Back to all available

A new perspective on Icriomastax (Diptera: Tipulidae): phylogeny and description of five new species

entomology
evolutionary-studies
taxonomy
zoology

Abstract

Icriomastax , historically treated as a subgenus of Ischnotoma, has remained taxonomically neglected since the description of its last species in 1945. Here, we provide a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the group, based on a matrix with 153 morphological characters across 61 taxa. Parsimony analyses under equal and implied weighting consistently recovered Icriomastax as a monophyletic group, supporting its elevation to full genus status. In contrast, Ischnotoma and Holorusia were recovered as paraphyletic, and the position of Neotipula remained unstable, reinforcing the need for a broader review of Ischnotoma sensu lato. Additionally, we describe five new species: Icriomastax catia sp. nov., Icriomastax coscaroni sp. nov., Icriomastax craigi sp. nov., Icriomastax lopesae sp. nov., and Icriomastax monnei sp. nov. These results provide a new and consistent taxonomic framework and highlight the relevance of morphology-based systematics for underexplored lineages in Tipulidae. Our results raise questions about Sothern Hemispheric diversification patterns in Tipulidae and offer a basis for future integrative studies combining morphological and molecular data.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].