Torsten Dikow

Phylogeny of Asilidae Inferred from Morphological Characters of Imagines (Insecta: Diptera: Brachycera: Asiloidea)

Abstract A phylogenetic hypothesis is proposed for higher-level relationships within Asilidae, based on a sample of 158 species from 140 genera representing all 11 previously recognized subfamily taxa and 39 of the 42 tribal taxa and 220 discrete, parsimony informative, morphological characters from all tagmata of the imagines. Cladistic analysis results in 720 most parsimonious trees of 2760 steps in length, and a strict consensus topology of 2965 steps. The strict consensus cladogram is well resolved except for species of Apocleinae and Asilinae, which form a large polytomy. Monophyly of Asilidae is corroborated and supported by five autapomorphies: (1) labella of labium fused to prementum at least ventrally; (2) hypopharynx heavily sclerotized; (3) hypopharynx with dorsal seta-like spicules; (4) labrum short and at most half as long as labium; (5) cibarium trapezoidal. The clade Apioceridae + Mydidae is the sister group to Asilidae. The phylogenetic hypothesis indicates that five out of the 11 previously recognized subfamily taxa are non-monophyletic, i.e., Apocleinae, Asilinae, Dasypogoninae, Laphystiinae, and Stenopogoninae. The present cladistic analysis forms the most comprehensive phylogenetic study on Asilidae to date and is used to revise the taxons phylogenetic classification in which 14 subfamily taxa are recognized. Ommatiinae, Trigonomiminae, and Stichopogoninae are recovered as monophyletic and contain the same genera as previously postulated. Dioctriinae and Leptogastrinae are also recovered as monophyletic, but the genera Myelaphus and Acronyches are transferred to them, respectively. Asilinae comprises all Apocleinae and Asilinae species and Laphriinae comprises all Laphriinae and Laphystiinae species sensu previous authors. Dasypogoninae and Stenopogoninae are divided into several taxa at phylogenetically unrelated positions in the cladogram. The Dasypogoninae comprises only Blepharepiini, Dasypogonini, Lastauracini, Megapodini (including Cyrtophryina, Lagodiina, Megapodina, and Senobasina), Molobratiini, Saropogonini, and Thereutriini as well as the unplaced genera Archilestris, Diogmites, and Lestomyia. The remaining taxa possessing either a large prothoracic tibial spine, i.e., Brachyrhopalini and Chrysopogonini, or a small S-shaped spur, i.e., Cophura, Leptarthrus, and Nicocles, are part of the Brachyrhopalinae (new status). The Stenopogoninae comprises only Enigmomorphini, Plesiommatini, and Stenopogonini as well as the unplaced genera Ancylorhynchus and Scylaticus. Bathypogoninae (new status), Phellinae (new status), Tillobromatinae (new status), and Willistonininae (new status) are new subfamilial taxa previously assigned to Stenopogoninae. The remaining Stenopogoninae sensu previous authors represented here, i.e., Cyrtopogonini, Ceraturgini, Heteropogon, Holopogon, Metapogon, and Rhabdogaster, are assigned to the Brachyrhopalinae (new status). The genera Coleomyia and Oligopogon remain incertae sedis as neither genus groups with any other Asilidae, and are positioned as adelphotaxa to speciose clades. The higher-level relationships are: (Laphriinae ((Asilinae + Ommatiinae) (Bathypogoninae (Phellinae ((Tillobromatinae (Coleomyia incertae sedis + Dasypogoninae + Stenopogoninae)) (Willistonininae (Oligopogon incertae sedis ((Dioctriinae (Leptogastrinae + Trigonomiminae)) (Brachyrhopalinae + Stichopogoninae))))))))).

Beyond dead trees: integrating the scientific process in the Biodiversity Data Journal

Driven by changes to policies of governments and funding agencies, Open Access to content and data is quickly becoming the prevailing model in academic publishing. Open Access benefits scientists with greater dissemination and citation of their work, and provides society as a whole with access to the latest research. Open Access is, however, only one facet of scholarly communication. Core scientific statements or assertions are intertwined and hidden in the scholarly narratives, and the data underlying these statements are often obscured to the point that replication of results is impossible (Nature Editorial 2012). This is in part a result of the way scientific papers are written as narratives, rather than sources of data. An often cited reason for the lack of published data is the absence of a reward mechanism for the individuals involved in creating and managing information (Smith 2009, Costello 2009, Vision 2010, McDade et al. 2011, Duke and Porter 2013). Preparing data for publication is a time consuming activity that few scholars will undertake without recognition from their peers. Data papers are a potential solution to this problem (Chavan and Penev 2011, Chavan and Penev 2013). They allow authors to publish data and receive reward through the traditional citation process. Coupling tools to rapidly and simply generate publications will incentivise this behaviour and create a culture of data curation and sharing within the biodiversity science community. If we are going to incentivise the mass publication of data, we also need mechanisms to ensure quality. Traditional peer review is one of the bottlenecks in standard publication practice (Hauser and Fehr 2007, Fox and Petchey 2010). A common criticism of peer review is the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the reviewers. To cope with the additional volume of papers created by data publication and to move to a more transparent system, we need to rethink peer review. We need both new methods of reviewing and new tools to automate as much of the review process as possible. This requires a new publishing platform, not just a new journal. An abundance of small isolated datasets does not, however, allow us to address the fundamental problems within the biodiversity science community. These islands of data are only of value if connected and interlinked. The task of interlinking is performed by biodiversity data aggregators like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and Encylopedia of Life (EOL) which form the backbone of data-driven biodiversity research. By automating the submission of data to these aggregators, we can increase their value to more than the sum of their parts, making small data big. A renewed appreciation of the value of small data will help to reduce the vast amount of research data that exists only on laptops and memory sticks - data that is often lost when people change roles or retire. Works of potentially very limited length can hold intrinsic value to the community, but are almost impossible to publish in traditional journals chasing impact factors. Examples include single species descriptions, local checklists and software descriptions, or ecological surveys and plot data. An infrastructure that allows datasets of any size to be important means we can publish them at any time. There is no need to wait for datasets to reach a critical mass suitable for publication in a traditional journal. Today, we are pleased to announce the official release of the first series of papers published in Biodiversity Data Journal (BDJ). After years of hard work in analyzing, planning and programming the Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT), we now have a publishing platform that addresses the key concerns raised above. This provides the first workflow to support the full life cycle of a manuscript - from writing through submission, community peer-review, publication and dissemination, all within a single online collaborative environment. Shortening distance between “data” and “narrative” publishing Most journals nowadays clearly separate data from narrative (text). Moreover, data publishing through data centres and repositories has almost become a separate sector within the scholarly publishing landscape. BDJ is not a conventional journal, nor is it a conventional “data journal”. It aims to integrate data and text in a single publication by converting several kinds of biodiversity data (e.g., species occurrences, checklists, or data tables) into the text for human-readable use, while simultaneously making data units from the same article harvestable and downloadable. The text itself is marked up and presented in a highly structured and machine readable form. BDJ aims to integrate small data into the text whenever possible. Supplementary data files that underpin graphs, hypotheses and results can also be uploaded on the journal’s website and published with the article. Nonetheless, this is usually not possible for large or complex data, for which we recommend deposition in an established open international repository (for details, see Penev et al. 2011): Large primary biodiversity data sets (e.g., institutional collections of species-occurrence records) should be published with the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT); small data sets of this kind are imported into the article text through an Excel template, available in PWT. Genomic data should be deposited with INSDC (GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ), either directly or via a partnering repository, e.g. Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD). Transcriptomics data should be deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) or ArrayExpress. Phylogenetic data should be deposited at TreeBASE, either directly or through the Dryad Data Repository. Biodiversity-related geoscience and environmental data should be deposited in PANGAEA. Morphological images other than those presented in the article should be deposited at Morphbank. Images of a specific kind should be deposited in appropriate repositories if these exist (e.g., Morphosource for MicroCT data). Videos should be uploaded to video sharing sites like YouTube, Vimeo or SciVee and linked back to the article text. Similarly, audio files should go to platforms like FreeSound or SoundCloud, and presentations to Slideshare. In addition, multimedia files can also be uploaded as supplementary files on the journal’s website. 3D and other interactive models can be embedded in the article’s HTML and PDF. Any other large data sets (e.g., ecological observations, environmental data, morphological and other data types) should be deposited in the Dryad Data Repository, either prior to or upon acceptance of the manuscript. Other specialised data repositories can be used if these offer unique identifiers and long-term preservation. All external data used in a BDJ paper must be cited in the reference list, and links to these data (as deposited in external repositories) must be included in a separate data resources section of the article. All datasets, images or multimedia are freely downloadable from the text under the Open Data Commons Attribution License or a Creative Commons CC-Zero waiver / Public Domain Dedication. The article text is available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY) 3.0 license. Primary biodiversity data within an article can be exported in Darwin Core Archive format, which makes them interoperable with biodiversity tools based on the Darwin Core standard. By facilitating open access to the data that underlie every publication, BDJ is setting a new standard in transparency and repeatability in biodiversity science. Perpetual and universal access to primary data stimulates scientific progress by helping authors build upon existing datasets. BDJ’s commitment to supporting automated data aggregation and interlinking is happening alongside multiple advances in biodiversity informatics infrastructure that herald the dawning of an era of collaborative, big-data biodiversity science (Page 2008, Patterson et al. 2010, Thessen and Patterson 2011, Parr et al. 2012).

Robber Flies in Cretaceous Ambers (Insecta: Diptera: Asilidae)

ABSTRACT Cretaceous fossils of Asilidae are reviewed, and two new taxa from Burmese and Raritan (New Jersey) ambers are described. The first robber fly from Burmese amber, †Burmapogon bruckschi, new genus and species, is described based on specimens of both sexes. A scientific name is provided for the previously described but unnamed fossil assassin fly from Raritan amber, †Cretagaster raritanensis, new genus and species, preserved as a fragmentary specimen. The amber fossils are placed phylogenetically within Asilidae. Specifically, †Burmapogon is postulated to be a representative of the clade comprised of (Brachyrhopalinae + Stichopogoninae), while †Cretagaster is a member of the Leptogastrinae and postulated to be an extinct sister group to (Acronychini + Leptogastrini).

Taxon sampling to address an ancient rapid radiation: a supermatrix phylogeny of early brachyceran flies (Diptera): Diptera evolution and supermatrix

Early diverging brachyceran fly lineages underwent a rapid radiation approximately 180 Ma, coincident in part with the origin of flowering plants. This region of the fly tree includes 25 000 described extant species with diverse ecological roles such as blood‐feeding (haematophagy), parasitoidism, predation, pollination and wood‐feeding (xylophagy). Early diverging brachyceran lineages were once considered a monophyletic group of families called Orthorrhapha, based on the shared character of a longitudinal break in the pupal skin made during the emergence of the adult. Yet other morphological and molecular evidence generally supports a paraphyletic arrangement of ‘Orthorrhapha’, with strong support for one orthorrhaphan lineage – dance flies and relatives – as the closest relative to all higher flies (Cyclorrhapha), together called Eremoneura. In order to establish a comprehensive estimate of the relationships among orthorrhaphan lineages using a thorough sample of publicly available data, we compiled and analysed a dataset including 1217 taxa representing major lineages and 20 molecular markers. Our analyses suggest that ‘Orthorrhapha’ excluding Eremoneura is not monophyletic; instead, we recover two main lineages of early brachyceran flies: Homeodactyla and Heterodactyla. Homeodactyla includes Nemestrinoidea (uniting two parasitic families Acroceridae + Nemestrinidae) as the closest relatives to the large SXT clade, comprising Stratiomyomorpha, Xylophagidae and Tabanomorpha. Heterodactyla includes Bombyliidae with a monophyletic Asiloidea (exclusive of Bombyliidae) as the closest relatives to Eremoneura. Reducing missing data, modifying the distribution of genes across taxa, and, in particular, removing rogue taxa significantly improved tree resolution and statistical support. Although our analyses rely on dense taxonomic sampling and substantial gene coverage, our results pinpoint the limited resolving power of Sanger sequencing‐era molecular phylogenetic datasets with respect to ancient, hyperdiverse radiations.

Genomic and transcriptomic resources for assassin flies including the complete genome sequence of Proctacanthus coquilletti (Insecta: Diptera: Asilidae) and 16 representative transcriptomes

A high-quality draft genome for Proctacanthus coquilletti (Insecta: Diptera: Asilidae) is presented along with transcriptomes for 16 Diptera species from five families: Asilidae, Apioceridae, Bombyliidae, Mydidae, and Tabanidae. Genome sequencing reveals that P. coquilletti has a genome size of approximately 210 Mbp and remarkably low heterozygosity (0.47%) and few repeats (15%). These characteristics helped produce a highly contiguous (N50 = 862 kbp) assembly, particularly given that only a single 2 × 250 bp PCR-free Illumina library was sequenced. A phylogenomic hypothesis is presented based on thousands of putative orthologs across the 16 transcriptomes. Phylogenetic relationships support the sister group relationship of Apioceridae + Mydidae to Asilidae. A time-calibrated phylogeny is also presented, with seven fossil calibration points, which suggests an older age of the split among Apioceridae, Asilidae, and Mydidae (158 mya) and Apioceridae and Mydidae (135 mya) than proposed in the AToL FlyTree project. Future studies will be able to take advantage of the resources presented here in order to produce large scale phylogenomic and evolutionary studies of assassin fly phylogeny, life histories, or venom. The bioinformatics tools and workflow presented here will be useful to others wishing to generate de novo genomic resources in species-rich taxa without a closely-related reference genome.

Review of Namibimydas Hesse, 1972 and Nothomydas Hesse, 1969 (Diptera: Mydidae: Syllegomydinae: Halterorchini) with the Description of New Species

ABSTRACT The Mydidae genera Namibimydas Hesse, 1972 and Nothomydas Hesse, 1969 are reviewed. Both genera were known from two species each occurring in southern Namibia and western South Africa and are here redescribed. Four new species, all from Namibia, are described herein: Namibimydas psamminos sp. n., Namibimydas stuckenbergi sp. n., Nothomydas aquilonius sp. n., and Nothomydas picketti sp. n. A dichotomous key to all species is presented and illustrations and photographs are provided to support the descriptions and future identification. Distribution, occurrence in biodiversity hotspots sensu Conservation International, and seasonal incidence are discussed for all species. Information of all four genera of Syllegomydinae: Halterorchini is summarised and photographs of all genera provided. A novel structure of the male terminalia, termed supra-hypandrial sclerite, is described and illustrated.

Taxonomic revision of the genus Lasiocnemus (Loew, 1851) (Diptera: Asilidae: Leptogastrinae)

The Afrotropical Asilidae genus Lasiocnemus (Loew, 1851) is revised. Seven species are recognized (La. fascipennis Engel & Cuthbertson, 1939; La. griseicinctipes Speiser, 1913; La. hermanni Janssens, 1952; La. hyalipennis Janssens, 1952; La. lugens Loew, 1858; and La. obscuripennis (Loew, 1851)), one of which is newly described from Kenya, Somalia, South Africa, and Tanzania, La. londti sp. n. La. anthracinus Janssens, 1952, is synonymized with La. griseicinctipes Speiser, 1913. Redescriptions and descriptions of the genus and all species as well as an identification key to species are provided. Distribution, occurrence in biodiversity hotspots, seasonal incidence, and biology are discussed.

New species and new records of Mydidae from the Afrotropical and Oriental regions (Insecta, Diptera, Asiloidea).

Abstract New Mydidae species are described from the Afrotropical and Oriental regions including the first records of this family from several countries in eastern Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda) and Mauritania in western Africa as well as Nepal and Thailand in Asia. The new species are, Leptomydinae: Leptomydas notos sp. n. (south-western India), Leptomydas rapti sp. n. (south-central Nepal), Leptomydas tigris sp. n. (north-central Thailand); Syllegomydinae: Mydaselpidini: Mydaselpis ngurumani sp. n. (south-eastern Kenya, north-eastern Tanzania), Vespiodes phaios sp. n. (south-eastern Kenya); Syllegomydinae: Syllegomydini: Syllegomydas (Notobates) astrictus sp. n. (Kenya), Syllegomydas (Notobates) heothinos sp. n. (Kenya and Uganda), Syllegomydas (Syllegomydas) elachys sp. n. (northern Zimbabwe). Syllegomydas (Syllegomydas) proximus Séguy, 1928 is recorded from western Mauritania and re-described. Syllegomydas (Notobates) dispar (Loew, 1852), which was previously listed as incertae sedis in the Afrotropical Diptera catalogue, is re-described and illustrated based on examination of the type specimens and several additional specimens from Mozambique. Cephalocera annulata Brunetti, 1912 and Syllegomydas bucciferus Séguy, 1928, described from north-eastern India and previously unplaced in the Oriental Diptera catalogue, are newly combined with Leptomydas Gerstaecker, 1868 and together with Leptomydas indianus Brunetti, 1912, also from north-eastern India, placed in Leptomydinae. Comments on the possible synonymy of the genera of Mydaselpidini are made. Illustrations and photographs are provided to support the descriptions and future identification. A provisional dichotomous key to Mydidae genera occurring in eastern Africa (Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda) and the Oriental Region is provided. Distribution, occurrence in biodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversity wilderness areas, and seasonal incidence are discussed for all species.

Taxonomic revision of the genus Schildia Aldrich, 1923 (Diptera: Asilidae: Leptogastrinae) with the description of new extant and extinct species

Schildia Aldrich, 1923, a distinctive and rarely collected genus of Leptogastrinae (Diptera: Asilidae), is revised. Ten species are recognized, of which four are new to science. Th e nine extant species are Afrotropical, Neotropical and Oriental in distribution. Th e extant Neotropical species are Schildia alphus Martin, 1975, Schildia caliginosa sp.n. (Ecuador and Venezuela), Schildia fragilis (Carrera, 1944), Schildia guatemalae Martin, 1975, Schildia gracillima (Walker, 1855), Schildia jamaicensis Farr, 1963, and Schildia microthorax Aldrich, 1923. Th e only extant Afrotropical species, Schildia adina sp.n., is described from extant and subfossilized specimens (Malagasy copal) from south-western Madagascar. Th e extant Oriental species, Schildia malaya sp.n., is described from northern Malaysia. One extinct species, † Schildia martini sp.n., is newly described from Dominican amber. Two new synonyms are proposed: Schildia ocellata Martin, 1975 is a junior synonym of Schildia gracillima and Schildia zonae Martin, 1975 is synonymized with Schildia fragilis . Redescriptions and descriptions of the genus and all extant and extinct species are provided. An identifi cation key to the extant and extinct species is presented. Illustrations, photographs, and scanning electron micrographs are provided to support the descriptions and key. Distribution, biogeography, occurrence in biodiversity hotspots, seasonal incidence and biology are discussed.

Entomological Collections in the Age of Big Data

With a million described species and more than half a billion preserved specimens, the large scale of insect collections is unequaled by those of any other group. Advances in genomics, collection digitization, and imaging have begun to more fully harness the power that such large data stores can provide. These new approaches and technologies have transformed how entomological collections are managed and utilized. While genomic research has fundamentally changed the way many specimens are collected and curated, advances in technology have shown promise for extracting sequence data from the vast holdings already in museums. Efforts to mainstream specimen digitization have taken root and have accelerated traditional taxonomic studies as well as distribution modeling and global change research. Emerging imaging technologies such as microcomputed tomography and confocal laser scanning microscopy are changing how morphology can be investigated. This review provides an overview of how the realization of big data has transformed our field and what may lie in store.