identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
755E4F47F5FD160A155A8493305122C2.text	755E4F47F5FD160A155A8493305122C2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Euspinoliina Brothers & Lelej 2017	<div><p>Euspinoliina Brothers &amp; Lelej subtrib. n.</p><p>Type genus.</p><p>Euspinolia Ashmead, 1903. This group was found to be monophyletic in all analyses with very high resampling support (here GC = 90), but somewhat inconsistent in its placement; our justification for including it in the Pseudomethocini appears above. The close association of Atillum and Hoplocrates has long been recognized, but the inclusion of Euspinolia with them and separate from the other pseudomethocines is unexpected. The group is not supported by any unique and unambiguously placed synapomorphies, but there is one unique but ambiguously placed synapomorphy for both additive and non-additive characters: 163.2, fore tibia with obliquely elongate outer secretory pore in males (but absent in some Euspinolia). There are 13 unambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphies, the most significant being: 70.3, fore tibia with obliquely elongate outer secretory pore in females (also only in Ronisia); 82.0 and 201.0, tergum I and/or propodeum with simple pubescence in females and males (within Sphaeropthalminae also only in Cephalomutilla, Gogoltilla, some Dasymutilla, some Bothriomutilla females, and Lophomutilla males); 99.0, head with simple pubescence in males (within Sphaeropthalminae also only in Cephalomutilla); 219.1 and 220.1, gonostylus (paramere) short, tapered and apically straight (within Sphaeropthalminae also only in Myrmilloides). The subtribe is Neotropical, with three genera; females and males are known for all genera.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/755E4F47F5FD160A155A8493305122C2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Brothers, Denis J.;Lelej, Arkady S.	Brothers, Denis J., Lelej, Arkady S. (2017): Phylogeny and higher classification of Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) based on morphological reanalyses. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 60: 1-97, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091
8CC568BCB3BA76D2F830CB38F9B670D8.text	8CC568BCB3BA76D2F830CB38F9B670D8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dasymutillini Brothers & Lelej 2017	<div><p>Dasymutillini Brothers &amp; Lelej trib. n.</p><p>Type genus.</p><p>Dasymutilla Ashmead, 1899. This group is paraphyletic in most analyses, although, interestingly, monophyletic in the tree derived from males only (Fig. 10) and that from the matrix with duplicated terminals reflecting maximum polymorphisms (Fig. 7), and almost so in the tree derived from the reduced matrix in which the most polymorphic characters had been deleted (Fig. 8). Using Fig. 13 as the base, moving the terminals to reflect the arrangement in the preferred tree (Fig. 5) (except in retaining the Euspinolia - Hoplocrates group as sister to the remaining pseudomethocines) actually added four steps, making the proposed final arrangement preferable in this regard. The group is not supported by resampling nor by any unique and unambiguously placed synapomorphies, but there is a single unique but ambiguously placed synapomorphy for both additive and non-additive characters: 10.2, eye strongly convex in females (but also in several other sphaeropthalmines and Seyrigilla, and less convex in Odontomyrme). There are also some ambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphies, the most significant being: 135.2, mesoscutal notaulus absent in winged males (but also in most pseudomethocines, a few sphaeropthalmines s.s. and scattered terminals elsewhere, and present in Gogoltilla and Tobantilla). It is not surprising that Dasymutilla was shown to be paraphyletic in the analysis of duplicated terminals (Fig. 7), since it is generally recognized that the genus is highly variable (and even very difficult to separate from Traumatomutilla André), although recent reviews have not suggested the recognition of further genera or even subgenera; we tried to capture some of that variability in the selection of exemplars. The tribe is Neotropical, Australian and Nearctic in distribution, with 24 sub/genera; females are known for 100% and males for 95% of those taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8CC568BCB3BA76D2F830CB38F9B670D8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Brothers, Denis J.;Lelej, Arkady S.	Brothers, Denis J., Lelej, Arkady S. (2017): Phylogeny and higher classification of Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) based on morphological reanalyses. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 60: 1-97, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091
EFF42DA8582CE04B4467DB0AAB8E0D4C.text	EFF42DA8582CE04B4467DB0AAB8E0D4C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Apteromutillini Brothers & Lelej 2017	<div><p>Apteromutillini Brothers &amp; Lelej trib. n.</p><p>Type genus.</p><p>Apteromutilla Ashmead, 1903. Although the terminals in this group were closely associated in most analyses (see above), and it has low resampling support here (GC = 19), it is not supported by any unique synapomorphies, but there are six unambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphies for both additive and non-additive characters, the most significant being: 40.2, mesosomal form in females (also in rhopalomutillines and Protophotopsis s.s., and modified in Liotilla); 110.2, pedicel distinctly longer than wide in males (also in Hindustanilla only); 131.1, humeral angle blunt in males (also in some scattered terminals, and carinate in some Liotilla); 174.3, apterous without any trace of wings or tegula in males (also only in Hindustanilla and some Viereckia); 219.1, gonostylus (paramere) short and narrow (also in ticoplines, some myrmosines and sphaeropthalmines, Dasylabroides and Dasylabris, and lamellate in Brachymutilla). Of interest is that Brachymutilla and Liotilla are apparently the only Mutillidae to lack cerci in the males (Fig. 11, 216.1), a state found in our analyses also only in Sapyginae, and which is a unique and unambiguous synapomorphy in Mutillidae for those two genera here. The tribe is Afrotropical, with three genera; females and males are known for all genera.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EFF42DA8582CE04B4467DB0AAB8E0D4C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Brothers, Denis J.;Lelej, Arkady S.	Brothers, Denis J., Lelej, Arkady S. (2017): Phylogeny and higher classification of Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) based on morphological reanalyses. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 60: 1-97, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091
ED1E6DE01F1FD83001FB11053948C341.text	ED1E6DE01F1FD83001FB11053948C341.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ctenotillini Brothers & Lelej 2017	<div><p>Ctenotillini Brothers &amp; Lelej trib. n.</p><p>Type genus.</p><p>Ctenotilla Bischoff, 1920. A group including four terminals ( Mimecomutilla s.s. - Ctenotilla) was found to be monophyletic in all analyses with high resampling support and almost always with Pristomutilla just basal to it, although generally without support; Pristomutilla was more distant in the analysis in which the most-polymorphic characters had been deleted (Fig. 8), but the five terminals formed a monophyletic group in the analysis of males only (Fig. 10), and they were greatly disrupted in the analysis of females only (Fig. 9). As discussed above, inclusion of Pristomutilla here seems justified. Given the uncertainties surrounding Pristomutilla, it is notable that the Ctenotillini has resampling support (although very low, here GC = 8), but it is not supported by any unique synapomorphies; there is a single unambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphy for both additive and non-additive characters: 111.0, flagellomere I &lt;0.6 × length of flagellomere II in males (also in most smicromyrmines, some ephutines and some scattered terminals elsewhere). There are also four ambiguously placed homoplasious synapomorphies, the most significant being: 34.1, prementum with posterior dome-like tubercle in females (also in a very few scattered terminals elsewhere, and absent in some Pristomutilla); 52.4, posterodorsal margin of propodeum with&gt;3 spines in females (also in Lynchiatilla, Ceratotilla and Acanthomutilla, and no spines in Mimecomutilla s.s. and Mimecotilla). Despite the fairly poor support for this group as reflected in the trees, we propose that it be formally recognized, specially since it appears as sister to the remaining Mutillinae, with some resampling support, in the proposed final arrangement (Fig. 13). The tribe is Afrotropical, Oriental and Palaearctic in distribution, with 13 sub/genera; females are known for 77% and males for 92% of those taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/ED1E6DE01F1FD83001FB11053948C341	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Brothers, Denis J.;Lelej, Arkady S.	Brothers, Denis J., Lelej, Arkady S. (2017): Phylogeny and higher classification of Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) based on morphological reanalyses. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 60: 1-97, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.60.20091
