 |
 |
 | ||
|
Phylogeny
Death of an order: a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study confirms that termites are eusocial cockroaches
Daegan Inward†, George Beccaloni & Paul Eggleton*
Soil Biodiversity Group, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK
*Author for correspondence p.eggleton@nhm.ac.uk
Received 21 February 2007; Accepted 14 March 2007; Revised 14 March 2007; Published online 5 April 2007
Abstract Termites are instantly recognizable mound-builders and house-eaters: their complex social lifestyles have made them incredibly
successful throughout the tropics. Although known as 'white ants', they are not ants and their relationships
with other insects remain unclear. Our molecular phylogenetic analyses, the most comprehensive yet attempted, show that termites are social cockroaches, no longer meriting being classified as a separate order (Isoptera) from the cockroaches (Blattodea). Instead, we propose that they should be treated as a family (Termitidae) of cockroaches. It is surprising to find that a group of wood-feeding cockroaches has evolved full sociality,
as other ecologically dominant fully social insects (e.g. ants, social bees and social wasps) have evolved from solitary predatory
wasps.
Keywords: insect systematics; phylogenetics; social evolution; classification
1. Introduction
Termites, cockroaches and mantids form a well-established lineage, the Dictyoptera, uniquely defined by having a perforation in the tentorium (the internal skeletal part of the head)
and enclosing their eggs within a specialized case (ootheca). Within the Dictyoptera, there is agreement that both termites and mantids are monophyletic groups. However, hypotheses of relationships among the three groups have provoked controversy ever
since the finding that the woodroach Cryptocercus shares several groups of symbiotic gut flagellates with early branching termites (Cleveland et al. 1934). This, together with morphological similarity between some termites' nymphs (pseudergates) and Cryptocercus nymphs, suggested a close phylogenetic relationship between the two groups (McKitterick 1964). However, some researchers have challenged this hypothesis by showing that (i) gut flagellates could have been passed from
termites to Cryptocercus early in the history of the groups (Thorne 1990) and (ii) in phylogenetic studies (Thorne & Carpenter 1992; Kambhampati 1995), albeit with sparse taxon sampling, termites did not group with Cryptocercus or indeed nest within cockroaches. However, these results have been contested and recent phylogenetic studies (Lo et al. 2003; Terry & Whiting 2005), again, unfortunately, with sparse taxon sampling, have supported the original hypothesis of a monophyletic termites+cockroaches.
Two questions must be answered to resolve the phylogenetic position of termites. Are termites cockroaches? And if they are, what is the sister group of the termites within the cockroaches? No previous study has answered these questions unambiguously, as none of them have sufficiently comprehensive taxon sampling
or completely adequate character information. Here, we provide definitive answers by sampling, for the first time, a fully
representative set of Dictyoptera species and sequencing and analysing five gene loci.
2. Material and methods
We sampled 107 Dictyoptera (in-group) species along with 11 out-groups. This included five of the 15 mantid families, all
six cockroach families as well as 22 of the 29 cockroach subfamilies and all termite families and subfamilies. We used five
gene loci (two mitochondrial: 12S, and cytochrome oxidase II; and three nuclear: 28S, 18S and histone 3), which gave us approximately 4900 aligned base pairs. We estimated substitution models for each gene (Posada & Crandall 1998) and subsequently employed a Bayesian analysis (Ronquist & Huelsenbeck 2003) on the combined dataset to estimate tree topology and posterior probabilities for each node and for nodes not recovered
in a majority of the trees. We also undertook a maximum parsimony (MP) analysis on the same aligned dataset. Full details
of the methods are in the electronic supplementary material.
3. Results and discussion
Our Bayesian consensus tree (figure 1) answers both the questions: termites nest within the cockroaches and Cryptocercus is the sister group of the termites. Additionally, it shows termite+Cryptocercus clade as sister to Blattidae, and that combined clade as sister to Blattellidae+Blaberidae ('Blaberoidea'
in figure 1). Polyphagidae+Nocticolidae ('Polyphagoidea') are then sister to all the other cockroaches (including
the termites) and the mantids are sister to the cockroaches. Most of these relationships have 100% posterior probabilities, meaning
that none of the 2501 sampled trees in the Bayesian analysis recover any other relationship. The probability of termites falling
outside the cockroaches, using our dataset, is therefore extremely small. Alternative topologies within the Dictyoptera were
statistically very unlikely (table 1). None of these alternative topologies affect our findings of a blattid+Cryptocercus+termite clade. The maximum parsimony analysis gives essentially the same tree topology as the Bayesian analysis,
with strong support for the key nodes (see electronic supplementary material, appendices).
How do these results compare with the earlier analyses of Dictyoptera? This is difficult to assess for many of the studies
because they have not included termites, or, what in retrospect is more misleading, have used termites as out-groups, therefore
specifically excluded them a priori from nesting within the cockroaches. However, considering only studies where all the Dictyoptera have been included unconstrained,
most recent studies support our findings (table 2), although not all these studies are independent: a number used some of the same genes as we have. The most comprehensive
of the studies in table 2 (Klass & Meier 2006), however, has the advantage that it uses a completely independent morphological dataset and, although it differs in some
basal parts of the tree (tables 1 and 2), it shows a strong level of support for a sister group relationship between termites and Cryptocercus and finds that this clade is nested within the cockroaches.
Even given this growing consensus, however, most previous researchers appear to have had little problem with accepting that
termites could both be nested within the cockroaches and that termites (a clade) could still be considered as an order separate
from the cockroaches (a grade). At the same time, however, most systematists now generally believe that formal taxonomic groupings
should be monophyletic (Benton 2000). Therefore, we are led logically to the conclusion that the presently recognized order Blattodea is not an acceptable taxon
if it does not include the termites, as it does not contain an ancestor and all its descendants. The finding that the termites
are nested within the cockroaches causes a classificatory problem that we believe can best be resolved by changing the taxonomic
rank of the termites. We propose that the presently recognized order Isoptera should no longer be used and that the species
presently included in Isoptera should be classified within the family Termitidae as part of the order Blattodea within the
superorder Dictyoptera. This means that the existing termite taxa need to be downgraded by one taxonomic rank (i.e. families
become subfamilies, subfamilies become tribes; see electronic supplementary material), but would otherwise remain unchanged
in species composition.
This result may appear surprising to many people who are aware that termites have apparently very different life history and
social behaviours from cockroaches. However, it is scarcely unparalleled. Ants, social wasps and bees are also generally strikingly different in
many aspects of their biologies from their closest solitary relatives. The evolution of sociality clearly has the propensity
to change the nature of clades fundamentally, such that just four families of eusocial insects (Formicidae, Vespidae, Apidae
and Termitidae) have come to dominate vital ecosystem processes (predation, pollination and decomposition; Grimaldi & Engel 2005).
Our findings allow the pathway to eusociality in termites to be reconstructed with more certainty (figure 2) and they generally support recent hypotheses based on nutritional and microbiological arguments (Nalepa et al. 2001). Termites have evolved from omnivorous cockroach ancestors with a diploid reproductive system that form their oothecae internally
and exhibit different degrees of intraspecific coprophagy (faeces eating) and gregariousness. These last two characteristics
have allowed specifically co-evolved gut symbioses to evolve, as facilitative coprophagy by conspecifics allows the transmission of a stable microbial
assemblage from generation to generation. The key evolutionary shift appears to be the acquisition of mutualistic cellulolytic
flagellates in the ancestor of termites and Cryptocercus that allowed the cockroaches to become wood feeding (although this shift is not only found in the termite+Cryptocercus clade within cockroaches, Brugerolle et al. 2003). Offspring of these wood-feeding cockroaches required lengthy parental contact to allow flagellate transfer between generations
by proctodeal trophallaxis (nutrient transfer from the anus of one individual to the mouth of another; Nalepa et al. 2001). The subsequent shift to eusociality in the termites has involved reduction and eventual loss of the oothecae, as protection
from desiccation is unnecessary inside a nest with a controlled internal climate. There has also been a trend towards monogamy,
with progressive anatomical simplification of termite sperm (Baccetti et al. 1981) and reduction in complexity of the male genitalia (Klass et al. 2000), presumably due to lowered sperm competition. In addition, establishment of permanent family groups (colonies) has led to the evolution of sterile worker and soldier castes
in response to the need for foragers, alloparental care, nest builders and colony defenders (Higashi et al. 2000).
Our reconstruction emphasizes the strikingly different routes of Hymenoptera and Dictyoptera to eusociality. Ants, arguably
the closest biological analogues of termites, have evolved from multiply provisioning predatory wasps (Wilson & Holldobler 2005) with a haplo-diploid reproductive system, phylogenetic and life-history characteristics far removed from those found in
cockroaches. Any general theory explaining the evolution of insect eusociality must take these profound evolutionary differences
fully into account.
Acknowledgements
We thank all colleagues who donated material (see electronic supplementary material, appendix 7) and Alfried Vögler
for advice on molecular phylogenetics. This research was funded by a UK Leverhulme grant to P.E. and by an NHM Entomology
DRF grant to P.E. and G.B.
Baccetti, B., Dallai, R. & Callaini, G. 1981 The spermatozoon of arthropoda. 32. Zootermopsis nevadensis and isopteran sperm phylogeny. Int. J. Inver. Rep. 3, 87-99.
Benton, M.J. 2000 Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead?. Biol. Rev. 75, 633-648.
Brugerolle, G., Silva Neto, I.D., Pellens, R. & Grandcolas, P. 2003 Electron microscopic identification of the intestinal protozoan flagellates of the xylophagous cockroach Parasphaeria boleiriana from Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 90, 249-256.
Cleveland, L.R., Hall, S.K., Sanders, E.P. & Collier, J. 1934 The wood feeding roach Cryptocercus, its protozoa, and the symbiosis between protozoa and roach. Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 17, 185-382.
Deitz, L.L., Nalepa, C. & Klass, K.D. 2003 Phylogeny of the Dictyoptera re-examined (Insecta). Entomologische Abhandlungen (Dresden) 61, 69-91.
Grimaldi, D.A. & Engel, M.S. 2005 Evolution of the insects. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Higashi, M., Yamamura, N. & Abe, T. 2000 Theories on the sociality of termites. Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses, ecology. (eds. Abe, T., Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M.), pp. 212-223, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kambhampati, S. 1995 A phylogeny of cockroaches and related insects based on DNA sequence of mitochondrial ribosomal RNA genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 2017-2020 (doi:10.1073/pnas.92.6.2017).
Klass, K. & Meier, R. 2006 A phylogenetic analysis of Dictyoptera (Insecta) based on morphological characters. Entomologische Abhandlungen 63, 3-50.
Klass, K.D., Thorne, B.L. & Lenz, M. 2000 The male postabdomen of Stolotermes inopinus: a termite with unusually well-developed external genitalia (Dictyoptera: Isoptera: Stolotermitinae). Acta Zool. 81, 121-130 (doi:10.1046/j.1463-6395.2000.00045.x).
Lo, N., Tokuda, G., Watanabe, H., Rose, H., Slaytor, M., Maekawa, K., Bandi, C. & Noda, H. 2000 Evidence from multiple gene sequences indicates that termites evolved from wood-feeding cockroaches. Curr. Biol. 10, 801-804 (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00561-3).
Lo, N., Bandi, C., Watanabe, H., Nalepa, C. & Beninati, T. 2003 Evidence for cladogenesis between diverse dictyopteran lineages and their intracellular endosymbionts. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 907-913 (doi:10.1093/molbev/msg097).
McKitterick, F. 1964 A contribution to the understanding of cockroach-termite affinities. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 58, 18-22.
Nalepa, C.A. & Lenz, M. 2000 The ootheca of Mastotermes darwiniensis Frogatt (Isoptera: Mastotermitidae): homology with cockroaches oothecae. Proc. R. Soc. B 267, 1809-1813 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1214).
Nalepa, C.A., Bignell, D.E. & Bandi, C. 2001 Detritivory, coprophagy, and the evolution of digestive mutualisms in Dictyoptera. Insectes Sociaux 48, 194-201 (doi:10.1007/PL00001767).
Posada, D. & Crandall, K.A. 1998 MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14, 817-818 (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817).
Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J.P. 2003 MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572-1574 (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180).
Terry, M.D. & Whiting, M.F. 2005 Mantophasmatodea and phylogeny of the lower neopterous insects. Cladistics 21, 240-257 (doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00062.x).
Thorne, B.L. 1990 A case for ancestral transfer of symbionts between cockroaches and termites. Proc. R. Soc. B 241, 37-41 (doi:10.1098/rspb.1990.0062).
Thorne, B.L. & Carpenter, J.M. 1992 Phylogeny of the Dictyoptera. Syst. Entomol. 17, 253-268.
Wilson, E.O. & Holldobler, B. 2005 The rise of the ants: a phylogenetic and ecological explanation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 7411-7414 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0502264102).
Note:
†Present address: Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, UK
Electronic supplementary material is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0102 or via http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk.
| Top |
| This journal is © 2007 The Royal Society |
No comments:
Post a Comment