Data from: The phylogenetic conundrum of Lutzia (Diptera: Culicidae: Culicini): a cautionary account of conflict and support

Lutzia Theobald was reduced to a subgenus of Culex in 1932 and was treated as such until it was restored to its original generic status in 2003, based mainly on modifications of the larvae for predation. Previous phylogenetic studies based on morphological and molecular data have provided conflicting support for the generic status of Lutzia: analyses of morphological data support the generic status whereas analyses based on DNA sequences do not. Our previous phylogenetic analyses of Culicini (based on 169 morphological characters and 86 species representing the four genera and 26 subgenera of Culicini, most informal group taxa of subgenus Culex and five outgroup species from other tribes) seemed to indicate a conflict between adult and larval morphological data. Hence, we conducted a series of comparative and data exclusion analyses to determine whether the alternative positions of Lutzia are due to conflicting signal or to a lack of strong signal. We found that separate and combined analyses of adult and larval data support different patterns of relationships between Lutzia and other Culicini. However, the majority of conflicting clades are poorly supported and once these are removed from consideration, most of the topological disparity disappears, along with much of the resolution, suggesting that morphology alone does not have sufficiently strong signal to resolve the position of Lutzia. We critically examine the results of other phylogenetic studies of culicinine relationships and conclude that no morphological or molecular data set analysed in any study conducted to date has adequate signal to place Lutzia unequivocally with regard to other taxa in Culicini. Phylogenetic relationships observed thus far suggest that Lutzia is placed within Culex but further data and extended taxon sampling are required to confirm its position relative to Culex.卢茨蚊属（Lutzia）Theobald于1932年被降为库蚊属（Culex）的一个亚属，该分类地位一直沿用至2003年，彼时研究人员主要基于其幼虫为适应捕食习性演化出的特化结构，将其重新恢复为独立属级分类单元。既往基于形态学与分子数据开展的系统发育研究，对卢茨蚊属的属级地位支持结论相互冲突：形态学数据分析支持其独立属级地位，而基于DNA序列的分析则未提供相应支持。我们此前针对库蚊族（Culicini）的系统发育分析（以169个形态学性状为依据，采样覆盖库蚊族4个属、26个亚属的86个物种，涵盖库蚊亚属绝大多数非正式类群，同时纳入来自其他蚊族的5个外群物种），结果显示成虫与幼虫的形态学数据间存在矛盾信号。有鉴于此，我们开展了一系列比较分析与数据排除分析，旨在明确卢茨蚊属分类地位的分歧，究竟源于系统发育信号的冲突，还是缺乏足够强的判别信号。研究结果显示，针对成虫、幼虫形态学数据的单独分析与联合分析，均得到了卢茨蚊属与库蚊族其他类群间不同的亲缘关系模式。不过，多数存在冲突的分支支持度较低；移除这些低支持度分支后，拓扑结构间的绝大多数差异及多数分辨率问题均随之消失，这表明仅依靠形态学数据并不具备足够强的信号，以明确卢茨蚊属的分类地位。我们批判性地检视了当前已发表的其他关于库蚊族系统发育关系的研究结果，认为截至目前所有已开展的研究中，无论采用形态学还是分子数据集，均未获得足以明确界定卢茨蚊属在库蚊族内相对其他类群系统发育位置的足够信号。现有系统发育关系研究结果均倾向于将卢茨蚊属置于库蚊属内，但仍需进一步扩充数据采集范围与类群采样量，才能最终确认其相对于库蚊属的准确分类地位。