Phylogenetic analysis of paraneopteran orders (Insecta: Neoptera) based on forewing base structure, with comments on monophyly of Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera)

By K. Yoshizawa, T. Saigusa. 2001

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d1c2e9886650ec068e189a9025b22e1c16407f75

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. J. Cryan
2. K. Yoshizawa
3. J. Ie
4. R. Ry
5. G. Edgecombe
6. H. Pohl
7. David A. Legg
8. A. Daley

In Insect Science

1. J. Ie
2. R. Ry
3. J. Cryan
4. Alain Roques
5. Michael Whiting
6. L. Mound
7. David Roy
8. M. Kenis

Citations in the corpus

• FOSSIL CALIBRATIONS FOR THE ARTHROPOD TREE OF LIFE (2016, background): “Some morphological analyses do not support monophyly of Eumetabola (Kristensen, 1981; Wheeler et al., 2001), although it is recovered (Kristensen, 1991; Kukalova-Peck, 1991) and assumed (Yoshizawa and Saigusa, 2001) in other analyses.”
• The Systematics of the Hemiptera (2008, unknown): “…group of Thysanoptera + Psocodea (e.g., Whiting et al. 1997; Gorb and Beutel 2001; Wheeler et al. 2001; Willmann 2004), or the sister group of Thysanoptera (e.g., Hennig 1969, 1981; Kristensen 1981; Whiting et al. 1997; Wheeler et al. 2001; Yoshizawa and Saigusa 2001; Cranston and Gullan 2003).”
• Phylogeny of thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) based on five molecular loci (2013, background): “The Thysanoptera + Hemiptera relationship is supported by mouthparts (Grimaldi & Engel, 2005) and forewing structures (Yoshizawa & Saigusa, 2001).”
• Insect morphology in the age of phylogenomics: innovative techniques and its future role in systematics (2014, background): “…was developed to reflect complicated morphological configurations exactly and to define highly sclerotized parts and membranous areas following R. E. Snodgrass’s drawing procedures (see examples in Shirôzu & Saigusa 1971; Ueda & Saigusa 1982; Sugimoto & Saigusa 2001; Yoshizawa & Saigusa 2001).”
• Molecular phylogeny of Cicadomorpha (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadoidea, Cercopoidea and Membracoidea): adding evidence to the controversy (2005, background): “Yoshizawa & Saigusa (2001) examined the forewing base structure of the major paraneopteran lineages, concluding that Fulgoromorpha and Cicadomorpha are sister taxa based on the autapomorphic reduction of the proximal median plate, a character that they claim is prominent and not observed in other…”
• Higher-level phylogeny of the insect order Hemiptera: is Auchenorrhyncha really paraphyletic? (2011, background): “Yoshizawa & Saigusa (2001) conducted a phylogenetic analysis of Paraneoptera based on coded characters of the forewing base structure.”
• Monophyletic Polyneoptera recovered by wing base structure (2011, methodology): “Three nonpolyneopteran orders – Psocodea (retaining the most plesiomorphic wing base conditions in Paraneoptera; Yoshizawa & Saigusa, 2001), Megaloptera and Mecoptera (two holometabolans thought to be relict orders; Grimaldi & Engel, 2005) – were also examined and employed for the analyses to test t”
• Other Hemiptera Sternorrhyncha (Aleyrodidae, Phylloxeroidea, and Psylloidea) and Hemiptera Auchenorrhyncha. (2010, background): “Hemipteran phylogeny is still controversial (Cryan 2005, Yoshizawa and Saigusa 2001) although Sternorrhyncha, Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha, Coleorrhyncha and Heteroptera are considered monophyletic by most authors (Bourgoin and Campbell 2002, Dietrich 2002, Nielson 1985).”