identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
5C0E878BFFBCFFED7F91F907FB06FE76.text	5C0E878BFFBCFFED7F91F907FB06FE76.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Arsenurinae	<div><p>Subfamily Arsenurinae as a monophyletic group</p><p>The analysis resulted in a single cladogram (L=76; Ci=98; Ri=99), with previously published taxonomic groupings in the subfamily Arsenurinae (tribes and genera) appearing as monophyletic, corroborating Lemaire (1980). Arsenurinae is therefore reconfirmed as monophyletic, with few homoplasies and several strong synapomorphies for included groupings (Figs. 1-2): long and rounded forewings that show a curved, linear or tapered apex (character 6); cellular spots that appears within the subfamily as irregular and discrete dark spots (e.g., Dysdaemonia), more evident (e.g., Copiopteryx), like a trace (e.g., Arsenura and Caio) or even a dark macula circling the hyaline spot (e.g., Titaea) (character 15); the presence of tarsal spines (character 29); transtilla with varied states (character 36); and lateral arms of the gnathos generally slightly sclerotized and of reduced size (character 38).</p><p>Jackknife analysis resulted in 102 equally parsimonious trees presenting different topologies (L=79; Ci=94; Ri=98). The strict consensus tree of 100 Jackknife replications is given in Fig. 3. When Jackknife or Bootstrap values are low, it generally indicates the clade is supported by few characters, by homoplasies or a combination of both. According to Regier et al. (2002) a clade that presents a value higher than 80% is a strongly supported clade. The results show that the subfamily presents a 90% supported clade.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5C0E878BFFBCFFED7F91F907FB06FE76	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	De, Amabílio J. A.;Mielke, Olaf H. H.;Casagrande, Mirna M.	De, Amabílio J. A., Mielke, Olaf H. H., Casagrande, Mirna M. (2009): Cladistic analysis of the subfamily Arsenurinae (Lepidoptera, Saturniidae) based on adult morphology. Zootaxa 2218: 1-34, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.189988
5C0E878BFFBFFFE87F91FAD1FB59FD1E.text	5C0E878BFFBFFFE87F91FAD1FB59FD1E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Arsenurinae	<div><p>Relationshipss between Arsenurinae genera</p><p>Except for brief proposals by Michener (1952), the tribal separation (Almeidaiini and Arsenurini) presented by Lemaire (1980) and work by Peigler (1993), the relationship among the ten genera within Arsenurinae have been incompletely presented and discussed. The results of this study corroborate Peigler (1993) only partially, with different topologies for some clades, possibly given the characters used and sample universe. The analysis resulted in the following relationship hypothesis among the genera: ( Almeidaia (( Loxolomia, Copiopteryx) ( Rhescyntis (( Grammopelta, Arsenura) ( Caio ( Paradaemonia ( Dysdaemonia, Titaea))))))).</p><p>It is perhaps not surprising that the genus Almeidaia forms a separate clade, given the distinct morphological aspects compared to other Arsenurinae . This result is in agreement with Lemaire (1980), who included the group in a separate tribe. According to Lemaire (1980) and Peigler (1993), Almeidaia shares affinities with Ceratocampinae, and could be designated as a separate subfamily, being apparently a primitive group.</p><p>The relationship between Loxolomia and Copiopteryx is supported by the common origin of M3, CuA1 and CuA2 (character 21:1). Similar to Peigler (1993), Rhescyntis appears neighboring this clade, although belonging to another large clade formed by the other genera.</p><p>Grammopelta and Almeidaia have been considered as the most primitive genera among the Arsenurinae (Michener 1952; Lemaire 1980), so the less basal position of Grammopelta and its status of sister group of Arsenura was not expected. These two genera present several distinct characters and the support of this clade is only 51% according to Jackknife analysis. However, the basic form of the wings, more evident on males and especially with less accented subapical concavity, had some influence on the final result of the analysis. According to Peigler (1993), the relationship between Grammopelta and Loxolomia is even less supported (17%), and he indicated this is probably a false sister-group.</p><p>The relationship between Caio, Dysdaemonia, Titaea and Paradaemonia is supported basically by the tibial spur formula (character 27:1). This result was expected given the general appearance of the adults, especially between Titaea and Dysdaemonia . Except for Paradaemonia, whose larvae feed on Lythraceae, there are records that larvae of the species of these genera are specialized in Bombacaceae (Travassos &amp; D’Almeida 1937; D’Araujo e Silva et al. 1968; Dias 1978; Janzen 1982; Stone 1991; Peigler 1993). The relationship hypothesis among these genera is in agreement with the results presented by Peigler (1993).</p><p>The relationship proposed by Michener (1952), where the genera Arsenura, Dysdaemonia, Titaea and Paradaemonia are presented as subgenera of Rhescyntis, and also the association between Loxolomia and Grammopelta proposed by Peigler (1993), were not corroborated by the cladistic analysis.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5C0E878BFFBFFFE87F91FAD1FB59FD1E	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	De, Amabílio J. A.;Mielke, Olaf H. H.;Casagrande, Mirna M.	De, Amabílio J. A., Mielke, Olaf H. H., Casagrande, Mirna M. (2009): Cladistic analysis of the subfamily Arsenurinae (Lepidoptera, Saturniidae) based on adult morphology. Zootaxa 2218: 1-34, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.189988
