Next Article in Journal
Molecular Characterization of Serratia marcescens Strain Isolated from Yellow Mealworms, Tenebrio molitor, in The Netherlands
Next Article in Special Issue
Taxonomic Structure and Wing Pattern Evolution in the Parnassius mnemosyne Species Complex (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Reevaluating Symbiotic Digestion in Cockroaches: Unveiling the Hindgut’s Contribution to Digestion in Wood-Feeding Panesthiinae (Blaberidae)
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Genus Heterogynis Rambur, 1866 (Heterogynidae, Lepidoptera): Congruence of Molecular, Morphological and Morphometric Evidence Reveal New Species in Serbia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phylogenetic Structure Revealed through Combining DNA Barcodes with Multi-Gene Data for Agrodiaetus Blue Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae)

by
Vladimir A. Lukhtanov
1,*,
Nazar A. Shapoval
1,*,
Alexander V. Dantchenko
1 and
Wolfgang Eckweiler
2
1
Department of Karyosystematics, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 1, 199034 Saint-Petersburg, Russia
2
Gronauer Street 40, D-60385 Frankfurt, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(9), 769; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14090769
Submission received: 16 August 2023 / Revised: 12 September 2023 / Accepted: 13 September 2023 / Published: 15 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systematics, Ecology and Evolution of Lepidoptera)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The species-rich subgenus Agrodiaetus Hübner, 1822 is a distinct monophyletic lineage within the diverse blue butterfly genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804. Although the subgenus has attracted the attention of numerous researchers, a large number of unresolved taxonomic problems persist in Agrodiaetus. In our study, we analyzed the taxonomic structure of the subgenus via combining short mitochondrial DNA barcodes of several extremely rare species, for which multi-locus data were unavailable, with multi-gene mitochondrial and nuclear data for the other Agrodiaetus taxa. This approach resulted in a high phylogenetic resolution of the tree obtained, even for the clades, which were solely represented by DNA barcodes. The status and taxonomic position of the enigmatic species P. muellerae, P. afghanicus, P. frauvartianae, P. bogra and P. anticarmon from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey are revealed and discussed. The complete list of species groups and species of the subgenus Agrodiaetus is presented.

Abstract

The need for multi-gene analysis in evolutionary and taxonomic studies is generally accepted. However, the sequencing of multiple genes is not always possible. For various reasons, short mitochondrial DNA barcodes are the only source of molecular information for some species in many genera, although multi-locus data are available for other species of the same genera. In particular, such situation exists in the species-rich butterfly subgenus Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus). Here, we analyzed the partitioning of this subgenus into species groups by using three data sets. The first data set was represented by short mitochondrial DNA barcodes for all analyzed samples. The second and third data sets were represented by a combination of short mitochondrial DNA barcodes for part of the taxa with longer mitochondrial sequences COI + tRNA-Leu + COII (data set 2) and with longer mitochondrial COI + tRNA-Leu + COII and nuclear 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA sequences (data set 3) for the remaining species. We showed that the DNA barcoding approach (data set 1) failed to reveal the phylogenetic structure, resulting in numerous polytomies in the tree obtained. Combined analysis of the mitochondrial and nuclear sequences (data sets 2 and 3) revealed the species groups and the position within these species groups, even for the taxa for which only short DNA barcodes were available.

1. Introduction

Ideally, the analysis of evolutionary history and taxonomic structure of living organisms requires a comparative analysis of data obtained from multiple sources of evidence (morphological, multi-locus molecular, ecological, karyological, etc.) [1,2,3,4,5]. In practice, such comprehensive analysis is not always possible. Many species are extremely rare and represented in collections by a limited number of specimens. Usually, such museum material is hardly suitable for comprehensive multi-locus molecular analysis due to its old age—resulting in DNA degradation—and the view that unique samples (especially type specimens) should be preserved as important standard vouchers rather than destroyed in the course of molecular studies.
In this situation, massive single-locus sequencing studies, such as the DNA barcoding research presented in Refs [6,7], have become the only real means of obtaining regular molecular information, which is available for multi-species comparisons and can thus be incorporated into phylogenetic research and taxonomic revisions. A situation where, for some species of a genus, there are only mitochondrial DNA barcodes, and for other species of the same genus, there are multi-gene data, is ordinary [4]. Recently, a novel approach has been suggested for phylogenetic analysis of such genera [8]. This approach is based on the combined analysis of short mitochondrial DNA barcodes for all species of a genus with multi-locus data for several representative taxa of the same genus.
Mitochondrial DNA barcodes, as well as their combination with nuclear genes, have been widely used to solve taxonomic problems of varying complexity, e.g., in butterflies (Refs [9,10,11,12,13,14]). An increase in the length of the molecular matrix up to the phylogenomic and genome-wide data dramatically increases the resolution of phylogenetic and taxonomic analyses [15]. However, combining short sequences for some species with long sequences for other species can theoretically be problematic because missing characters can negatively affect the topology and branch length estimation [16]. A study by Talavera et al. [8] clearly demonstrated that increasing species sampling by adding short DNA barcodes to multi-locus matrices increases the phylogenetic resolution. This is probably due to a partial solution to the problems of incomplete species sampling and long branch attraction [8].
In our study, we applied this approach [8] to the analysis of phylogenetic structure in the species-rich butterfly subgenus Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) Hübner, 1822 (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). This subgenus represents a distinct monophyletic lineage within the diverse genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 [4]. The subgenus Agrodiaetus was estimated to have originated only about three million years ago [17] and radiated rapidly in the Western Palaearctic region [18]. The last published review of the subgenus includes 120 valid species [19]. Species within Agrodiaetus are extremely uniform and, with a few exceptions, exhibit few differences in characteristics traditionally used in classification, such as wing pattern and/or aspects of the male and female genitalia [17]. At the same time, these species vary greatly in their karyotypes, with the haploid chromosome numbers (n) ranging from n = 10 to n = 134 [18]. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the work on the taxonomy of the subgenus is based on chromosomal data, and in recent years, with the involvement of data from molecular phylogenetics [17,18,20,21].
Although this group has attracted the attention of numerous researchers [4,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28], a large number of unresolved taxonomic problems persist in Agrodiaetus. One of these problems is the taxonomic structure of the subgenus as a whole, namely the division of the subgenus into natural monophyletic lineages [22].
This subgenus has been studied relatively well with respect to molecular markers, and for many species, multi-locus molecular data are available, including such genes as mitochondrial COI, tRNA-leu, COII, cytochrome b and NADH dehydrogenase sequences and nuclear 5.8S rDNA, ITS2, 28S rDNA and EF1-α sequences [4,17,18,27,29,30,31]. At the same time, for many taxa, especially for rare species from Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, only mitochondrial DNA barcodes are available [32], or the molecular data are absent.
In this work, we
(1) obtain and analyze standard mitochondrial DNA barcodes for five deviated and most enigmatic taxa of the subgenus Agrodiaetus: P. muellerae Eckweiler, 1997 from Pakistan, P. afghanicus (Forster, 1973) and P. frauvartianae Balint, 1997 from Afghanistan, P. bogra Evans, 1932 from Afghanistan and Iran, and P. anticarmon (Koçak, 1983) (= charmeuxi Pages, 1984) from SE Turkey;
(2) analyze the partitioning of the subgenus Agrodiaetus into species groups by using three data sets. The first data set is represented by short mitochondrial DNA barcodes for all analyzed samples. The second and third data sets are represented by a combination of short mitochondrial DNA barcodes for part of the taxa with longer mitochondrial sequences COI + tRNA-Leu + COII (data set 2) and with longer mitochondrial COI + tRNA-Leu + COII and nuclear 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA sequences (data set 3) for the remaining species;
(3) show that the DNA barcoding approach (data set 1) failed to reveal the phylogenetic structure of the subgenus, whereas a combined analysis of the mitochondrial and nuclear sequences (data sets 2 and 3) revealed the species groups and the position within these species groups, even for taxa for which only mitochondrial sequences were available;
(4) provide a list of the species groups of the subgenus Agrodiaetus; and
(5) discuss the status and taxonomic position of P. muellerae, P. afghanicus, P. frauvartianae, P. bogra and P. anticarmon.

2. Materials and Methods

Standard mitochondrial DNA barcodes (658 bp fragments of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene) were obtained for five samples of P. afghanicus, one sample of P. anticarmon (= charmeuxi), six samples of P. bogra, seven samples of P. frauvartianae and one sample of P. muellerae (Table 1). The specimens (except for samples BPAL2125–BPAL2128) were processed at the Department of Karyosystematics of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. DNA extraction from a single leg removed from each specimen was performed using the QIAamp DNA Investigator Kit (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Since standard lepidopteran barcode primers [7] failed to amplify a sufficient product, two self-designed forward primers (Nz_COI_b—TAC AAT TTA TCG CTT ATA AACTCA; DRD4F—TAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAA) and two reverse primers (MH-MR1 [33] and Nancy [34]) were used for DNA amplification and resulted in a 671 bp fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene (COI). The PCR amplifications were performed in a 50 µL reaction volume containing ca. 10–20 ng genomic DNA and 0.5 mM each of forward and reverse primer, 1 mM dNTPs, 10× PCR Buffer (0.01 mM Tris-HCl, 0.05 M KCl, 0.1% Triton X-100: pH 9.0), 1 unit Taq DNA Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientifics, Waltham, MA, USA), 5 mM MgCl2. The temperature profile was as follows: initial denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 45 s, annealing at 50 °C for 45 s and extension at 72 °C for 1 min, with a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min. Amplified fragments were purified using GeneJET Gel Extraction Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientifics, Waltham, MA, USA). Purification was carried out according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The success of PCR amplification and purification was evaluated through electrophoresis of the products in 1% agarose gel. The purified PCR product was used for direct sequencing. Sequencing of the double stranded product was carried out at the Research Resource Center for Molecular and Cell Technologies (St. Petersburg State University).
Samples BPAL2125–BPAL2128 were processed at the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding (CCDB, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph), using their standard high-throughput protocol described by deWaard et al. [35].
A comparison of the obtained COI barcodes revealed 11 unique haplotypes within the five species studied (Table 1).
For the other 130 species and well-differentiated subspecies of the subgenus Agrodiaetus, all available sequences of the mitochondrial (COI, leu-tRNA complete and COII partial) and nuclear (5.8S rDNA partial gene, ITS2 complete and 28S rDNA partial) loci were extracted from GenBank (see Supplementary Material S1 for the GenBank numbers). The sequences of each locus (gene) were aligned separately by using the ClustalW algorithm, and then, the alignments were checked and corrected manually using BioEdit [36]. Since within Agrodiaetus, the previous phylogenetic analyses of the nuclear sequences 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA recovered clades, which were mostly congruent with those obtained from analyses of the mitochondrial genes COI + COII [25], the nuclear and mitochondrial sequences were concatenated for subsequent phylogenetic study. This concatenation was then combined with the 11 unique haplotypes revealed within the five species studied (Table 1). The representatives of the closely related subgenus Polyommatus (P. icarus Rottemburg, 1775, P. erotides Staudinger, 1892 and P. hunza Grum-Grshimailo, 1890) [4] were also included in the analysis. To root the tree, we used representatives of a more distant genus Lysandra (L. bellargus, L. punctifera and L. coridon) [4]. The final matrix consisted of 147 taxa, of which 141 taxa represented our target species, and 6 taxa represented the outgroup. For 87 of these 147 taxa, the matrix contained data for both mitochondrial and nuclear genes. For 60 of these 147 taxa, only mitochondrial gene(s) were available.
Since the ITS2 sequence has multiple indels, which are highly specific on the species level, it provides additional information for phylogenetic analysis; therefore, we treated all ITS2 indels as binary characteristics (insertion—1, deletion—0). The final concatenated alignment had a length of 2948 nucleotides (COI—1–1539 bp, leu-tRNA—1540–1604 bp, COII—1605–2281 bp, 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA—2282–2948 bp) and 23 binary characteristics.
Three data sets were prepared from the final concatenated alignment. In data set 1, for all 147 samples studied, only short COI barcodes were presented. In data set 2, for 13 samples (shown with a red asterisk (*) in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3), only short COI barcodes were available, and for the remaining 134 samples, the longer mitochondrial sequence COI + tRNA-Leu + COII was presented. In data set 3, the mitochondrial matrix (data set 2) was supplemented with 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA nuclear sequences for 87 samples.
Substitution models were inferred separately for each gene (locus) using jModeltest, version 2 [37]. Bayesian analysis was conducted using MrBayes 3.2 [38] on four molecular (COI, COII, leu-tRNA and 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA genes) and one “standard” (binary) partitions using 20,000,000 generations. The command blocks for the first, second and third data sets are presented in Supplementary Material S2.

3. Results

The analysis of the DNA barcodes (Figure 1) did not reveal the structure of the subgenus Agrodiaetus. Only 33 statistically supported clades (posterior probability >= 0.9) were recovered, and the position of the majority of species—particularly of our target taxa P. muellerae, P. afghanicus, P. frauvartianae, P. bogra and P. anticarmon—was unresolved. This was manifested in the facts that (1) the relationships with sister species were not identified (P. muellerae); (2) the sister relationships had low support (P. afghanicus, P. frauvartianae, P. bogra); and (3) it was not clear which species groups the target species belonged to (P. muellerae and P. afghanicus).
The combined analysis of mitochondrial (Figure 2) and mitochondrial + nuclear sequences (Figure 3) resulted in a significant increase in the resolution of the phylogenetic tree, with 53 highly supported clades (posterior probability >= 0.9) for data set 2 and with 65 highly supported clades (posterior probability >= 0.9) for data set 3. Thus, adding additional mitochondrial and nuclear loci resulted in an increased number of highly supported clades, which was not unexpected. A more interesting observation is that this approach resulted in increased support and tree position detection for those branches for which additional mitochondrial and nuclear data were not available (shown with red asterisks on the trees).
It was established that the taxon P. frauvartianae was included in the same clade together with the species P. faramarzii Skala 2001, P. shahrami Skala, 2002 and P. achaemenes Skala, 2002 (Figure 3), although this relationship had extremely low support (0.54) on the DNA barcode tree (Figure 1). It was shown that P. anticarmon was not only a sister species to P. turcicus (Koçak, 1977) (Figure 1) but that both of these taxa were members of the same clade together with P. iphigenia (Herrich-Schäffer, 1847) (Figure 3). The position of the taxon P. australorossicus Lukhtanov and Dantchenko, 2017 on the DNA barcode tree (Figure 1) was unclear due to low support. On the combined tree (Figure 2 and Figure 3), this species was placed with high support in the same clade along with P. hamadanensis (de Lesse, 1959).
Our analysis revealed 11 major lineages, shown with different colors (Figure 3). Two lineages were represented by a single species. Seven lineages were highly supported (posterior probability value from 0.91 to 1). The target species P. afghanicus (Figure 4A–D) appeared as a lineage distantly related to the lineage P. antidolusP. iphidamon (species group 8); however, the sister relationship between them was weakly supported. Polyommatus muellerae (Figure 4E–H) appeared as a distinct lineage (species group 1). The target species P. frauvartianae (Figure 4I,J 12), P. bogra (Figure 4M–P) and P. anticarmon (Figure 4K–L) appeared as members of species groups 5 and 4.

4. Discussion

The methodology proposed by Talavera et al. [8] allowed us to identify the positions on the phylogenetic tree for the rare south Central Asian taxa, for which the molecular data were available only in the form of short DNA barcodes. The data obtained represent an empirical test of the previously proposed methodology [8] and provide the opportunity to discuss in more detail the taxonomy of the species studied.
Polyommatus frauvartianae from Afghanistan was described as a distinct species by Balint [39], but then, on the basis of external morphological similarity, it was interpreted as a subspecies of the Iranian-Turkmen species P. glaucias (Lederer, 1871) [19]. Our data unequivocally show that this is an independent species, phylogenetically distant from P. glaucias, but undoubtedly having a relationship with P. faramarzii, P. shahrami and P. achaemenes, endemics of the Zagros Mts in Iran. Of the last three species, P. frauvartianae is well distinguished by the brown (not blue) coloration of the upper side of the wings in males. Thus, these data shed light on the origin of the enigmatic Iranian taxa P. faramarzii, P. shahrami and P. achaemenes, which, having dot-like distribution ranges in the Zagros, did not show close relationships with any other species of the subgenus Agrodiaetus. The new data show that the four species P. faramarzii, P. shahrami, P. achaemenes and P. frauvartianae are members of the same phylogenetic sub-lineage, spread over a wide area from western Iran to central Afghanistan.
Our data show the conspecificity of two geographically distant population groups identified as P. bogra birjandensis Eckweiler, 2003 (E Iran) and P. bogra afghanistanus (Forster, 1972) (Afghanistan) [19]. Thus, the polytypic concept of the P. bogra species, as proposed by Eckweiler and Bozano [19], is confirmed.
The taxon P. anticarmon is also a subject of taxonomic debates [19]. Butterflies of this taxon inhabiting SE Turkey are similar in appearance to P. turcicus from NE Turkey and Armenia, differing in larger size. In addition, there is a difference in ecological preferences between P. turcicus and P. anticarmon: while P. turcicus is an alpine species, P. anticarmon is found at relatively low altitudes. Our data show that P. anticarmon is indeed closely related to P. turcicus. According to Eckweiler and Bozano [19], the taxon P. charmeuxi described from SE Turkey is a synonym of P. anticarmon.
In addition, the phylogenetic analysis conducted allows us to discuss another very controversial issue of Agrodiaetus taxonomy, namely the division of the subgenus into groups of species. In most cases, species delimitation and recognition of monophyletic species groups within Agrodiaetus are difficult because of the low number of differentiated morphological characteristics. The morphology of male genitalia is uniform throughout most of the species, with a few exceptions [19,40,41]. Some Agrodiaetus species show considerable variability in male wing color, both in visible and ultraviolet wavelength ranges [29]. Despite this variation, it is difficult to use this characteristic for phylogenetic purposes, since in the great majority of species, it is represented by a plesiomorphic state (blue color), and the derived states are found mostly as unique apomorphies characterizing single species but not species groups [29].
The same can be said of chromosomal characteristics. Although the chromosome numbers in Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) possess a strong phylogenetic signal [18], generally, the karyotypes are extremely variable on an inter-specific level, and they are found mostly as unique apomorphies characterizing single species but not species groups [18,20,21,30,42,43,44,45].
de Lesse [20,21] divided Agrodiaetus into three species complexes based on male coloration and the presence/absence of well-developed tufts formed by androconial scales. In the classification by Hesselbarth et al. [46], Agrodiaetus was divided into eight species groups (actis, admetus, carmon, damon, damone, dolus, poseidon and transcaspicus) named after their oldest members. Eckweiler and Häuser [22] recognized the admetus and dolus groups but argued that the available evidence was too weak to support the remaining groups. Instead, they erected a more inclusive damon group, which combined the membership of Hesselbarth et al.’s [46] actis, carmon, damon, damone and transcaspicus groups with some species from the poseidon group. The remainder of the poseidon group was renamed as the dama group, and three additional species groups—the dagmara, erschoffii (= Paragrodiaetus Rose and Schurian, 1977) and iphigenides groups—were erected to accommodate species from eastern Iran and central Asia, which had not been considered by Hesselbarth et al. [46].
Similarly, Balint [39] proposed a more fractional division and separated Agrodiaetus into the following groups: actinides, actis, admetus, carmon, dama, damon, damone, dolus, nadira, poseidon, poseidonides and transcaspicus. He also considered Paragrodiaetus as a complex separated from Agrodiaetus and divided Paragrodiaetus into two groups: erschoffii and glaucias.
Molecular studies [17,18,27,29,30] revealed that the previously recognized species groups [20,21,39,46] were mostly non-monophyletic assemblages. This resulted in the creation of a new division of the subgenus Agrodiaetus, comprising 10 clades: damocles, actis, erschoffii, carmon, admetus, dolus, damone, magnificus, iphigenia and damon [18].
Here, using the analysis of additional taxa and additional molecular markers, we demonstrate that the subgenus Agrodiaetus consists of 11 lineages and 135 species (Appendix A). In particular, we also show that the enigmatic taxon P. (A.) muellerae from Pakistan represents a distinct evolutionary lineage and cannot be included in the previously recognized species groups.
Koçak and Kemal [47] divided Agrodiaetus into 13 subsections and proposed the following names for these subsections: Actisia, Admetusia, Antidolus, Dagmara, Damaia, Juldus, Musa, Paragrodiaetus, Peileia, Phyllisia, Transcaspius, Xerxesia and Agrodiaetus s.str. Here, we demonstrate that these subsections do not reflect the evolutionary and taxonomic structure revealed using molecular markers (see the list below). Three species groups discovered in our study (erschoffii, damocles and carmon) are represented by two (erschoffii, damocles groups) and even by four (carmon group) names from the list proposed by Koçak and Kemal [47], whereas five species groups have no names, and only five names are unambiguously associated with the species groups (one name corresponds to one species group). According to the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 10.4) [48], “a uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as ‘section’ or ‘division’”. Thus, the names proposed by Koçak and Kemal [47] should be considered subgeneric names and therefore subjective junior synonyms of Agrodiaetus, since the subgeneric rank of Agrodiaetus is well founded [4].
Finally, we should note that although the approach used [8] markedly improved the resolution of the phylogenetic tree, some clades—in particular the carmon and magnificus species groups—have low support. Obviously, further studies based on the analysis of more genes are needed in order to obtain a fully resolved phylogeny of the subgenus Agrodiaetus.

5. Conclusions

1. We show that the DNA barcoding approach failed to reveal the phylogenetic structure of the subgenus Agrodiaetus, whereas a combined analysis of the mitochondrial and nuclear sequences revealed the species groups and the position within these species groups, even for taxa for which only short DNA barcodes were available.
2. The Afghani taxon Polyommatus frauvartianae is a distinct species, most closely related to west Iranian endemics P. faramarzii, P. shahrami and P. achaemenes.
3. P. bogra birjandensis (E Iran) and P. bogra afghanistanus (Afghanistan) are confirmed as members of the polytypic species P. bogra.
4. Polyommatus anticarmon (= charmeuxi) is identified as a taxon, which is a sister to P. turcicus.
5. The enigmatic Pakistani taxon P. muellerae represents a distinct evolutionary lineage and cannot be included in previously recognized species groups.
6. The subgenus Agrodiaetus consists of 11 lineages (species groups).
7. We confirm the previous conclusion [22] that the following subgeneric names are subjective junior synonyms of Agrodiaetus:
Actisia Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Admetusia Koçak and Seven, 1998;
Antidolus Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Dagmara Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Damaia Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Hirsutina Tutt, 1909;
Juldus Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Musa Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Paragrodiaetus Rose and Schurian, 1977;
Peileia Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Phyllisia Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Transcaspius Koçak and Kemal, 2001;
Xerxesia Koçak and Kemal, 2001.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects14090769/s1, Supplementary Material S1. The final alignment of the analyzed samples with their GenBank numbers (file in the FASTA format). Supplementary Material S2. The command blocks used for the Bayesian analysis of the first, second and third data sets.

Author Contributions

Project design, V.A.L.; conceptualization, V.A.L.; PCR amplification and sequencing, N.A.S.; molecular analysis, N.A.S. and V.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, V.A.L.; writing—review and editing, V.A.L., N.A.S., A.V.D. and W.E.; material collection, W.E., A.V.D. and V.A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation Grant No 19-14-00202 (Continuation) awarded to the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) (molecular analysis of P. muellerae, P. afghanicus, P. frauvartianae and P. bogra) and by the state research project 122031100272-3 (molecular analysis of P. anticarmon).

Data Availability Statement

All the analyzed DNA sequences are available via the GenBank links provided.

Acknowledgments

We thank Vasiliy Tuzov, Jury Skrylnik and Igor Pljuschtch, who provided us with samples from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

The checklist of the species groups and species of Agrodiaetus is provided below. The type localities and brief information on the ranges of the species are provided in the work of Eckweiler and Bozano [19].
  • Checklist of the species groups and species of Agrodiaetus
(1) muellerae Eckweiler, 1997 species group
muellerae Eckweiler, 1997
(2) admetus (Esper, 1783) species group
admetus (Esper, 1783) Type species of Admetusia Koçak and Seven, 1998
nephohiptamenos (Brown and Coutsis, 1978)
ripartii (Freyer, 1830)
khorasanensis (Carbonell, 2001)
pseudorjabovi Lukhtanov, Dantchenko, Vishnevskaya and Saifitdinova, 2015
yeranyani (Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 2005)
demavendi (Pfeiffer, 1938)
(3) damone (Eversmann, 1841) species group
damone (Eversmann, 1841)
juldusus (Staudinger, 1886) Type species of Juldus Koçak and Kemal, 2001
mediator Dantchenko and Churkin, 2003
karatavicus Lukhtanov, 1990
iphigenides (Staudinger, 1886)
phyllides (Staudinger, 1886)
(4) iphigenia (Herrich-Schäffer, 1847) species group
baytopi (de Lesse, 1959)
rovshani Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 1994
iphicarmon Eckweiler and Rose, 1993
tankeri (de Lesse, 1960)
turcicus (Koçak, 1977)
anticarmon (Koçak, 1983) (= charmeuxi Pages, 1984)
iphigenia (Herrich-Schäffer, 1847)
(5) erschoffii (Lederer, 1869) species group
achaemenes Skala, 2002
shahrami Skala, 2001
faramarzii Skala, 2001
frauvartianae Balint, 1997
ardschira (Brandt, 1938)
eckweileri ten Hagen, 1998
pfeifferi (Brandt, 1938)
luna Eckweiler, 2002
birunii Eckweiler and ten Hagen, 1998
darius Eckweiler and ten Hagen, 1998
posthumus (Christoph, 1877)
masulensis ten Hagen and Schurian, 2000
bogra Evans, 1932
caeruleus (Staudinger, 1871)
dagestanicus (Forster, 1960)
phyllis (Christoph, 1877) Type species of Phyllisia Koçak and Kemal, 2001
vanensis (de Lesse, 1957)
erschoffii (Lederer, 1869)
glaucias (Lederer, 1871) Type species of Paragrodiaetus Rose and Schurian, 1977
klausschuriani ten Hagen, 1999
tenhageni Schurian and Eckweiler, 1999
(6) actis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1851) species group
actis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1851) Type species of Actisia Koçak and Kemal, 2001
artvinensis (Carbonell, 1997)
bilgini (Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 2002)
haigi (Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 2002)
firdussii (Forster, 1956)
pseudactis (Forster, 1960)
sigberti (Olivier et al. 2000) (? athis Freyer, 1851)
sertavulensis (Koçak, 1979)
hopfferi (Herrich-Schäffer, 1851)
lycius (Carbonell, 1996)
poseidon (Herrich-Schäffer, 1851)
putnami (Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 2002)
baltazardi (de Lesse, 1962)
(7) damocles (Herrich-Schäffer, 1844) species group
altivagans (Forster, 1956)
damocles (Herrich-Schäffer, 1844)
ciscaucasicus (Forster, 1956)
cyaneus (Staudinger, 1899)
cyaneus musa Koçak and Hosseinpour, 1996 Type species of Musa Koçak and Kemal, 2001
cyaneus xerxes (Staudinger, 1899) Type species of Xerxesia Koçak and Kemal, 2001
sennanensis (de Lesse, 1959)
urartua (Carbonell, 2003)
ectabanensis (de Lesse, 1964)
gorbunovi (Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 1994)
kendevani (Forster, 1956)
maraschi (Forster, 1956)
wagneri (Forster, 1956)
mofidii (de Lesse, 1963)
sorkhensis Eckweiler, 2003
shamil (Dantchenko, 2000)
shirkuhensis ten Hagen and Eckweiler, 2001
merhaba (de Prins, van der Poorten, Borie, van Oorschot, Riemis and Coenen 1991)
mithridates (Staudinger, 1878)
vaspurakani (Lukhtanov and Dantchenko, 2003)
shahkuhensis (Lukhtanov, Shapoval and Dantchenko, 2008)
barmifiruze (Carbonell, 2000) (no molecular data)
cilicius (Carbonell, 1998) (no molecular data)
sephidarensis Karbalaye, 2008 (no molecular data)
esfahensis (Carbonell, 2000) (no molecular data)
(8) carmon (Herrich-Schäffer, 1851) species group
australorossicus Lukhtanov and Dantchenko, 2017
huberti (Carbonell, 1993)
zapvadi (Carbonell, 1993)
ninae (Forster, 1956)
turcicolus (Koçak, 1977)
antidolus (Rebel, 1901) Type species of Antidolus Koçak and Kemal, 2001
kurdistanicus (Forster, 1961)
morgani (Le Cerf, 1909)
femininoides (Eckweiler, 1987)
karindus (Riley, 1921)
peilei Bethune-Baker, 1921 Type species of Peileia Koçak and Kemal, 2001
dama (Staudinger, 1892) Type species of Damaia Koçak and Kemal, 2001
carmon (Herrich-Schäffer, 1851)
schuriani (Rose, 1978)
surakovi Dantchenko and Lukhtanov, 1994
arasbarani (Carbonell and Naderi, 2000)
damonides (Staudinger, 1899) (= elbursicus Forster, 1956)
lukhtanovi (Dantchenko, 2004)
zarathustra Eckweiler, 1997
pierceae (Lukhtanov and Dantchenko, 2002)
guezelmavi Olivier, Puplesiene, van der Poorten, de Prins and Wiemers, 1999
theresiae Schurian, van Oorschot and van den Brink, 1992
hamadanensis (de Lesse, 1959)
transcaspicus (Heyne, 1895) Type species of Transcaspius Koçak and Kemal, 2001
dizinensis (Schurian, 1982)
iphidamon (Staudinger, 1899)
afghanicus (Forster, 1973)
larseni (Carbonell, 1994) (no molecular data)
zardensis Schurian and ten Hagen, 2001 (no molecular data)
alibali (Carbonell, 2015) (no molecular data)
kashani Eckweiler, 2013 (no molecular data)
lori Eckweiler, 2013 (no molecular data)
(9) dolus (Hübner, 1823) species group
alcestis (Zerny, 1932)
dantchenkoi Lukhtanov and Wiemers, 2003
karacetinae (Lukhtanov and Dantchenko, 2002)
interjectus (de Lesse, 1960)
eriwanensis (Forster, 1960)
menalcas (Freyer, 1837)
aroaniensis (Brown, 1976)
humedasae (Toso and Balletto, 1976)
lurae Parmentier, Vila and Lukhtanov, 2022
orphicus Kolev, 2005
timfristos Lukhtanov, Vishnevskaya and Shapoval, 2016
dolus (Hübner, 1823)
fabressei (Oberthür, 1910)
fulgens (de Sagarra,1925)
violetae (Gómez-Bustillo, Expósito Hermosa and Martínez Borrego, 1979)
rjabovianus (Koçak, 1980)
valiabadi (Rose and Schurian, 1977)
(10) damon ([Denis and Schiffermüller], 1775) species group
damon (Denis and Schiffermüller, 1775) Type species of Agrodiaetus, type species of Hirtusina Tutt, 1909
(11) magnificus (Grum-Grshimailo, 1885) species group
actinides (Staudinger, 1886)
dagmara (Grum-Grshimailo, 1888) Type species of Dagmara Koçak and Kemal, 2001
florenciae (Tytler, 1926)
poseidonides (Staudinger, 1886)
pulchellus (Bernardi, 1951)
magnificus (Grum-Grshimailo, 1885)

References

  1. Rubinoff, D.; Holland, B.S. Between two extremes: Mitochondrial DNA is neither the panacea nor the nemesis of phylogenetic and taxonomic inference. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54, 952–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Will, K.W.; Mishler, B.D.; Wheeler, Q.D. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Knowles, L.L.; Carstens, B.C. Delimiting species without monophyletic gene trees. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56, 887–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Talavera, G.; Lukhtanov, V.A.; Pierce, N.E.; Vila, R. Establishing criteria for higher-level classification using molecular data: The systematics of Polyommatus blue butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Cladistics 2013, 29, 166–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gapon, D.A.; Kuznetsova, V.G.; Maryańska-Nadachowska, A. A new species of the genus Rhaphidosoma Amyot et Serville, 1843 (Heteroptera, Reduviidae), with data on its chromosome complement. Comp. Cytogenet. 2021, 15, 467–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hebert, P.D.N.; Cywinska, A.; Ball, S.L.; deWaard, J.R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2003, 270, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hebert, P.D.N.; Penton, E.H.; Burns, J.M.; Janzen, D.H.; Hallwachs, W. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 14812–14817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Talavera, G.; Lukhtanov, V.A.; Pierce, N.; Vila, R. DNA barcodes combined with multilocus data of representative taxa can generate reliable higher-level phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 2022, 71, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, S.J.; Condamine, F.L.; Monastyrskii, A.L.; Cotton, A.M. A new species of the Graphium (Pazala) mandarinus group from Central Vietnam (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Zootaxa 2019, 4554, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xu, Z.-B.; Wang, Y.-Y.; Condamine, F.L.; Cotton, A.M.; Hu, S.-J. Are the yellow and red marked club-tail Losaria coon the same species? Insects 2020, 11, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hu, P.; Lu, L.; Hu, S.; Da, W.; Huang, C.-L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wang, R. Differentiation of the chestnut tiger butterfly Parantica sita (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Danainae) in China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 846499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cotton, A.M.; Doleck, T.; Zhang, X.; Inayoshi, Y.; Lohman, D.J.; Hu, S.J. Graphium septentrionicolus Page & Treadaway, 2013 (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) is a distinct species. Zootaxa 2022, 5154, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ge, S.X.; Jiang, Z.H.; Wang, J.Q.; Song, K.; Zhang, C.; Hu, S.J. A revision of the Pieris napi-complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) and similar species with distribution in China. Arthropod Syst. Phylogeny 2023, 81, 257–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hou, Y.; Cao, C.; Chiba, H.; Chang, Z.; Huang, S.; Zhu, L.; Kunte, K.; Huang, Z.; Wang, M.; Fan, X. Molecular phylogeny, historical biogeography, and classification of Pseudocoladenia butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2023, 186, 107865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cong, Q.; Shen, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Kinch, L.N.; Calhoun, J.V.; Warren, A.D.; Grishin, N.V. Genomics reveals the origins of historical specimens. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 2166–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lemmon, A.R.; Brown, J.M.; Stanger-Hall, K.; Lemmon, E.M. The effect of ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimates obtained by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58, 130–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kandul, N.P.; Lukhtanov, V.A.; Dantchenko, A.V.; Coleman, J.W.S.; Sekercioglu, C.H.; Haig, D.; Pierce, N.E. Phylogeny of Agrodiaetus Hübner 1822 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) inferred from mtDNA sequences of COI and COII and nuclear sequences of EF1-α: Karyotype diversification and species radiation. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53, 278–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kandul, N.P.; Lukhtanov, V.A.; Pierce, N.E. Karyotypic diversity and speciation in Agrodiaetus butterflies. Evolution 2007, 61, 546–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eckweiler, W.; Bozano, G.C. Guide to the Butterflies of the Palearctic Region. Lycaenidae Part IV; Bozano, G.C., Ed.; Omnes Artes: Milano, Italy, 2016; 132p, ISBN 9788887989182. [Google Scholar]
  20. de Lesse, H. Les nombres de chromosomes dans la classification du groupe d’Agrodiaetus ripartii Freyer (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Rev. Fran. Entomol. 1960, 27, 240–264. [Google Scholar]
  21. de Lesse, H. Spéciation et variation chromosomique chez les Lépidoptères Rhopaloceres. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool. Biol. Anim. 1960, 2, 1–223. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eckweiler, W.; Häuser, C.L. An illustrated checklist of Agrodiaetus Hübner, 1822, a subgenus of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Nachr. Entomol. Ver. Apollo 1997, 16, 113–168. [Google Scholar]
  23. Olivier, A.; Puplesiene, J.; van der Pooten, D.; De Prins, W.; Wiemers, M. Revision of some taxa of Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) transcaspicus group with description of a new species from Central Anatolia (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Phegea 1999, 27, 281–296. [Google Scholar]
  24. Carbonell, F. Contribution a la conaissance du genre Agrodiaetus Hübner (1822), A. barmifiruze n. sp. et A. musa esfahensis n. ssp., en Iran méridional. Linneana Belg. 2000, 17, 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  25. Carbonell, F. Contribution a la connaissance du genre Agrodiaetus Hübner (1822), A. ahmadi et A. khorasanensis nouvelles espèces dans le Nord de l’Iran (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Linneana Belg. 2001, 18, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  26. Skala, P. New taxa of the subgenus Agrodiaetus Hübner, 1822 from Iran: Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) faramarzii sp. n., P. (A.) shahrami sp. n. and P. (A.) pfeifferi astyages ssp. n. (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Nachr. Entomol. Ver. Apollo 2001, 22, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wiemers, M. Chromosome Differentiation and the Radiation of the Butterfly Subgenus Agrodiaetus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatus)—A Molecular Phylogenetic Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 2003; 203p. Available online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5n-02787 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  28. Schurian, K.G.; ten Hagen, W. Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) urmiaensis sp. n. aus Nordwestiran (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Nachr. Entomol. Ver. Apollo 2003, 24, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lukhtanov, V.A.; Kandul, N.P.; Plotkin, J.B.; Dantchenko, A.V.; Haig, D.; Pierce, N.E. Reinforcement of pre-zygotic isolation and karyotype evolution in Agrodiaetus butterflies. Nature 2005, 436, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wiemers, M.; Keller, A.; Wolf, M. ITS2 secondary structure improves phylogeny estimation in a radiation of blue butterflies of the subgenus Agrodiaetus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatus). BMC Evol. Biol. 2009, 9, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vodolazhsky, D.I.; Yakovlev, R.; Stradomsky, B. Study of taxonomic status of some specimens of subgenus Agrodiaetus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatus) from Western Mongolia based on mtDNA markers. Caucas. Entomol. Bull. 2011, 7, 81–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lukhtanov, V.A.; Shapoval, N.A.; Dantchenko, A.V. Taxonomic position of several enigmatic Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) species (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) from Central and Eastern Iran: Insights from molecular and chromosomal data. Comp. Cytogenet. 2014, 8, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rougerie, R.; Smith, M.A.; Fernandez-Triana, J.; Lopez-Vaamonde, C.; Ratnasingham, S.; Hebert, P.D. Molecular analysis of parasitoid linkages (MAPL): Gut contents of adult parasitoid wasps reveal larval host. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Folmer, O.; Black, M.; Hoeh, W.; Lutz, R.; Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotech. 1994, 3, 294–299. [Google Scholar]
  35. deWaard, J.R.; Ivanova, N.V.; Hajibabaei, M.; Hebert, P.D.N. Assembling DNA barcodes: Analytical protocols. In Environmental Genomics, Methods in Molecular Biology; Martin, C.C., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2008; Volume 410, pp. 275–283. ISBN 13: 978-1588297778. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hall, T. BioEdit: An important software for molecular biology. GERF Bull. Biosci. 2011, 2, 60–61. [Google Scholar]
  37. Darriba, D.; Taboada, G.L.; Doallo, R.; Posada, D. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; van der Mark, P.; Ayres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Balint, Z. Reformation of the Polyommatus section with a taxonomic and biogeographic overview (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Polyommatini). Neue Entomol. Nachricht. 1997, 40, 1–67. [Google Scholar]
  40. Coutsis, J.G. Notes concerning the taxonomic status of Agrodiaetus tankeri de Lesse (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Nota Lepidopterol. 1985, 8, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
  41. Coutsis, J.G. The blue butterflies of the genus Agrodiaetus Hübner (Lep., Lycaenidae): Symptoms of taxonomic confusion. Nota Lepidopterol. 1986, 9, 159–169. [Google Scholar]
  42. Munguira, M.L.; Martin, L.; Perez-Valiente, M. Karyology and distribution as tools in the taxonomy of Iberian Agrodiaetus butterflies. Nota Lepidopterol. 1995, 17, 125–140. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kandul, N.P. The karyology and the taxonomy of the blue butterflies of the genus Agrodiaetus Hubner, (1822) from the Crimea. Atalanta 1997, 28, 111–119. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wiemers, M.; De Prins, J. Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) paulae sp. nov. from Northwest Iran, discovered by means of molecular, karyological and morphological methods. Entomol. Z. 2004, 114, 155–162. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kolev, Z. Polyommatus dantchenkoi (Lukhtanov & Wiemers, 2003) tentatively identified as new to Europe, with a description of a new taxon from the Balkan Peninsula. Nota Lepidopterol. 2005, 28, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hesselbarth, G.; Van Oorschot, H.; Wagener, S. Die Tagfalter der Türkei; Selbstverlag Sigbert Wagener: Bocholt, Germany, 1995; Volumes 1–3, 754p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Koçak, A.O.; Kemal, M. A study on the biodiversity, zoogeography and taxonomy of the section Agrodiaetus Hbn. in the genus Polyommatus Latr. (Lycaenidae, Lepidoptera). Centre Entomol. Stud. Misc. Pap. 2001, 78/79, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  48. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: London, UK, 1999; Available online: https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/ (accessed on 15 August 2023).
Figure 1. The Bayesian tree of Agrodiaetus species based on analysis of the short mitochondrial COI barcodes. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) (higher than 0.5). Red asterisks indicate samples for which longer mitochondrial and/or nuclear sequences were unavailable. The subgenus Polyommatus sensu stricto was found to be a statistically supported (BPP = 1) clade, sister to Agrodiaetus (not shown). The genus Lysandra (not shown) was used to root the tree.
Figure 1. The Bayesian tree of Agrodiaetus species based on analysis of the short mitochondrial COI barcodes. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP) (higher than 0.5). Red asterisks indicate samples for which longer mitochondrial and/or nuclear sequences were unavailable. The subgenus Polyommatus sensu stricto was found to be a statistically supported (BPP = 1) clade, sister to Agrodiaetus (not shown). The genus Lysandra (not shown) was used to root the tree.
Insects 14 00769 g001
Figure 2. The Bayesian tree of Agrodiaetus species based on combined analysis of the mitochondrial COI + tRNA-Leu + COII sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probability higher than 0.5. Red asterisks indicate species for which only short DNA barcodes were available. The subgenus Polyommatus sensu stricto was found to be a statistically supported (BPP = 1) clade, sister to Agrodiaetus (not shown). The genus Lysandra (not shown) was used to root the tree.
Figure 2. The Bayesian tree of Agrodiaetus species based on combined analysis of the mitochondrial COI + tRNA-Leu + COII sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probability higher than 0.5. Red asterisks indicate species for which only short DNA barcodes were available. The subgenus Polyommatus sensu stricto was found to be a statistically supported (BPP = 1) clade, sister to Agrodiaetus (not shown). The genus Lysandra (not shown) was used to root the tree.
Insects 14 00769 g002
Figure 3. The Bayesian tree of Agrodiaetus species based on combined analysis of the mitochondrial COI + tRNA-Leu + COII and nuclear 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities higher than 0.5. Red asterisks indicate species for which only short DNA barcodes were available. The species groups are denoted as 1–11. The subgenus Polyommatus sensu stricto was found to be a statistically supported (BPP = 1) clade, sister to Agrodiaetus (not shown). The genus Lysandra (not shown) was used to root the tree.
Figure 3. The Bayesian tree of Agrodiaetus species based on combined analysis of the mitochondrial COI + tRNA-Leu + COII and nuclear 5.8S rDNA + ITS2 + 28S rDNA sequences. Numbers at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities higher than 0.5. Red asterisks indicate species for which only short DNA barcodes were available. The species groups are denoted as 1–11. The subgenus Polyommatus sensu stricto was found to be a statistically supported (BPP = 1) clade, sister to Agrodiaetus (not shown). The genus Lysandra (not shown) was used to root the tree.
Insects 14 00769 g003
Figure 4. The species studied. (AD). P. (A.) afghanicus, Afghanistan, Koh-i-Baba, Band-i-Amir, 34.8294° N, 67.1805° E, 2900–3000 m., 2 July 2009, Yu. Skrylnik leg. (A,B male; C,D female). (EH). P. (A.) muellerae, Pakistan, Chitral, Birmogh Lasht, 35.8981° N, 71.7712° E, 2600–3000 m, 1 July 2001, leg. V. Tuzov (E,F male, mue02; G,H female, mue03). (I,J). P. (A.) frauvartianae, male, Afghanistan, Kotale Altimur, 2900 m, 10 July 1973, leg. Dr. Resholt. (K,L). P. (A.) anticarmon (= charmeuxi), male CHAR01, Turkey, Hakkari Prov., vic. Üzümcū 1300 m, 28 June–4 July 1976. (M,N). P. (A.) bogra afghanistanus, Afghanistan, Prov. Bamiyan, vic. Panjao, 2200 m, 26–28 June 1970, leg. C. Naumann. (O,P). P. (A.) bogra birjandensis, Iran, Khorasan, Birjand, Mazarkahi, 2100–2200 m, 16–17 May 2000, leg. W. Eckweiler.
Figure 4. The species studied. (AD). P. (A.) afghanicus, Afghanistan, Koh-i-Baba, Band-i-Amir, 34.8294° N, 67.1805° E, 2900–3000 m., 2 July 2009, Yu. Skrylnik leg. (A,B male; C,D female). (EH). P. (A.) muellerae, Pakistan, Chitral, Birmogh Lasht, 35.8981° N, 71.7712° E, 2600–3000 m, 1 July 2001, leg. V. Tuzov (E,F male, mue02; G,H female, mue03). (I,J). P. (A.) frauvartianae, male, Afghanistan, Kotale Altimur, 2900 m, 10 July 1973, leg. Dr. Resholt. (K,L). P. (A.) anticarmon (= charmeuxi), male CHAR01, Turkey, Hakkari Prov., vic. Üzümcū 1300 m, 28 June–4 July 1976. (M,N). P. (A.) bogra afghanistanus, Afghanistan, Prov. Bamiyan, vic. Panjao, 2200 m, 26–28 June 1970, leg. C. Naumann. (O,P). P. (A.) bogra birjandensis, Iran, Khorasan, Birjand, Mazarkahi, 2100–2200 m, 16–17 May 2000, leg. W. Eckweiler.
Insects 14 00769 g004
Table 1. List of the studied samples and obtained COI sequences.
Table 1. List of the studied samples and obtained COI sequences.
SpeciesLaboratory IDGeneBankHaplotypeCountryLocality
P. (A.) afghanicusAF05 OR413713af1AfghanistanKoh-i-Baba, Band-i-Amir, 34.8294° N, 67.1805° E, 2900–3000 m, 2 July 2009, Yu. Skrylnik leg.
BPAL2125 OR413714af1Afghanistannear Kabul, July 2010, I. Pljushch leg.
BPAL2126OR413715af1Afghanistanthe same locality
BPAL2127OR413716af1Afghanistanthe same locality
BPAL2128OR413717af1Afghanistanthe same locality
P. (A.) anticarmon (= charmeuxi) CHAR01OR424389antTurkeyHakkari Prov., vic. Üzümcū 1300 m, 28 June – 4 July 1976
P. (A.) bogra afghanistanusXX21 OR424390baf1AfghanistanBamyan prov., 8 km S Bamyan, 2700 m, 31 May 2010, O. Pak leg.
AAF02OR424391baf2Afghanistanthe same locality
AAF10OR424392baf1AfghanistanBamiyan prov.,
34.2155° N, 66.8994° E, 2545 m, 23 June 2016, O. Pak leg.
AAF11OR424393baf1Afghanistanthe same locality
P. (A.) bogra birjandensisJ318OR413718bir1IranSouth Khorasan Prov., 26 km N of Birjand, 1900–2000 m, 14 July 2007, V. Lukhtanov leg.
J319OR413719bir2Iranthe same locality
P. (A.) frauvartianaeAAF01OR424394fra1AfghanistanBamiyan prov., Yakawlang District, Bandi-Amir env., 3300 m, 3 August 2011, O. Pak leg.
AAF03OR424395fra2Afghanistanthe same locality
AAF04OR424396fra1Afghanistanthe same locality
AAF05OR424397fra1Afghanistanthe same locality
AAF07OR424398fra3Afghanistanthe same locality
AAF08OR424399fra4AfghanistanBamiyan prov., Panjab District, Kohi-Baba Mts., Rashak Mts., Shatu Pass, 3490 m, 6 August 2011, O. Pak leg.
AAF09OR424400fra1Afghanistanthe same locality
P. (A.) muelleraeMUE03OR413720mu1PakistanChitral, Birmogh Lasht, 35.8981° N, 71.7712° E, 2600–3000 m, 1 July 2001, leg. V. Tuzov
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lukhtanov, V.A.; Shapoval, N.A.; Dantchenko, A.V.; Eckweiler, W. Phylogenetic Structure Revealed through Combining DNA Barcodes with Multi-Gene Data for Agrodiaetus Blue Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Insects 2023, 14, 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14090769

AMA Style

Lukhtanov VA, Shapoval NA, Dantchenko AV, Eckweiler W. Phylogenetic Structure Revealed through Combining DNA Barcodes with Multi-Gene Data for Agrodiaetus Blue Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Insects. 2023; 14(9):769. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14090769

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lukhtanov, Vladimir A., Nazar A. Shapoval, Alexander V. Dantchenko, and Wolfgang Eckweiler. 2023. "Phylogenetic Structure Revealed through Combining DNA Barcodes with Multi-Gene Data for Agrodiaetus Blue Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae)" Insects 14, no. 9: 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14090769

APA Style

Lukhtanov, V. A., Shapoval, N. A., Dantchenko, A. V., & Eckweiler, W. (2023). Phylogenetic Structure Revealed through Combining DNA Barcodes with Multi-Gene Data for Agrodiaetus Blue Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Insects, 14(9), 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14090769

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop