% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Blanke:276730,
author = {Blanke, Alexander and Büsse, Sebastian and Machida,
Ryuichiro},
title = {{C}oding characters from different life stages for
phylogenetic reconstruction: a case study on dragonfly
adults and larvae, including a description of the larval
head anatomy of {E}piophlebia superstes ({O}donata:
{E}piophlebiidae)},
journal = {Zoological journal of the Linnean Society},
volume = {174},
number = {4},
issn = {0024-4082},
address = {Oxford [u.a.]},
publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
reportid = {PUBDB-2015-04793},
pages = {718 - 732},
year = {2015},
note = {(c) The Linnean Society of London. Post referee full text
in progress. Embargo for post referee full text 1 year from
27 MAR 2015.},
abstract = {The exclusive use of characters coding for specific life
stages may bias tree reconstruction. If characters from
severallife stages are coded, the type of coding becomes
important. Here, we simulate the influence on tree
reconstructionof morphological characters of Odonata larvae
incorporated into a data matrix based on the adult body
underdifferent coding schemes. For testing purposes, our
analysis is focused on a well-supported hypothesis: the
relationshipsof the suborders Zygoptera,
‘Anisozygoptera’, and Anisoptera. We studied the
cephalic morphology ofEpiophlebia, a key taxon among
Odonata, and compared it with representatives of Zygoptera
and Anisoptera inorder to complement the data matrix.
Odonate larvae are characterized by a peculiar morphology,
such as thespecific head form, mouthpart configuration,
ridge configuration, cephalic musculature, and leg and gill
morphology.Four coding strategies were used to incorporate
the larval data: artificial coding (AC), treating larvae as
independentterminal taxa; non-multistate coding (NMC),
preferring the adult life stage; multistate coding (MC);and
coding larval and adult characters separately (SC) within
the same taxon. As expected, larvae are ‘monophyletic’in
the AC strategy, but with anisopteran and zygopteran larvae
as sister groups. Excluding larvae in the NMCapproach leads
to strong support for both monophyletic Odonata and
Epiprocta, whereas MC erodes phylogeneticsignal completely.
This is an obvious result of the larval morphology leading
to many multistate characters. SCresults in the strongest
support for Odonata, and Epiprocta receives the same support
as with NMC. Our resultsshow the deleterious effects of
larval morphology on tree reconstruction when multistate
coding is applied. Codinglarval characters separately is
still the best approach in a phylogenetic framework.},
cin = {DOOR},
ddc = {500},
cid = {I:(DE-H253)HAS-User-20120731},
pnm = {6G3 - PETRA III (POF3-622) / FS-Proposal: I-20090102
(I-20090102)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-6G3 / G:(DE-H253)I-20090102},
experiment = {EXP:(DE-H253)P-P05-20150101},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000358376200004},
doi = {10.1111/zoj.12258},
url = {https://bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/276730},
}