Uce-based phylogeny and classification of Megachilini.

Authors

Christophe J Praz, Morgan Gueuning, Michael G Branstetter, Achik Dorchin, Terry Griswold, Laurence Packer, Stephan Risch, Jessica Litman

Published in

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. Pages 108701. Aug 01, 2026. Epub Aug 01, 2026.

Abstract

The generic-level classification of the bee tribe Megachilini (Megachilidae) has remained controversial due to poor phylogenetic resolution at the base of the group, particularly among the brood parasitic genera and the numerous dauber ("Chalicodoma s. l.") lineages. We present a phylogenomic analysis of Megachilini based on ultraconserved elements (UCEs), sampling 52 ingroup taxa with emphasis on the dauber lineages. We also present a combined UCE + six-gene analysis to improve taxon coverage, resulting in a dataset with 127 ingroup taxa. Maximum likelihood, coalescent, and Bayesian analyses of multiple UCE matrices recover largely congruent topologies with substantially improved support relative to previous studies. Our results strongly support the monophyly of Megachilini, the early divergence of Noteriades and Gronoceras, and a single origin of brood parasitism. All remaining non-parasitic Megachilini form a moderately supported clade sister to the brood parasitic lineage. The leafcutter bees are monophyletic and nested within dauber lineages. Several major dauber clades are consistently recovered, including an exclusively Australian clade corresponding to the Hackeriapis group of subgenera, while several recognized subgenera are paraphyletic. The lineage known as Morphella, previously placed in synonymy with the subgenus Callomegachile, was not closely related to that subgenus and is here treated as a valid subgenus. Divergence-time analyses place the crown age of Megachilini in the late Eocene to early Oligocene, with major extant lineages diversifying during the Miocene. Limited morphological diagnosability of several clades indicates that splitting non-parasitic lineages into numerous genera would result in an impractical classification that would widen the gap between taxonomists and non-specialists and exacerbate the taxonomic impediment in bees. We therefore advocate retaining a single genus Megachile for non-parasitic Megachilini (excluding Noteriades and Gronoceras), as the classification best supported by phylogenomic evidence and most robust to future taxon sampling.

PMID:
42542275
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 02 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.