue D, Han H. 2018. Tribal classification and phylogeny of Geometrinae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) inferred from seven gene regions. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 184 (3): 653 - 672 DOI 10.1093 / zoolinnean / zly 013.","Sihvonen P, Mutanen M, Kaila L, Brehm G, Hausmann A, Staude HS. 2011. Comprehensive molecular sampling yields a robust phylogeny for geometrid moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). PLOS ONE 6 (6): e 20356 DOI 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0020356.","Pitkin LM, Han HX, James S. 2007. Moths of the tribe Pseudoterpnini (Geometridae: Geometrinae): a review of the genera. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 150 (2): 343 - 412 DOI 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.2007.00287. x."]}