ZooKeys 130: 363–378, doi: 10.3897/zookeys.130.1466
A molecular phylogeny of the Cephinae (Hymenoptera, Cephidae) based on mtDNA COI gene: a test of traditional classification
Mahir Budak1, E. Mahir Korkmaz2, Hasan H. Basibuyuk1
1 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Cumhuriyet University, 58140-Sivas, Turkey
2 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science, Cumhuriyet University, 58140-Sivas, Turkey

Corresponding author: Hasan H. Basibuyuk (hbbuyuk@cumhuriyet.edu.tr)

Academic editor: Michael Sharkey

received 2 May 2011 | accepted 26 May 2011 | Published 24 September 2011


(C) 2011 Mahir Budak. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


For reference, use of the paginated PDF or printed version of this article is recommended.

Abstract

Cephinae is traditionally divided into three tribes and about 24 genera based on morphology and host utilization. There has been no study testing the monophyly of taxa under a strict phylogenetic criterion. A molecular phylogeny of Cephinae based on a total of 68 sequences of mtDNA COI gene, representing seven genera of Cephinae, is reconstructed to test the traditional limits and relationships of taxa. Monophyly of the traditional tribes is not supported. Monophyly of the genera are largely supported except for Pachycephus. A few host shift events are suggested based on phylogenetic relationships among taxa. These results indicate that a more robust phylogeny is required for a more plausible conclusion. We also report two species of Cephus for the first time from Turkey.

Keywords

Hymenoptera, phylogeny, Cephidae, COI, host shift

Introduction

The Cephidae is a small family of Hymenoptera with a thin integument, usually black or dark colored and commonly with narrow yellow bands on the abdomen. It comprises approximately 160 species in three subfamilies and about 24 genera and is primarily Holarctic (Benson 1935, 1946; Smith and Schmidt 2009; Taeger et al. 2010). Two of the subfamilies, Athetocephinae and Australcephinae are represented by only four species and are restricted to Madagascar and the Australian Region (Benson 1935, 1946; Smith and Shinohara 2002a; Smith and Schmidt 2009). The majority of species are included in the Holarctic subfamily Cephinae. Although several faunal treatments (Ries 1937; Middlekauff 1969; Zhelochovtsev and Zinovjev 1988; Calmasur and Ozbek 2010; Korkmaz et al. 2010) and a single world review (Muche 1981) have been published, and a number of cephid species have been described in recent years (Smith and Solomon 1989; Smith 1997; Smith and Shinohara 2002a, b; Smith and Schiff 2005; Wei 2007; Smith and Schmidt 2009; Wei and Smith 2010), their phylogenetic relationships have not been investigated.

Cephidae can be easily identified since they are morphologically intermediate between the hymenopteran suborders Symphyta and Aculeata. Because of several apocritan-like characters, such as a weak constriction between the first and second abdominal segments, the lack of cenchri and the rough area on fore wing, and the form of male genitalia, they were once considered as a likely sister group of Apocrita (Königsmann 1977). However, considerable evidence from both morphological and molecular data strongly support a sister group relationship between Orussidae and Apocrita, and the Cephoidea, containing the only family Cephidae, appears as to share a last common ancestor with a lineage leading to the Siricoidea (e.g., Rasnitsyn 1980, 1988; Basibuyuk and Quicke 1995; Vilhelmsen 1997, 2001; Ronquist et al. 1999; Schulmeister et al. 2002; Sharkey 2007).

Ries (1937) suggested that Janus is the most primitive genus of Cephinae based on its filiform and many segmented antennae and tarsal claws. Benson (1946) divided the Cephinae into three tribes, Cephini, Hartigiini and Pachycephini based both on morphology and host utilization. The larvae of Cephini bore in the stems of Poaceae, those of Pachycephini live in the stems of Papaveraceae and Poaceae, and those of Hartigiini bore in the twigs of Rosaceae or other arborescent plant families (Benson 1946; Middlekauff 1969). Numerous morphological characters and color patterns that traditionally have been used for separation of the taxa within the family are claimed to be either variable or display phenotypic plasticity (Ries 1937; Benson 1946, 1968; Korkmaz et al. 2010). Current classification is mainly based on morphology and host usage and therefore necessitates a close examination under the phylogenetic approaches.

Phylogenetic studies of taxa that exhibit adaptive phenotypic variation provide valuable insights into the evolutionary forces driving the origins of diversification (Zhang et al. 2008). Research on phytophagous insects has confirmed that adaptation and specialization to different plant species are central to generating diversification at all hierarchical levels (Mopper and Strauss 1998; Berlocher and Feder 2002; Funk et al. 2002; Nosil et al. 2002; Eubanks et al. 2003; Lozier et al. 2007). However, host specialization in the Cephinae, as observed in most phytophagous insect groups, might have led to evolutionary shift between higher taxonomic groups. Host shift probably has taken place many times at different periods, and therefore the classification based on host use may not reflect the true phylogenetic relationship within the Cephinae.

Here, we selected the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of the Cephinae and identify systematic position of its tribes and genera by applying phylogenetic inference methods. The selected COI gene region is informative for estimating relationships at both intra- and interspecies level due to possession of both completely conserved and variable regions and having a heterogeneous evolutionary rate across the gene (Lunt et al. 1996; Dowton and Austin 1997; Caterino et al. 2000; Roe and Sperling 2007; Bacci et al. 2009) This region is also utilized as DNA–based bio-identification system for animals at the global level (Hebert et al. 2003). Cephus parvus (Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1931) and Cephus runcator Konow, 1896, are recorded for the first time from Turkey.

Material and methods

Sixty-eight specimens representing three tribes and seven genera of the subfamily Cephinae were collected from localities presented in Table 1. All specimens are deposited in the Entomological Collection of Cumhuriyet University, Sivas (ECCUS). A specimen of Arge sp. (Argidae) was included as an outgroup in the phylogenetic analyses. Several keys were used to identify the specimens (Benson 1946, 1951, 1968; Muche 1981; Zhelochovtsev and Zinovjev 1988). The taxa names, the voucher specimens, and GenBank accession numbers are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

List of taxa and voucher specimens used for sequencing.

Genus Species Voucher no. GenBank accession no. Location Col. date
Arge Arge sp. ECCUS 201  JF901916    
Calameuta
Calameuta filiformis (Eversmann, 1847) ECCUS 210  JF901849 İçel 12.04.2009
Calameuta filiformis ECCUS 211  JF901850 Sivas 04.06.2009
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis (Fabricius, 1781) ECCUS 212  JF901852 Kütahya 20.05.2009
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis ECCUS 213  JF901853 Isparta 17.05.2009
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis ECCUS 214  JF901855 Kocaeli 04.05.2010
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis ECCUS 215  JF901856 Kocaeli 04.05.2010
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis ECCUS 216  JF901857 Bayburt 05.06.2010
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis ECCUS 217  JF901858 Uşak 19.05.2009
Calameuta haemorrhoidalis ECCUS 218  JF901859 Isparta 17.05.2009
Calameuta idolon (Rossi, 1794) ECCUS 219  JF901851 Konya 17.05.2009
Calameuta pallipes (Klug, 1803) ECCUS 220  JF901854 Sivas 13.05.2010
Calameuta pallipes ECCUS 221  JF901860 Hakkari 11.06.2003
Calameuta pygmaea (Poda, 1761) ECCUS 222  JF901848 Hatay 09.04.2009
Calameuta sp. ECCUS 223  JF901861 Sivas 17.06.2007
Cephus
Cephus brachycercus Thomson, 1871 ECCUS 230  JF901871 İstanbul 08.05.2010
Cephus brachycercus ECCUS 231  JF901872 Sivas 10.05.2010
Cephus fumipennis Eversmann, 1847 ECCUS 232  JF901873 Ardahan 07.06.2010
Cephus nigrinus Thomson, 1871 ECCUS 233  JF901874 İstanbul 08.05.2010
Cephus parvus (Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1931) ECCUS 234  JF901875 Sivas 17.05.2010
Cephus parvus ECCUS 235  JF901876 Sivas 26.05.2010
Cephus pulcher Tischbein, 1852 ECCUS 236  JF901877 Erzurum 06.06.2010
Cephus pygmeus (Linné, 1767) ECCUS 237  JF901911 Denizli 18.05.2009
Cephus pygmeus ECCUS 238  JF901912 Hatay 09.04.2009
Cephus pygmeus ECCUS 239  JF901913 Hatay 09.04.2009
Cephus pygmeus ECCUS 240  JF901914 Bayburt 07.06.2008
Cephus pygmeus ECCUS 241  JF901915 Bayburt 07.06.2008
Cephus rjabovi Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1926 ECCUS 242  JF901878 Kırıkkale 20.06.2009
Cephus rjabovi ECCUS 243  JF901879 Kırıkkale 20.06.2009
Cephus runcator Konow, 1896 ECCUS 244  JF901880 Edirne 07.05.2010
Cephus runcator ECCUS 245  JF901881 Edirne 07.05.2010
Cephus sareptanus Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1928 ECCUS 246  JF901882 Erzurum 06.06.2010
Cephus sareptanus ECCUS 247  JF901883 Erzurum 06.06.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 248  JF901884 Bilecik 05.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 249  JF901885 Bilecik 05.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 250  JF901886 Çanakkale 06.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 251  JF901887 Amasya 02.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 252  JF901888 Amasya 02.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 253  JF901889 Tekirdağ 08.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 254  JF901890 Sivas 18.05.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 255  JF901891 Erzurum 06.06.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 256  JF901892 Kars 07.06.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 257  JF901893 Kars 07.06.2010
Cephus sp. ECCUS 258  JF901894 Bolu 04.05.2010
Trachelus
Trachelus iudaicus (Konow, 1907) ECCUS 260  JF901865 Bayburt 05.06.2010
Trachelus iudaicus ECCUS 261  JF901866 Bayburt 05.06.2010
Trachelus libanensis (André, 1881) ECCUS 262  JF901867 İçel 13.04.2009
Trachelus libanensis ECCUS 263  JF901868 İçel 13.04.2009
Trachelus sp. ECCUS 264  JF901862 Sivas 12.06.2010
Trachelus sp. ECCUS 265  JF901863 Sivas 30.05.2010
Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775) ECCUS 266  JF901869 İçel 12.04.2009
Trachelus tabidus ECCUS 267  JF901870 Çanakkale 06.05.2010
Trachelus troglodyta (Fabricius, 1787) ECCUS 268  JF901864 Zonguldak 03.05.2010
Hartigia
Hartigia linearis (Schrank, 1781) ECCUS 270  JF901896 Ardahan 07.06.2010
Hartigia linearis ECCUS 271  JF901897 Kırşehir 03.06.2003
Hartigia linearis ECCUS 272  JF901898 Kırşehir 03.06.2003
Hartigia nigra (M. Harris, 1779) ECCUS 273  JF901899 Konya 17.05.2009
Hartigia sp. ECCUS 274  JF901900 Sivas 17.05.2010
Hartigia sp. ECCUS 275  JF901901 Sivas 13.05.2010
Hartigia xanthostoma (Eversmann, 1847) ECCUS 276  JF901902 Zonguldak 03.05.2010
Hartigia xanthostoma ECCUS 277  JF901903 Zonguldak 03.05.2010
Syrista
Syrista parreyssii (Spinola, 1843) ECUUS 280  JF901906 Sivas 26.05.2007
Syrista parreyssii ECUUS 281  JF901907 Adana 05.06.2003
Characopygus
Characopygus sp. ECCUS 290  JF901895 İçel 13.04.2009
Pachycephus
Pachycephus cruentatus (Eversmann, 1847) ECCUS 300  JF901904 Sivas 06.06.2009
Pachycephus smyrnensis J.P.E.F. Stein, 1876 ECCUS 301  JF901908 Edirne 07.05.2010
Pachycephus smyrnensis ECCUS 302  JF901909 Edirne 07.05.2010
Pachycephus smyrnensis ECCUS 303  JF901910 Sivas 11.06.2010
Pachycephus sp. ECCUS 304  JF901905 Sivas 12.06.2010
DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing

Alcohol-preserved specimens were allowed to dry on filter paper, and DNA was extracted from left legs of the specimens using the High Pure PCR Template Preparation Kit (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) following the protocol for DNA isolation from mammalian tissue. Each DNA sample was dissolved in 200 µl elution buffer and stored at -20oC. The partial mitochondrial COI gene (750 bp) was amplified by using the conserved COI primers with the following sequence: COI–s1859, 5’ – GGAACIGGATGAACWGTTTAYCCICC – 3’ and COI–a2590 5’ – GCTCCTATTGATARWACATARTGRAAATG – 3’ (Simon et al. 1994). PCR reactions were conducted with 10 µl of extracted DNA in 50 µl reaction mixture. Amplification conditions were as follows: denaturation for 5 min at 94°C, followed by 37 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 s, annealing at 59°C for 45 s, extension at 72°C for 30 s and a 5 min final extension at 72°C. The purification and sequencing of amplification products were performed using a commercial sequencing company (Macrogen Ltd., Seoul, Korea.). Sequencing reactions were carried out in both directions using the same primers as in PCR reactions. The forward and reverse nucleotide sequences were assembled and edited by eye using the CodonCode Aligner v 3.5.6 (CodonCode Corporation) and aligned by using CLUSTAL W version 1.83 (Thompson et al. 1994), using the default parameters of the program. Finally, all the sequences obtained are deposited in GenBank (Table 1).

Data analysis

Estimates of evolutionary divergence analyses were conducted in MEGA5 (Tamura et al. 2007) using the Kimura 2-parameter model (Kimura 1980) over sequence pairs between genera. The rate variation among sites was modeled with a gamma distribution (shape parameter = 0.87). The presence of substitution saturation was determined with DAMBE version 4.5.18 (Xia and Xie 2001). The genetic distance versus the number of transitions and transversions at first, second and third codon position in all taxa was plotted to examine the saturation at a partial COI gene sequences.

In order to investigate the phylogenetic relationship of Cephinae, phylogenetic trees were constructed using maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) methods. Nucleotides were used as discrete and unordered characters. The best-fit model of DNA substitution and the parameter estimates used for tree constructions were chosen according to the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) as implemented in Modeltest version 3.7 (Posada and Crandall 1998). The phylogenetic signal in the data partitions was estimated by maximum likelihood mapping method (Strimmer and von Haeseler 1997) using TREE-PUZZLE version 5.2 program (Schmidt et al. 2002). MP phylogenies were estimated, with characters unordered and equally weighted, under the heuristic search algorithms ‘simple’ and ‘TBR’ using PAUP version 4.0b10 (Swofford 2002). Bootstrap estimates were calculated from 100 replicates under the above search options. This whole procedure was also applied to the data after removal of the third codon position. ML analyses (Felsenstein 1981) were conducted using RAxML-VI-HPC v. 4.0.0 (Stamatakis 2006)f. The AIC results from Modeltest provided the GTR + I + G model as the best-fit for substitution model. BI analysis was performed with the software BEAST v. 1.5.2 (Drummond and Rambaut 2007). The analysis was run with four chains for 5 × 107 generations, sampling from the chain every 5.000 generations. This generated an output of 104 trees. All analyses were performed assuming a Yule process of diversification. In order to confirm that the chains had achieved stationary, we evaluated ‘‘burn-in” plots by plotting log-likelihood scores and tree lengths against generation number using the software Tracer v. 1.5 (Drummond and Rambaut 2007). After determining convergence, we discarded all samples obtained during the first five millions generations as ‘‘burn-in”. The percentage of samples recovering any particular clade in a BI analysis represents that posterior probability of a clade (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001). A majority rule consensus tree (Bayesian tree) was then calculated from the posterior distribution of trees, and the posterior probabilities calculated as the percentage of samples recovering any particular clade. The BI tree built with TREEANNOTATOR, discarding the initial 10% of samples as burn-in [Fig-TREE v. 1.3.1] (Rambaut 2008) was used to visualize the results. For the sake of a better presentation, branches representing individuals belonging to same species were collapsed if the species is recovered as monophyletic (Fig. 4).

Results

Evaluation of the material collected after publication of Korkmaz et al. (2010) and Calmasur and Ozbek (2010) revealed that there are two additional species of Cephus occur in Turkey. The examined material is presented below.

Cephus parvus (Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1931)
Material examined.

Turkey: Sivas [39°42.71'N, 37°01.30'E] 1300 m, 26.05.2010, 1♀, 17.05.2010, 1♂.

Distribution.

Palearctic region.

Cephus runcator Konow, 1896
Material examined.

Turkey: Edirne [40°39.32'N, 26°17.82'E] 50 m, 07.05.2010, 6♀, 1♂.

Distribution.

Turkey, S. E. Europe.

TMEP.

The complete alignment of the partial mitochondrial COI gene sequences from 68 cephid specimens, including representatives of these two new records, resulted in a fragment containing 658 base pairs, among which 287 nucleotide positions were variable and 223 sites of which were parsimony-informative. The analyzed sequences correspond to a functional mitochondrial gene region because of the presence of singular peaks in each chromatograph and absence of in–del and premature stop codons, and presence of the highest nucleotide substitutions at the third codon position (Avise 1994). The percentages of nucleotide composition at each codon position are variable (Fig. 1). The mean frequency of COI sequences used in the analyses showed a bias of A + T (T 37.0%, C 15.2%, A 33.9% and G 16.0%), which is similar to other reported members of Hymenoptera (Jermiin and Crozier 1994, Dowton and Austin 1995, 1997, Leys et al. 2000, Danforth et al. 2003). The A + T content at the third, second and first codon positions are 90.7%, 59.8%, and 61.9%, respectively. The nucleotide G has lowest (1.0%) and the A highest content (52.8%) at the third codon positions. The distribution of polymorphic sites for all cephid species shows that the majority of substitutions are at synonymous sites. The vast majority of synonymous substitutions are also found at third codon positions with a rate of 87.88% for the Cephinae. The first and the second positions are relatively more conserved in comparison with the third position.

Figure 1.

Percentage of nucleotide composition at each codon position.

The numbers of base substitutions per site from averaging over all sequence pairs between genera are shown in Table 2. The least diverged genera appears to be Characopygus and Pachycephus (p= 0.062) and, the most are Hartigia and Syristra (p= 0.161) also with highest standard error value of 0.017.

Table 2.

Estimates of evolutionary divergence over sequence pairs between genera. The number of base substitutions per site from averaging over all sequence pairs between groups are shown. Standard error estimates are shown above the diagonal.

Genera 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Calameuta 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.013 0.012 0.015 0.025
2. Trachelus 0.110 0.010 0.009 0.013 0.012 0.014 0.025
3. Cephus 0.108 0.119 0.007 0.013 0.010 0.016 0.026
4. Characopygus 0.078 0.094 0.069 0.012 0.007 0.012 0.028
5. Hartigia 0.136 0.146 0.143 0.114 0.013 0.017 0.029
6. Pachycephus 0.116 0.125 0.113 0.062 0.137 0.013 0.029
7. Syrista 0.124 0.145 0.156 0.102 0.161 0.125 0.030
8. Outgrup 0.248 0.263 0.256 0.249 0.292 0.278 0.279  

All three codon positions in the partial COI gene were analyzed for saturation, achieved by plotting the number of observed substitutions against the model TN93 genetic distance estimates. The scattergrams (Fig. 2a–c) showed that transitions and transversions for the first, second and third codons of the partial COI gene increased with the genetic distance, but considerable scattering was also observed. In addition, a similar plot of the third codon transition of the COI gene (Fig. 2d) suggested that saturation of transition occurred between certain pairs of the taxa, which may lead to higher levels of homoplasy (Kumar et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2008).

Figure 2.

Saturation plots of transversion and transition rates against JC69 distance at a first codon position b second codon position c third codon position, and d sum of data.

Result of likelihood mapping is presented in Fig. 3. High dichotomic phylogenetic signal was detected in the dataset. The percentage of the quartets suggesting a star- or network- like phylogeny is 9.9%, indicating that data are reliable for a dichotomic phylogenetic analysis (Schmidt 2009). For ML analysis GTR+I+G models showed a significantly better fit than the other less complicated models for the COI dataset. Maximum likelihood analyses under the same model of evolution resulted in topologies with lnL = – 5570.6831 in RAxML, which were very close to the BI tree. Bayesian inference under the GTR+I+G model resulted in a topology with mean lnL = – 5347.963. Posterior probability values from the BI were congruent with ML bootstrap support. ML and BI analyses generated a tree with almost the same overall topology (Fig. 4). Equally weighted parsimony analysis of the 287 parsimony-informative characters produced 12 most parsimonious trees with a length of 1065 steps (Homoplasy Index = 0.608, Retention Index = 0.392 and Consistency Index = 0.392). These equally parsimonious solutions were due to differences in terminal branches. However, the branching pattern of bootstrap tree was comb-like and recovered almost no original branches. Considering that this may be due to many synonymous changes in the third codon position, we run an analysis excluding the third codon position from the data. The analysis produced 60 equally parsimonious trees with a length of 200 and the bootstrap application was also resulted with no support to branching pattern of original trees. This may be partly attributed to the nature of data and relatively a short sequence not sufficient to detect phylogenetic signal under parsimony interference. Therefore, we do not present any MP trees here.

Figure 3.

Likelihood mapping analysis of the sequence alignments of COI gene present in the Cephinae. The regions at the corners of the triangles correspond to the three possible tree topologies for a quartet; the lateral regions to partly resolved trees and the central region to unresolved trees. The numbers indicate the percentage of quartets falling in each region.

Figure 4.

Bayesian interface tree based on the mitochondrial COI gene sequences of the Cephinae. Host plants are indicated in parentheses. Numbers at nodes indicate the posterior values.

Discussion

Currently, the Cephinae is divided into three tribes based on morphology and feeding habits of larvae. The recovered mitochondrial gene trees substantially conflict with the current taxonomic arrangement, particularly the tribe level. Trees constructed under ML and BI methods supported monophyly of each genus except Pachycephus but failed to recover monophyly of any tribes. However, it should be noted that monophyly of most genera were supported by low posterior values (Fig. 4). This is probably due to the strongly biased nucleotide composition and the saturation at the third codon position (Fig. 2). The BI tree suggests that the most basal clade of Cephinae is the genus Cephus making the Cephini paraphyletic with respect to rest of Cephini and other tribes. Occurrence of Syrista within Pachycephini rather than Hartigiini makes both tribes polyphyletic and paraphyletic respectively (Fig. 4). Otherwise, Pachycephini and Hartigiini appear as sister groups. However, we do not propose a new classification as the present phylogeny is generated from a single gene fragment.

Evolution of phytophagy has occurred many times in insects, and is often accompanied by a significant increase in rates of speciation (Mitter et al. 1988). Phytophagous insects are also notable for their high degree of host-plant specialization; probably over 75% of species feed only on members of one plant family (Bernays and Chapman 1994), and many insect species feed only on a single plant species (Scheffer and Wiegmann 2000). Syrista which is considered in the tribe Hartigiini, occurred within Pachycephini clade (see Fig. 4) and this placement is questionable as larvae of Syristra feed on Rosa. However, if this placement is considered to be true than it suggests a host shift event from Papaveraceae to Rosaceae. Occurrence of Cephus at most basal clades also suggests two later shifts from Poaceae to Rosaceae and Papaveraceae (Fig. 4). Considering relationships among genera and species of Cephini inferred from the present phylogenetic hypothesis, several host shift events are also evident. However, we are reluctant for further discussion until a more robust phylogeny become available derived from analyses of several gene sequences of both nuclear and mitochondrial genomes.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mahir Yildirim and Burcu Temel for accompanying us on some of our field trips and collecting specimens. This research was funded by Cumhuriyet University via research grants provided to the project CÜBAP F-224. We are grateful to Dr. Donald L.J. Quicke (Imperial College, London) and the other anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on the early version of the manuscript.

References
Avise JC (1994) Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, 511 pp.doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-2381-9
Bacci M, Solomon SE, Mueller UG, Martins VG, Carvalho AOR, Vieira LGE, Silva-Pinhati ACO (2009) Phylogeny of leafcutter ants in the genus Atta Fabricius (Formicidae: Attini) based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 51: 427-437. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2008.11.005
Basibuyuk HH, Quicke DLJ (1995) Morphology of the antenna cleaner in the Hymenoptera with particular reference to non-aculeate families (Insecta). Zoologica Scripta 24: 157-177. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1995.tb00397.x
Benson RB (1935) On the genera of the Cephidae, and the erection of a new family Syntexidae (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany, and Geology 16 (10): 535-553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1946.tb00445.x
Benson RB (1946) Classification of the Cephidae (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 96: 89-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1946.tb00445.x
Benson RB (1951) Hymenoptera, Symphyta. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 6(2a), 49 pp.
Benson RB (1968) Hymenoptera from Turkey, Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology 22: 111-207.
Berlocher SH, Feder JL (2002) Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: moving beyond controversy? Annual Review of Entomology 47: 773–815. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145312
Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman & Hall, New York, 312 pp.
Calmasur O, Ozbek H (2010) Distribution data on the Cephidae (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) fauna of Turkey. Zoology in the Middle East 50: 144-146.
Caterino MS, Cho S, Sperling FAH (2000) The current state of insect molecular systematics: A thriving Tower of Babel. Annual Review of Entomology 45: 1-54. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.1
Danforth BN, Conway L, Ji S (2003) Phylogeny of eusocial Lasioglossum reveals multiple losses of eusociality within a primitively eusocial clade of bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Systematic Biology 52: 23-36. doi:10.1080/10635150390132687
Dowton M, Austin AD (1995) Increased genetic diversity in mitochondrial genes is correlated with the evolution of parasitism in the Hymenoptera. Journal of Molecular Evolution 41: 958-965. doi:10.1007/BF00173176
Dowton M, Austin AD (1997) Evidence for AT-transversion bias in wasp (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) mitochondrial genes and its implications for the origin of parasitism. Journal of Molecular Evolution 44: 398-405. doi:10.1007/PL00006159
Drummond AJ, Rambaut A (2007) BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. Bmc Evolutionary Biology 7: 214. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-214
Eubanks MD, Blair CP, Abrahamson WG (2003) One host shift leads to another? Evidence of host-race formation in a predaceous gall-boring beetle. Evolution 57: 168-172.
Felsenstein J (1981) Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17: 368-376. doi:10.1007/BF01734359
Funk DJ, Filchak KE, Feder JL (2002) Herbivorous insects: model systems for the comparative study of speciation ecology. Genetica 116: 251-267. doi:10.1023/A:1021236510453
Hebert PD, Ratnasingham S, de Waard JR (2003) Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270(Suppl 1): S96-S99. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0025
Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17: 754-755. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754
Jermiin LS, Crozier RH (1994) The cytochrome b region in the mitochondrial DNA of the ant Tetraponera rufoniger: sequence divergence in Hymenoptera may be associated with nucleotide content. Journal of Molecular Evolution 38: 282-294. doi:10.1007/BF00176090
Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16: 111-120. doi:10.1007/BF01731581
Korkmaz EM, Budak M, Orgen SH, Bagda E, Gencer L, Ulgenturk S, Basibuyuk HH (2010) New records and a checklist of Cephidae (Hymenoptera: Insecta) of Turkey with a short biogeographical consideration. Turkish Journal of Zoology 34: 203-211.
Königsmann E (1977) Das phylogenetische System der Hymenoptera Teil. 2: Symphyta. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 24: 1-40. doi:10.1002/mmnd.19770240102
Kumar S, Tamura K, Jakobsen IB, Nei M (2001) MEGA2: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software. Bioinformatics 17: 1244-1245. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1244
Leys R, Cooper SJ, Schwarz MP (2000) Molecular phylogeny of the large carpenter bees, genus Xylocopa (Hymenoptera: apidae), based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 17: 407–418. doi:10.1006/mpev.2000.0851 doi:10.1006/mpev.2000.0851
Lozier JD, Roderick GK, Mills NJ (2007) Genetic evidence from mitochondrial, nuclear, and endosymbiont markers for the evolution of host plant associated species in the aphid genus Hyalopterus (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Evolution 61: 1353-1367. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00110.x
Lunt DH, Zhang DX, Szymura JM, Hewitt GM (1996) The insect cytochrome oxidase I gene: Evolutionary patterns and conserved primers for phylogenetic studies. Insect Molecular Biology 5: 153-165. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2583.1996.tb00049.x
Middlekauff WW (1969) The Cephid stem borers of California (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 11: 1-19.
Mitter C, Farrell B, Wiegmann B (1988) The phylogenetic study of adaptive zones - has phytophagy promoted insect diversification. American Naturalist 132: 107-128. doi: 10.1086/284840
Mopper S, Strauss SY (1998) Genetic structure and local adaptation in natural insect populations: effects of ecology, life history, and behavior. Chapman & Hall, New York, London, xix, 449 pp.
Muche H (1981) Die Cephidae der Erde (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 28: 239-295. doi: 10.1002/mmnd.19810280405
Nosil P, Crespi BJ, Sandoval CP (2002) Host-plant adaptation drives the parallel evolution of reproductive isolation. Nature 417: 440-443. doi: 10.1038/417440a
Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817-818. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817
Rambaut A (2008) FigTree v1.2. Available from: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/ FigTree/
Rasnitsyn AP (1980) Origin and evolution of Hymenoptera. Transactions of the Paleontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 174: 1-192.
Rasnitsyn AP (1988) An outline of evolution of hymenopterous insects (order Vespida). Oriental Insects 22: 115-145.
Ries DT (1937) Revision of the Nearctic Cephidae. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 63: 259-324.
Roe AD, Sperling FAH (2007) Patterns of evolution of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I and II DNA and implications for DNA barcoding. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44: 325-345. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.12.005
Ronquist F, Rasnitsyn AP, Roy A, Eriksoon K, Lindgren M (1999) Phylogeny of the Hymenoptera: a cladistic reanalysis of Rasnitsyn’s (1988) data. Zoologica Scripta 28: 13-50. doi: 10.1046/j.1463-6409.1999.00023.x
Scheffer SJ, Wiegmann BM (2000) Molecular phylogenetics of the holly leaf miners (Diptera: Agromyzidae: Phytomyza): Species limits, speciation, and dietary specialization. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 17: 244-255. doi: 10.1006/mpev.2000.0830
Schmidt HA, Strimmer K, Vingron M, von Haeseler A (2002) TREE-PUZZLE: maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18: 502-504. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.502
Schmidt HA (2009) Testing tree topologies. In: Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme AM (Eds). The Phylogenetic Handbook: a Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 381-404.
Schulmeister S, Wheeler WC, Carpenter JM (2002) Simultaneous analysis of the basal lineages of Hymenoptera (Insecta) using sensitivity analysis. Cladistics 18: 455-484.
Sharkey MJ (2007) Phylogeny and classification of Hymenoptera. Zootaxa 1668: 521-548.
Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P (1994) Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene-sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain-reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87: 651-701.
Smith DR (1997) A new species of Janus (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) from Indonesia. Entomological News 108: 24-28.
Smith DR, Schiff NM (2005) A new western Nearctic species of Calameuta Konow (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 107: 864-868.
Smith DR, Schmidt S (2009) A new subfamily, genus, and species of Cephidae (Hymenoptera) from Australia. Zootaxa 2034: 56-60.
Smith DR, Shinohara A (2002a) A new genus and new species of Cephidae (Hymenoptera) from Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104: 624-628.
Smith DR, Shinohara A (2002b) The stem-boring sawfly genus Cephus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) in Japan. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104: 479-484.
Smith DR, Solomon JD (1989) A new Janus (Hymenoptera, Cephidae) from Quercus, and key to North American species. Entomological News 100: 1-5.
Stamatakis A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688-2690. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446
Strimmer K, von Haeseler A (1997) Likelihood-mapping: A simple method to visualize phylogenetic content of a sequence alignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94: 6815-6819. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.13.6815
Swofford DL (2002) PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4.0b10 ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Taeger A, Blank SM, Liston AD (2010) World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). Zootaxa 2580: 1-1064.
Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S (2007) MEGA4: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24: 1596-1599. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm092
Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 4673-4680. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673
Vilhelmsen L (1997) The phylogeny of lower Hymenoptera (Insecta), with a summary of the early evolutionary history of the order. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 35: 49-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0469.1997.tb00404.x
Vilhelmsen L (2001) Phylogeny and classification of the extant basal lineages of the Hymenoptera (Insecta). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 131: 393-442. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2001.tb01320.x
Wei MC (2007) On the genus Syrista Konow, with the description of a new species from China (Hymenoptera : Cephidae). Entomological News 118: 450-458. doi: 10.3157/0013-872X(2007)118[450:OTGSKW]2.0.CO;2
Wei MC, Smith DR (2010) Review of Syrista Konow (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 112: 302-316. doi: 10.4289/0013-8797-112.2.302
Xia X, Xie Z (2001) DAMBE: Software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Journal of Heredity 92: 371-373. doi: 10.1093/jhered/92.4.371
Zhang M, Zhong Y, Cao TW, Geng YP, Zhang Y, Jin K, Ren ZM, Zhang R, Guo YP, Ma EB (2008) Phylogenetic relationship and morphological evolution in the subfamily Limenitidinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Progress in Natural Science 18: 1357-1364. doi: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.03.025
Zhelochovtsev AN, Zinovjev AG (1988) [Suborder Symphyta (Chalastogastra) –Sawflies and Horntails]. In: Zhelochovtsev AN, Tobias VI, Kozlov MA (Eds) [Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR. Volume 3, Hymenoptera. Part 6.] Nauka, Leningrad, 7–234. [English translation: Medvedev GS (1994) Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR. Vol 3. Part 6 Symphyta, E.J. Brill, Leiden. xviii, 432 pp.]