A molecular phylogeny for the Tribe Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae): Systematic and biogeographic implications

Abstract

With well over 700 species, the Tribe Dacini is one of the most species-rich clades within the dipteran family Tephritidae, the true fruit flies. Nearly all Dacini belong to one of two very large genera, Dacus Fabricius and Bactrocera Macquart. The distribution of the genera overlap in or around the Indian subcontinent, but the greatest diversity of Dacus is in Africa and the greatest diversity of Bactrocera is in south-east Asia and the Pacific. The monophyly of these two genera has not been rigorously established, with previous phylogenies only including a small number of species and always heavily biased to one genus over the other. Moreover, the subgeneric taxonomy within both genera is complex and the monophyly of many subgenera has not been explicitly tested. Previous hypotheses about the biogeography of the Dacini based on morphological reviews and current distributions of taxa have invoked an out-of-India hypothesis; however this has not been tested in a phylogenetic framework. We attempted to resolve these issues with a dated, molecular phylogeny of 125 Dacini species generated using 16S, COI, COII and white eye genes. The phylogeny shows that Bactrocera is not monophyletic, but rather consists of two major clades: Bactrocera s.s. and the ‘Zeugodacus group of subgenera’ (a recognised, but informal taxonomic grouping of 15 Bactrocera subgenera). This ‘Zeugodacus’ clade is the sister group to Dacus, not Bactrocera and, based on current distributions, split from Dacus before that genus moved into Africa. We recommend that taxonomic consideration be given to raising Zeugodacus to genus level. Supportive of predictions following from the out-of-India hypothesis, the first common ancestor of the Dacini arose in the mid-Cretaceous approximately 80 mya. Major divergence events occurred during the Indian rafting period and diversification of Bactrocera apparently did not begin until after India docked with Eurasia (50–35 mya). In contrast, diversification in Dacus, at approximately 65 mya, apparently began much earlier than predicted by the out-of-India hypothesis, suggesting that, if the Dacini arose on the Indian plate, then ancestral Dacus may have left the plate in the mid to late Cretaceous via the well documented India–Madagascar–Africa migration route. We conclude that the phylogeny does not disprove the predictions of an out-of-India hypothesis for the Dacini, although modification of the original hypothesis is required.