Considerable congruence, enlightening conflict: molecular analysis largely supports morphology-based hypotheses on Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) phylogeny

Abstract The phylogeny of Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) is reconstructed based on the combined analysis of nine genetic markers (18S, 28S, EF1α, CAD1, CAD2, CAD5, 12S, 16S and COI). The resulting hypotheses are compared and contrasted with the morphology-based classification prevailing for the family. The monophyly of Cecidomyiidae is well supported, as is the monophyly of the subfamilies Lestremiinae, Catotrichinae and Cecidomyiinae. Molecular analysis shows Lestremiinae to be the earliest branching lineage, which is in conflict with the generally accepted idea of Catotrichinae having the most generalized morphology within Cecidomyiidae. Micromyinae, Winnertziinae and Porricondylinae are found here to be paraphyletic, owing to the segregation of subgroups whose position in the morphology-based classification has always been controversial. Examples of such problematic taxa are Catochini (usually classified in Micromyinae), Heteropezini and Diallactiini (both in Winnertziinae), and Dicerurini (in Porricondylinae). The clade comprising Porricondylinae + Cecidomyiinae (‘higher Cecidomyiidae’) is confirmed as monophyletic, and Dirhiza (a genus presently classified in Porricondylinae: Dicerurini) is hypothesized to be a sister group to Cecidomyiinae. Most of the current tribes are confirmed here as monophyletic, with notable exceptions being Diallactiini and Dicerurini. Although not a focal point of this study, the phylogeny reconstructed here of Cecidomyiinae is in good agreement with the morphology-based classification in use.