Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:30:59.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NUMERICAL TAXONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS OF BOMBUS AND PSITHYRUS (APIDAE: HYMENOPTERA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. C. Plowright  and
W. P. Stephen
R. C. Plowright
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
W. P. Stephen
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of whether the evolutionary origin of the parasitic bumble bees (Psithyrus Lep.) was monophyletic or polyphyletic has not been convincingly resolved by conventional systematics. In this study numerical taxonomic (NT) analysis was applied to data on wing venation from a set of 13 species of Psithyrus and 60 species of non-parasitic bumble bees (Bombus Latr.), representing 16 of the subgeneric divisions recognized by Richards. The resultant cluster analysis gave an almost perfect grouping of the constituent Bombus species into their ’correct’ subgenera. This was taken as evidence that the NT procedure had yielded discriminant criteria of evolutionary significance. Since the same criteria also produced a single grouping of the Psithyrus species, the results support a monophyletic origin for Psithyrus.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 105 , Issue 5 , May 1973 , pp. 733 - 743
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Frison, T. H. 1927. A contribution to our knowledge of the relationships of the Bremidae of America north of Mexico (Hymenoptera). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 53: 51–78.Google Scholar
Krüger, E. 1917. Zur Systematik der mitteleuropäischen Hummeln (Hym.). Ent. Mitt. 6: 55–66.Google Scholar
Krüger, E. 1920. Beiträge zur Systematik und Morphologie der mitteleuropäischen Hummeln. Zoöl. Jb., abt. syst. 42: 289–464.Google Scholar
Mahalanobis, P. C. 1930. On tests and measures of group divergence. J. and Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 26: 541–588.Google Scholar
Medler, J. T. 1962. Measurements of the labium and radial cell of Psithyrus (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can. Ent. 94: 444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milliron, H. E. 1961. Revised classification of the bumblebees. A synopsis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Kans. ent. Soc. 34: 49–61.Google Scholar
Plath, O. E. 1922. Notes on Psithyrus, with records of two new American hosts. Biol. Bull. 43: 23–44.Google Scholar
Radoszkowski, O. 1884. Revision des armures copulatrices des mêles du genre Bombus. Bull. Soc. imp. Nat., Moscou 59: 51–92.Google Scholar
Richards, O. W. 1927. The specific characters of the British bumblebees (Hymenoptera). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 75: 233–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, O. W. 1968. The subgeneric divisions of the genus Bombus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. 22: 209–276.Google Scholar
Seal, H. 1964. Multivariate statistical analysis for biologists. Wiley, New York. 207 pp.Google Scholar
Stephen, W. P. and Cheldelin, I. H.. (in press). Phenetic groups in the Bombinae based upon the enzyme α-glycerophosphate dehydrogenase. Biochem. System.Google Scholar
Vogt, O. 1911. Studien über das Artproblem. Über das Variieren der Hummeln. 2 Teil. Sber. Ges. naturf. Freunde., Berl. pp. 31–74.Google Scholar