Supertree

This study investigated the relationship between olfactory morphology, habitat occupancy, and lifestyle in 21 elasmobranch species in a phylogenetic context. Four measures of olfactory capability, that is, the number of olfactory lamellae, the surface area of the olfactory epithelium, the mass of the olfactory bulb, and the mass of the olfactory rosette were compared between individual species and groups, comprised of species with similar habitat and/or lifestyle. Statistical analyses using generalized least squares phylogenetic regression revealed that bentho-pelagic sharks and rays possess significantly more olfactory lamellae and larger sensory epithelial surface areas than benthic species. There was no significant correlation between either olfactory bulb or rosette mass and habitat type. There was also no significant difference between the number of lamellae or the size of the sensory surface area in groups comprised of species with similar diets, that is, groups preying predominantly on crustaceans, cephalopods, echinoderms, polychaetes, molluscs, or teleosts. However, some groups had significantly larger olfactory bulb or rosette masses than others. There was little evidence to support a correlation between phylogeny and morphology, indicating that differences in olfactory capabilities are the result of functional rather than phylogenetic adaptations. All olfactory epithelia exhibited microvilli and cilia, with microvilli in both nonsensory and sensory areas, and cilia only in sensory areas. Cilia over the sensory epithelia originated from supporting cells. In contrast to teleosts, which possess ciliated and microvillous olfactory receptor types, no ciliated olfactory receptor cells were observed. This is the first comprehensive study comparing olfactory morphology to several aspects of elasmobranch ecology in a phylogenetic context. J. Morphol., 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Background The order Hymenoptera (bees, ants, wasps, sawflies) contains about eight percent of all described species, but no analytical studies have addressed the origins of this richness at family-level or above. To investigate which major subtaxa experienced significant shifts in diversification, we assembled a family-level phylogeny of the Hymenoptera using supertree methods. We used sister-group species-richness comparisons to infer the phylogenetic position of shifts in diversification. Results The supertrees most supported by the underlying input trees are produced using matrix representation with compatibility (MRC) (from an all-in and a compartmentalised analysis). Whilst relationships at the tips of the tree tend to be well supported, those along the backbone of the tree (e.g. between Parasitica superfamilies) are generally not. Ten significant shifts in diversification (six positive and four negative) are found common to both MRC supertrees. The Apocrita (wasps, ants, bees) experienced a positive shift at their origin accounting for approximately 4,000 species. Within Apocrita other positive shifts include the Vespoidea (vespoid wasps/ants containing 24,000 spp.), Anthophila + Sphecidae (bees/thread-waisted wasps; 22,000 spp.), Bethylidae + Chrysididae (bethylid/cuckoo wasps; 5,200 spp.), Dryinidae (dryinid wasps; 1,100 spp.), and Proctotrupidae (proctotrupid wasps; 310 spp.). Four relatively species-poor families (Stenotritidae, Anaxyelidae, Blasticotomidae, Xyelidae) have undergone negative shifts. There are some two-way shifts in diversification where sister taxa have undergone shifts in opposite directions. Conclusions Our results suggest that numerous phylogenetically distinctive radiations contribute to the richness of large clades. They also suggest that evolutionary events restricting the subsequent richness of large clades are common. Problematic phylogenetic issues in the Hymenoptera are identified, relating especially to superfamily validity (e.g. "Proctotrupoidea", "Mymarommatoidea"), and deeper apocritan relationships. Our results should stimulate new functional studies on the causes of the diversification shifts we have identified. Possible drivers highlighted for specific adaptive radiations include key anatomical innovations, the exploitation of rich host groups, and associations with angiosperms. Low richness may have evolved as a result of geographical isolation, specialised ecological niches, and habitat loss or competition.