00329nam a2200121   4500008004100000245003000041210002800071300001400099490000700113100002000120700001600140856005100156       1976                        eng d00aBraconidae 9. Doryctinae.0 aBraconidae 9 Doryctinae  a1263-14240 v131 aShenefelt, R.D.1 aMarsh, P.M.  uhttps://doryctinaekey.myspecies.info/node/177002729nas a2200217   4500008004100000245013100041210006900172300001200241490000800253520202000261653002002281653002202301653002202323653001102345653002002356653001602376100002402392700002502416700001902441856005102460       2004                        eng d00aPhylogeny of the genera of the parasitic wasps subfamily Doryctinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) based on morphological evidence.0 aPhylogeny of the genera of the parasitic wasps subfamily Dorycti  a369-4040 v1423 a<p>The evolutionary relationships among most (143 genera) of the currently recognized genera of the braconid wasp subfamily Doryctinae were investigated using maximum parsimony analysis, employing 100 characters from external morphology and four additional, less well-studied character systems (male genitalia, ovipositor structure, venom apparatus and larval cephalic structure). We investigated the &lsquo;performance&rsquo; of characters from external morphology and the other character systems and the effects of abundant missing entries by comparing the data decisiveness, retention and consistency indices of four different character partitions. The results indicate that the performances of the different partitions are not related to the proportions of missing entries, but instead are negatively correlated to their proportion of informative characters, suggesting that the morphological information in this group is subject to high levels of homoplasy. The external morphological partition is significantly incongruent with respect to a data set comprising the other character systems based on the ILD test. Analyses supported neither the monophyly of the large tribes Doryctini and Hecabolini, nor the monophyly of the Spathiini and Heterospilini. Relationships obtained from successive approximation weighting analysis for the complete data differ considerably from the currently accepted tribal and subtribal classifications. The only exceptions were the Ypsistocerini and the Ecphylini, whose recognized members were recovered in single clades. A close relationship between the Binaerini and Holcobraconini, and also Monarea, is consistently supported by venom apparatus and ovipositor structure characters but is not indicated by external morphological data. Low bootstrap values obtained for most of the recovered clades in all analyses do not allow us to propose a meaningful reclassification for the group at this time. A complete list of the recognized genera and their synonymies is given.</p>
10aclassiﬁcation10aconsistency index10adata decisiveness10ainsect10aretention index10asystematics1 aBelokobylskij, S.A.1 aZaldivar-Riveron, A.1 aQuicke, D.L.J.  uhttps://doryctinaekey.myspecies.info/node/102501912nas a2200193   4500008004100000245013300041210006900174300001200243490000700255520128200262653000801544653000801552100002501560700002401585700002201609700001901631700001901650856004901669       2008                        eng d00aMolecular phylogeny and historical biogeography of the cosmopolitan parasitic wasp subfamily Doryctinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae)0 aMolecular phylogeny and historical biogeography of the cosmopoli  a345-3630 v223 a<p>The phylogenetic relationships among representatives of 64 genera of the cosmopolitan parasitic wasps of the subfamily Doryctinae were investigated based on nuclear 28S ribosomal (r) DNA (~650 bp of the D2&ndash;3 region) and cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) mitochondrial (mt) DNA (603 bp) sequence data. The molecular dating of selected clades and the biogeography of the subfamily were also inferred. The partitioned Bayesian analyses did not recover a monophyletic Doryctinae, though the relationships involved were only weakly supported. Strong evidence was found for rejecting the monophylies of both Doryctes Haliday, 1836 and Spathius Nees, 1818. Our results also support the recognition of the Rhaconotini as a valid tribe. A dispersal&ndash;vicariance analysis showed a strong geographical signal for the taxa included, with molecular dating estimates for the origin of Doryctinae and its subsequent radiation both occurring during the late Paleocene&ndash;early Eocene. The divergence time estimates suggest that diversification in the subfamily could have in part occurred as a result of continental break-up events that took place in the southern hemisphere, though more recent dispersal events account for the current distribution of several widespread taxa.</p>
10a28S10aCOI1 aZaldivar-Riveron, A.1 aBelokobylskij, S.A.1 aLeon-Regagnon, V.1 aBriceño, R.G.1 aQuicke, D.L.J.  uhttps://doryctinaekey.myspecies.info/node/43