The Phylogeny and Classification of Embioptera (Insecta), Systematic Entomology

Systematic Entomology (2012), 37, 550–570

The phylogeny and classiﬁcation of Embioptera (Insecta)

KELLY B. MILLER1, CHERYL HAYASHI2,MICHAELF. WHITING3, GAVIN J. SVENSON4 andJANICE S. EDGERLY5

1Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A., 2Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA, U.S.A., 3Department of Biology and M. L. Bean Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A., 4Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A. and 5Department of Biology, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, U.S.A.

Abstract. A phylogenetic analysis of the order Embioptera is presented with a revised classification based on results of the analysis. Eighty-two species of Embioptera are included from all families except Paedembiidae Ross and Embonychidae Navas.´ Monophyly of each of the eight remaining currently recognized families is tested except Andesembiidae Ross, for which only a single species was included. Nine outgroup taxa are included from Blattaria, Grylloblattaria, Mantodea, Mantophasmatodea, Orthoptera, Phasmida and Plecoptera. Ninety-six morphological characters were analysed along with DNA sequence data from the five genes 16S rRNA, 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, cytochrome c oxidase I and histone III. Data were analysed in combined analyses of all data using parsimony and Bayesian optimality criteria, and combined molecular data were analysed using maximum likelihood. Several major conclusions about Embioptera relationships and classification are based on interpretation of these analyses. Of eight families for which monophyly was tested, four were found to be monophyletic under each optimality criterion: Clothodidae Davis, Anisembiidae Davis, Oligotomidae Enderlein and Teratembiidae Krauss. Australembiidae Ross was not recovered as monophyletic in the likelihood analysis in which one Australembia Ross species was recovered in a position distant from other australembiids. This analysis included only molecular data and the topology was not strongly supported. Given this, and because parsimony and the Bayesian analyses recovered a strongly supported clade including all Australembiidae, we regard this family also as monophyletic. Three other families – Notoligotomidae Davis, Archembiidae Ross and Embiidae Burmeister, as historically delimited – were not found to be monophyletic under any optimality criterion. Notoligotomidae is restricted here to include only the genus Notoligotoma Davis with a new family, Ptilocerembiidae Miller and Edgerly, new family, erected to include the genus Ptilocerembia Friederichs. Archembiidae is restricted here to include only the genera Archembia Ross and Calamoclostes Enderlein. The family group name Scelembiidae Ross is resurrected from synonymy with Archembiidae (new status) to include all other genera recently placed in Archembiidae. Embiidae is not demonstrably monophyletic with species currently placed in the family resolved in three separate clades under each optimality criterion. Because taxon sampling is not extensive within this family in this analysis, no changes are made to Embiidae classification. Relationships between families delimited herein are not strongly supported under any optimality criterion with

Correspondence: Kelly B. Miller, Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

a few exceptions. Either Clothodidae Davis (parsimony) or Australembiidae Ross (Bayesian) is the sister to the remaining Embioptera taxa. The Bayesian analysis includes Australembiidae as the sister to all other Embioptera except Clothididae, suggesting that each of these taxa is a relatively plesiomorphic representatative of the order. Oligotomidae and Teratembiidae are sister groups, and Archembiidae (sensu novum), Ptilocerembiidae, Andesembiidae and Anisembiidae form a monophyletic group under each optimality criterion. Each family is discussed in reference to this analysis, diagnostic combinations and taxon compositions are provided, and a key to families of Embioptera is included.

Introduction Embioptera (Flook & Rowell, 1998; Thomas et al., 2000; Whiting et al., 2003; Terry & Whiting, 2005; Kjer et al., 2006; Among the most poorly known insects, Embioptera, or Jintsu et al., 2010; Ishiwata et al., 2011; Wipfler et al., 2011). webspinners, comprise a distinctive, monophyletic group with Most historical taxonomic literature on the group has representatives found throughout warmer regions of the world. emphasized descriptions of new species. Relatively few Although moderately large in size (5–25 mm), they are rarely papers have comprehensively addressed the phylogeny or encountered, even by experienced entomologists. Reflected in higher classification, and fewer of these have incorporated this is the poor knowledge of their diversity. About 400 species a more modern philosophy emphasizing cladistics or the have been described, but one prominent Embioptera researcher naming of demonstrably monophyletic groups. The earliest has estimated at least 1500 undescribed species in his collection comprehensive treatments include those by Hagen (1861, alone (Ross, 1991). Their best-known characteristic, and the 1885) during which time members of Embioptera were source of the common name, is their ability to spin silk recognized as neuropterans, and less than 20 species were from unicellular glands in the enlarged protarsomere I, or recognized in a single family (Hagen, 1885). New species were foreleg basitarsus, which they use to create domiciles. These added only rarely until comprehensive revisions by Enderlein domiciles may be on tree or rock surfaces, under rocks, in leaf (1903, 1909, 1912) and Krauss (1911) added numerous new litter, or in certain other habitats depending on taxon. Female species and higher taxa. embiopterans are wingless and often found in the domicile Subsequent attempts at formalizing the higher classification with their eggs or nymphs. In some species, a single female include Davis (1940a, b), who, as reviewed thoroughly by inhabits a domicile with her offspring. In other cases, many Szumik (1996), approached modern methods in his empha- females may live together, and may exhibit varying degrees of sis on multiple characters and techniques similar to cladis- sociality (reviewed by Edgerly, 1997). Males are often winged, tics. Davis (1940b) recognized seven families: Clothodidae although they may be wingless; some species are variable with Enderlein, Embiidae Burmeister, Oligotomidae Enderlein, some male specimens winged and others wingless. Usually, Oligembiidae Davis, Teratembiidae Krauss, Anisembiidae mature males are less often collected, because they are not Ross and Notoligotomidae Davis. generally found in the domiciles with females and nymphs. The last 70 years of Embioptera studies have been dom- This has made studying Embioptera difficult as most of the inated by a single researcher, E. S. Ross, who contributed known characters are found in the male head and terminalia. the descriptions of very many new species. Because of the Males, while difficult to find in the wild, can be reared in the expansion of known global diversity, he developed progres- laboratory. sively a higher classification summarized especially in Ross Given the unusual ability of webspinners to spin silk from (1970) in which he formally recognized most of the families the protarsi in both nymphs and adults, there is little doubt as recognized by Davis except Oligembiidae, which was synono- to monophyly of Embioptera. Numerous other characters taken myzed with Teratembiidae, and Australembiidae Ross, which together further suggest close relationship among members of he had erected earlier (Ross, 1963). Furthermore, he proposed a the order, including three-segmented tarsi, presence of a gula, number of additional hypothetical suborders, families and sub- absence of ocelli, complex and asymmetrical male genitalia, families which he left unnamed. Some of Ross’s informally and absence of a female ovipositor. Relationships between recognized family-rank groups have been described recently Embioptera and other orders remain unclear (Klass, 2009), (Ross, 2006, 2007), but others have not. Ross’s interpreta- but proposals about the Embioptera sister group have included tion of the group was based in large part on an authoritarian Plecoptera (Boudreaux, 1979; Wheeler et al., 2001), Zoraptera approach that was criticized heavily by Szumik (1996) and (Grimaldi & Engel, 2005; Engel & Grimaldi, 2006; Yoshizawa, Szumik et al. (2008) who subjected the group to careful cladis- 2007, 2011) and Neoptera except Plecoptera (Hennig, 1969, tic analysis. 1981; Beutel & Gorb, 2006). The current best consensus, Szumik’s (1996, 2004) and Szumik’s et al. (2008) con- however, is a sister group relationship between Phasmida and tributions have been significant in examining the homology

© 2012 The Authors Systematic Entomology © 2012 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology, 37, 550–570 552 K. B. Miller et al. of numerous morphological features, reconstructing the phy- Five genes were used in the analysis: cytochrome oxidase I logeny of the group based on cladistic methods, and revis- (COI, 1282 bp), 16S rRNA (16S, ∼580 bp), 28S rRNA (28S, ing the classification to better reflect the evolutionary history. ∼2800 bp), 18S rRNA (18S, ∼1800 bp) and histone III Despite these recent advances, a comprehensive treatment of (H3, 328 bp). Most methods, including primers used for the phylogeny of Embioptera using both morphological and amplification and sequencing are the same as in Miller molecular data and a critical examination of the classification & Edgerly (2008) except primers for 18S from Whiting in light of that phylogeny appears warranted. The goal of this (2002). Primers are shown in Table S2 and amplification project is such an analysis. conditions in Table S3. DNA fragments were amplified using PCR with TaKaRa Ex Taq (Takara Bio Inc., Otsu, Shiga, Japan) on an Eppendorf Mastercycler ep gradient S Thermal Material and methods Cycler (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) and visualized by gel electrophoresis. PCR purification was done using ExoSAP-IT Taxon sampling (USB-Affymetrix, Cleveland, OH, USA) and cycle-sequenced using ABI Prism Big Dye v3.1 (Fairfax, VA, USA) with Ingroup the same primers used for amplification. Sequencing reaction Embioptera are difficult to collect and require rearing to products were purified using Sephadex G-50 Fine (GE acquire males upon which the classification is based. Once Healthcare, Uppsala, Sweden) and sequenced with an ABI collected, specimens are often difficult to identify or repre- 3130xl Genetic analyzer (Molecular Biology Facility, UNM). sent undescribed taxa making taxon sampling more challenging All gene regions were sequenced in both directions, and than many other taxa. The ingroup includes 82 Embioptera sequences were edited using Sequencher (Genecodes, 1999). species. All currently recognized extant families of Embioptera For reasons that are unclear, Embioptera were difficult to (Miller, 2009) are represented with the exception of Embony- amplify and/or sequence, even with taxon-specific primers. For chidae Navas´ and Paedembiidae Ross, which are represented this reason, entire gene regions or portions of genes are missing by a few very rare species. Three families – Anisembiidae, for some taxa (see Table S1). Archembiidae and Embiidae – comprise the largest number of genera in Embioptera. Of these, Embiidae is not as well represented in the analysis as the others because many of these Morphology groups occur in Africa and Southeast Asia making their col- Morphological characters were derived primarily from lection difficult because of the challenging logistics of collect- Szumik et al. (2008), the most comprehensive dataset pub- ing in those regions. Only a single species of Andesembiidae lished to date. However, character codings were re-evaluated as (Andesembia banosae Ross) is included, so monophyly of that were state assignments for taxa. Some characters were omitted, family was not tested. See Table S1 for a list of included taxa. for several reasons (see Table S4). Differences in taxon sam- Not all species were identified beyond genus, and three species pling here rendered some original or reassessed characters of of Embiidae from Africa were not identified to genus. Each of Szumik et al. (2008) uninformative, and they were excluded. these appear to be undescribed taxa. Vouchers of extracted and Some characters were removed because they exhibited con- sequenced Embioptera are deposited in the Division of Arthro- siderable ambiguity among the included taxa. In other cases, pods, the Museum of Southwestern Biology, the University of characters were removed as we were less convinced of their New Mexico (MSBA, K.B. Miller, curator). validity either because of apparent ambiguity in homology assessment, the seemingly gradational nature of the character Outgroup states in question, or simply a disagreement in our observa- The outgroup includes nine species from the polyneopteran tions. In addition, the additivity of numerous characters were taxa Grylloblattodea, Blattodea, Mantophasmatodea, Ortho- reassessed because many multistate characters presented by ptera, Mantodea and Phasmida. Sequences were downloaded Szumik et al. (2008) were coded as additive, although not from GenBank. See Appendix for a list of outgroup species always in a way with which we could agree. Characters were and GenBank numbers of the sequences used in the analysis. examined also for alternative coding schemes that might better reflect our assessment of primary homology. Our choice of characters is determined partly because of lack of illus- Data tration or thorough explanation by Szumik et al. (2008), and we emphasized characters that have been used traditionally in DNA the classification or have been illustrated in previous works. DNAs were extracted using the Qiagen DNEasy kit Many of the included characters are illustrated and discussed (Valencia, CA, U.S.A.) and the animal tissue protocol. For more fully by Ross (2001, 2003a, b, 2006, 2007, and especially each specimen an incision was made along the lateral margin Ross, 2000). Despite our refinements in these characters, we of the thorax using a sharp razor and the specimen was acknowledge numerous remaining problems, and this character placed in extraction buffer. After incubation for several hours matrix should be considered provisional and subject to further or overnight, the specimen was retrieved from the extraction careful reinterpretation. We note also that in some cases we buffer and retained for vouchering purposes. use morphological terminology that reflects historical use in

© 2012 The Authors Systematic Entomology © 2012 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology, 37, 550–570 Embioptera phylogeny 553 the Embioptera literature, even though some of these terms are morphological data were analysed independently to examine not now used as generally across other taxa. Until Embioptera differences in the topology as compared with results of Szumik characters can be more thoroughly evaluated, this consistency et al. (2008). These data were analysed using parsimony sim- will aid future researchers in tracking their continuity between ilar to the strategy for the combined analysis. this study and earlier ones. The characters, as reassessed, are discussed in the Appendix. A few new characters applicable to Likelihood differences between outgroup taxa and Embioptera are added. A bootstrap likelihood analysis was conducted using RaxML Character state scoring mainly reflects that presented by v7.2.6 (Stamatakis, 2006). Morphology was not included. The Szumik et al. (2008) whenever taxon sampling overlaps at the model used was GTR-MIX (general time reversal mixed model species level, although a few taxa were assessed differently incorporating rate variation among sites) partitioning by gene and recoded (see above and Appendix). Females of many (9 partitions) and 2000 bootstrap replications. taxa were not examined, and these were coded either as in Szumik et al. (2008) or coded as ambiguous in species not Bayesian included by Szumik et al. (2008). One included terminal is A partitioned Bayesian analysis of both molecular and from a species or, possibly, a population (Haploembia solieri morphological data was conducted using Mr Bayes v3.1.2 Rambur) that is parthenogenetic, and male characters were all (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist, 2001). The molecular data were par- coded as inapplicable. Females and males in Embioptera are titioned by gene with a six parameter model, invariant sites and structurally quite different with females typically appearing gamma rate distribution. Morphology was included and mod- neotenous with wings absent and, except for paragenital elled with the MK1 default model. Four Markov Chain Monte sclerites, female reproductive tract, size and coloration, other Carlo runs were conducted for 40 000 000 generations sam- features similar to nymphal instars (Ross, 2000). For this pled every 2000th generation. The first 1 000 000 generations reason, many of the characters included refer only to males were discarded in each run as burn-in with the remaining trees or only to females. Outgroup taxa are coded as inapplicable pooled and summarized to find the topology with the highest for most characters because many are specific to Embioptera posterior probably, and to calculate clade support values as the and difficult to homologize. Morphological data are shown in frequency of each clade among the pooled trees. Table S5 and are available as a nexus file in the Supporting Information. Results

Analysis Analysis of the morphological data by itself resulted in excess of 10 000 parsimony trees, the consensus of which is shown in Alignment Fig. 1 (length = 412, CI = 29, RI = 82). This result is much Alignments of H3 and COI were based on conservation less resolved than the combined analysis (see below) and the of codon reading frame. These sequences evidently are not analysis of a much larger morphological dataset by Szumik length variable and are aligned easily by eye. 16S, 18S and et al. (2008). Because of considerable ambiguity in the scoring 28S exhibit considerable length variability in the included taxa of many characters used in that analysis (see above), data used and were aligned using the program Muscle (Edgar, 2004) here represent only a subset of that much larger dataset, which with the default settings. The bulk of the alignment-ambiguous is probably reflected in the lack of resolution. However, sev- regions in 18S and 28S are the result of inclusion of outgroups eral groups are supported by these data including Embioptera, rather than alignment ambiguity within Embioptera. Gaps in Clothodidae, Australembiidae, Archembiidae (except Archem- + this analysis are treated as missing data in all analyses. Aligned bia and Calamaclostes), Teratembiidae Oligotomidae (and data are available as nexus files in the Supporting Information. Teratembiidae within this group), and numerous genera. Some historically recognized groups are not monophyletic in this analysis including Anisembiidae, Notoligotomidae, Oligotomi- Parsimony dae and Embiidae. Although not represented in the consensus A combined equal-weights parsimony analysis was con- tree because of topological conflict (Fig. 1), a sister relation- ducted using the program NONA (Goloboff, 1995) as imple- ship between Clothodidae and the other Embioptera is repre- mented by WinClada (Nixon, 2002). The ‘Ratchet’ option sented in some of the most parsimonious solutions. was implemented using 800 iterations/rep, 1 tree held/iteration, The parsimony analysis of the combined data resulted in 16 734 (about 10%) characters sampled, amb-poly, and 10 ran- equally parsimonious trees, with the well-resolved strict con- dom constraint. The resulting trees then were resubmitted to sensus shown in Fig. 2. Support values are relatively strong for NONA and TBR branch swapping was executed to search for family-level groupings and within families, but among-family additional equally parsimonious trees. Branch support (boot- relationships are not well supported, in general (Fig. 2). The strap) was calculated in NONA using 1000 replications, 10 likelihood analysis resulted in one most likely tree shown in search reps, 1 starting tree per replication, don’t do max*, and Fig. 3 (final ML optimization likelihood =−94079.519732). save consensus of each replication. Because of considerable Bootstrap support across the tree is not strong for among- change to a published morphological dataset (see above) the family level relationships, but, like the parsimony analysis, is

each criterion. Andesembiidae includes only a single terminal exemplar and was not tested for monophyly. Other clades congruent between optimality criteria include Ter- atembiidae + Oligotomidae, Oedembia + Ptilocerembia,and Archembiidae (s.s., see below) + Notoligotomidae (s.s., see below) + Anisembiidae + Andesembiidae.

Classiﬁcation

Although taxon sampling is inadequate to examine the question comprehensively, the sister group to Embioptera based on this analysis is resolved as Phasmida in the parsimony analysis (Fig. 2) and Phasmida + Grylloblattaria in the likelihood and Bayesian analyses (Figs 3, 4), corroborating, in part, previous analyses that recognize close relationship between Embioptera and Phasmida (Flook & Rowell, 1998; Thomas et al., 2000; Whiting et al., 2003; Terry & Whiting, 2005; Kjer et al., 2006; Ishiwata et al., 2011; Wipfler et al., 2011). Family-group classification of Embioptera has changed considerably in the past 15 years as a result of several papers by Ross (2000, 2001, 2003a, b, 2006, 2007), Szumik (1996, 2004) and Szumik et al. (2008). The current family- group classification was summarized recently by Miller (2009). Of 11 families currently recognized (Miller, 2009), five were retrieved as monophyletic in this analysis (including Australembiidae despite evidence from the likelihood analysis, see below); one family, Andesembiidae, was represented by a single terminal taxon and, thus, not tested for monophyly, and two families, Embonychidae and Paedembiidae, were not included. Each family is discussed below in relation to results from this analysis.

Clothodidae Enderlein, 1909 Clothodinae Enderlein, 1909:175; as subfamily of Embiidae Burmeister, 1839, elevated to family by Davis (1940a); type genus: Clothoda Enderlein, 1909.

Discussion. This family was erected (Enderlein, 1909) to include the genus Clothoda Enderlein and, later (Enderlein, Fig. 1. Consensus cladogram of >10 000 equally parsimonious trees 1912), Antipaluria Enderlein was described in the family. resulting from analysis of Embioptera using morphological data alone. Most recently, in a revision of the group, Ross (1987) added additional genera. Members of the family are Neotropical mainly in lowland forests with domiciles on tree and rock relatively strong for family groups and within families (Fig. 3). surfaces (Ross, 1987). Other aspects of their biology are The Bayesian analysis resulted in a well-resolved tree with discussed by Ross (1987). strong support values across the topology at all levels of rela- Because of seemingly generalized morphology of the head, tionships (Fig. 4). wings and male genitalia, members of this group usually Results across optimality criteria are not strongly congruent have been regarded as sister group to the remaining taxa regarding interfamilial relationships, although in each anal- (Davis, 1940a; Ross, 1970, 1987; Szumik, 1996; Grimaldi ysis family groups are monophyletic with the exception of & Engel, 2005; Szumik et al., 2008). In a study of the Embiidae, Notoligotomidae and Archembiidae, which are not female postabdomen in ﬁve diverse embiopteran species Klass monophyletic under any optimality criterion (Figs 2–5). Aus- & Ulbricht’s (2009) showed that this body part exhibits tralembiidae is not monophyletic in the likelihood analysis. the overall most plesiomorphic morphology in Metoligotoma Teratembiidae, Oligotomidae, Clothodidae and Anisembi- (Australembiidae), whereas in Clothoda it is most derived. idae (each as deﬁned traditionally) are monophyletic under This rather suggests australembiids to be the sister group

Fig. 2. Consensus cladogram derived from 12 equally parsimonious trees resulting from analysis of Embioptera using the combined data. Numbers at branches are bootstrap values. Small tree inset is 1 of 12 equally parsimonious trees chosen at random to depict branch lengths mapped under ‘fast’ parsimony optimization in WinClada with grey section comprising Embioptera.

Fig. 3. Tree resulting from likelihood bootstrap analysis of Embioptera using molecular data alone. Numbers at branches are bootstrap values.

Fig. 4. Tree resulting from Bayesian analysis of Embioptera using combined data. Numbers at branches are posterior probability values.

Fig. 5. Comparsion of family-group relationships among Embioptera from each of three optimality criteria. Thickened branches are monophyletic groups of families common to each optimality criterion. Family groups represented by terminals are monophyletic in each optimality criterion except Australembiidae which is polyphyletic in the likelihood analysis and Embiidae which is not monophyletic in any trees. of the remaining embiopterans. In recent cladistic analyses Taxon content. Clothodidae currently includes the following (e.g. Szumik, 1996; Szumik et al., 2008), no non-Embioptera four genera: outgroup taxa were included and resulting cladograms were Antipaluria Enderlein, 1912 rooted using clothodids. There have been no comprehensive Clothoda Enderlein, 1909 analyses of Embioptera that tested the assumption that Chromatoclothoda Ross, 1987. clothodids actually are the sister group to the rest of the order. Cryptoclothoda Ross, 1987 And our analysis is the first to test this assumption explicitly. Our results indicate a monophyletic Clothodidae (including Australembiidae Ross, 1963 species in Clothoda and Antipaluria but with the other Australembiidae Ross, 1963:124; as family of Embioptera; described genera, Cryptoclothoda Ross and Chromatoclothoda type genus: Australembia Ross, 1963 (= Metoligotoma Davis, Ross, not included). However, placement is ambiguous with 1936, new synonymy). respect to optimality criteria. Parsimony resolved Clothodidae as sister to the remaining members of the order, but with Discussion. Australembiids are restricted to the east coast of low support (Fig. 2), but the Bayesian analysis and likelihood Australia in dry, sclerophyll forests where typically they create analyses (this last excluding the morphological data) found domiciles in leaf litter in which the entirely apterous males can Clothodidae nested well within the remaining Embioptera often be found with females and nymphs (Davis, 1936a, b, taxa, with better support (Figs 3, 4). Placement of this taxon 1938; Ross, 1963; Miller & Edgerly, 2008). Australembiidae, as sister to the remaining Embioptera taxa has been based including the genera Australembia Ross and Metoligotoma on authoritative assumptions about the polarity of certain Davis, generally has been regarded as monophyletic since the characters without testing them adequately. Although results family was erected by Ross (1963) for taxa placed previously from this analysis are inconclusive, care should be taken not along with Notoligotoma Davis in the family Notoligotomidae. to assume placement of Clothodidae as sister to the rest of the Davis (1938) and a recent paper by Miller & Edgerly (2008) order. Australembiids, instead, may represent the sister-group described the morphology, natural history and biogeography to the remaining Embioptera (see below, Fig. 4 and Klass & of australembiids, and their ecology and ecophysiology were Ulbricht, 2009). explored by Edgerly & Rooks (2004) and Edgerly et al. (2007). This analysis resulted in a monophyletic Australembiidae although Australembia is paraphyletic with respect to Metolig- Diagnosis. Clothodidae is characterized by males with rel- otoma, corroborating Szumik et al. (2008), and the topology atively, but not entirely, symmetrical male genitalia with ter- within Metoligotoma largely reflecting the results of Miller & gite X not medially divided, the left cercomeres elongate and Edgerly (2008) (Figs 2–4). Exceptional to this is the likelihood similar to the right cercomeres, and wing venation exten- analysis, which finds a polyphyletic Australembiidae with sive with most major veins bifurcated and with numerous one species, A. rileyi Davis weakly supported as sister to crossveins. Clothodidae in a different part of the tree. This untenable

© 2012 The Authors Systematic Entomology © 2012 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology, 37, 550–570 Embioptera phylogeny 559 result probably can be disregarded based on a wealth of largest diversifications in the Embioptera. The group is morphological evidence (Miller & Edgerly, 2008) as well as restricted to the New World from the southern Nearctic parsimony (Fig. 2) and Bayesian (Fig. 4) analyses of com- throughout lowland Central and South America and can be bined data. The parsimony analysis recovered Australembi- found in a great many different habitats. The group was treated idae sister to Embioptera except Clothodidae (Fig. 2), and completely by Ross (2003b) who discussed the natural his- the Bayes analysis recovered Australembiidae sister to all tory and biogeography of the group and mentioned numerous other Embioptera (including Clothodidae) (Fig. 4). Neither of additional species remaining to be described in his collection. these results have been proposed extensively in other liter- Although among the most diverse groups of Embioptera and ature, although Klass & Ulbricht (2009) found evidence for geographically restricted to the New World, this group is well Metoligotoma being sister to the remaining Embioptera (and supported as monophyletic (Figs 2–4). The clade differs in its Clothodidae nested higher within the group), which accords resolution with respect to other families depending on optimal- well with the Bayes analysis. Clothodidae has been regarded ity criterion, but always groups with Archembiidae (s.s., see as the sister to the remaining Embioptera based especially on below), Notoligotomidae (s.s., see below) and Andesembiidae the relatively symmetrical male genitalia, extensive wing vena- (Figs 2–4). tion compared with other Embioptera, and general features of the male head, each of which has been assumed to be ple- Diagnosis. The main morphological features uniting siomorphic. Australembiids have highly modified, extremely Anisembiidae include vein M not bifurcated, a single bladder asymmetrical male genitalia suggesting that relative symmetry A on the hind basitarsus, and the male mandibles sickle-shaped of these structures within clothodids may be derived. Aus- and apically not conspicuously dentate. tralembiids lack wings entirely (both females and males) and their wing venation cannot be assessed. The australembiid male head also is modified compared with other Embioptera that Taxon content. This taxon includes 24 currently recognized have enlarged palpi and characteristic robust mandibles, pre- genera (Miller, 2009). The various genera were assigned to sumably for grasping females during courtship or mating, but tribes and subfamilies by Ross (2003b), but many are invalid perhaps also for feeding; these are among the few adult male because they were not properly erected (Engel & Grimaldi, Embioptera that are known to feed, a possibly plesiomorphic 2006; Miller, 2009). The nomenclature of this large family feature, as well. They are not particularly similar to Clotho- needs to be revisited. The following genera are assigned to didae in many features, and relationships between Australem- Anisembiidae: biidae, Clothodidae and the remaining Embioptera taxa need Anisembia Krauss, 1911 further study. Aporembia Ross, 2003 Brasilembia Ross, 2003 Diagnosis. Australembiidae are characterized by males Bulbocerca Ross, 1940 apterous, robust and heavily sclerotized (some males are Chelicerca Ross, 1940 neotenous in some cases according to Ross (1963, 2000)), the Chorisembia Ross, 2003 left cercomeres fused and curved, and the right basal cercomere Cryptembia Ross, 2003 robust and short. Other male genitalic features are also unique Dactylocerca Ross, 1940 and complex (see Miller & Edgerly, 2008). Ectyphocerca Ross, 2003 Exochosembia Ross, 2003 Glyphembia Ross, 2003 Taxon content. Because of clear evidence of paraphyly Isosembia Ross, 2003 of Australembia with respect to Metoligotoma,asdefined Mesembia Ross, 1940 currently, in this analysis (Figs 2, 4) and in previous analyses Microembia Ross, 1944 (Szumik et al., 2008), these two genera are synonymized Oncosembia Ross, 2003 formally here. Metoligotoma Davis, 1936 has priority over Pelorembia Ross, 1984 Australembia Ross, 1963, so the valid name of the taxon is Phallosembia Ross, 2003 Metoligotoma Davis, 1936 (new synonymy). Thus, as currently Platyembia Ross, 2003 defined, the family includes only the genus Metoligotoma Pogonembia Ross, 2003 Davis. This has no affect on the family-group name, however, Poinarembia Ross, 2003 which remains Australembiidae Ross, 1963. Saussurembia Davis 1940 Schizembia Ross, 1944 Anisembiidae Davis, 1940 Scolembia Ross, 2003 Anisembiidae Davis, 1940:537; as family of Embioptera; Stenembia Ross, 1972 type genus: Anisembia Krauss, 1911. Andesembiidae Ross, 2003 Discussion. With 24 genera (Miller, 2009) and over 100 Andesembiidae Ross, 2003:1; as family of Embiidina; type species (Ross, 2003b), Anisembiidae represents one of the genus: Andesembia Ross, 2003.

Discussion. This is a recently described family circum- Archembia and Calamoclostes. All other Archembiidae sensu scribed to include two genera and seven species (Ross, 2003a). Szumik (2004) are transferred to a different family concept Its members are small and characteristic of high elevations in (Scelembiidae, see below). The family, as so defined, is found the neotropics. Their morphology and natural history are dis- in lowland Neotropical forests (Archembia) and higher eleva- cussed by Ross (2003a). tions in the Andes (Calamoclostes). Archembiidae, as defined A single species, Andesembia banosae Ross, was included here, belongs to a clade along with Notoligotomidae (s.s., see in this analysis, and, therefore, monophyly of the family was below), Anisembiidae and Andesembiidae (Figs 2–4). not tested. It is resolved under each optimality criterion with Notoligotomidae (s.s., see below), Archembiidae (s.s., see Diagnosis. Archembiidae, as restricted here, is character- below) and Anisembiidae, although its relationship with any ized by an expanded anal region of the wings, MA bifurcated one of these families is ambiguous and not well supported (though at least some specimens in each genus with MA not under any optimality criterion (Figs 2–4). furcated), the basal left cercomere with a prominent medial process that is echinulate, 10LP large and conspicuous, the Diagnosis. Andesembiidae is characterized by having vein anterior margin of the clypeus evenly curved (without processes), and either the medial flap (MF) elevated or with MA not furcated, tergite X divided to the base, the mandibles large, robust and with distinct apical incisor teeth, the a prominent sclerite in the posterior marginal membrane of left basal cercomere apically expanded with distinct medial tergite IX. echinulations, and the hind basitarsus long, slender and with only a single, apical bladder. Taxon content. As defined here, Archembiidae includes the two genera Archembia Ross, 1971 and Calamoclostes Enderlein. This is consistent with the original composition of Taxon content. Andesembiidae includes the two genera Archembiinae as a subfamily of Embiidae (Ross, 2001) but Andesembia Ross, 2003 and Bryonembia Ross, 2003. differs considerably from a later concept of the family-group by Szumik (2004). Archembiidae Ross, 2001 Archembiinae Ross, 2001:3; as subfamily of Embiidae Notoligotomidae Davis, 1940 Burmeister, 1839, elevated to family rank by Szumik (2004); Notoligotomidae Davis, 1940:536; as family of Embioptera; type genus: Archembia Ross, 1971. type genus: Notoligotoma Davis, 1936.

Discussion. This family was described as a subfamily of Discussion. As originally conceived, Notoligotomidae in- Embiidae (Ross, 2001) to include two genera, Archembia cluded taxa currently in Australembiidae (Davis, 1940b). Ross and Calamoclostes Enderlein. Subsequently, Szumik Ross (1963) redefined the group and restricted it to include (2004) elevated the subfamily to family rank and expanded only the eastern Australian genus Notoligotoma Davis and the definition well beyond the original two genera to include the Southeast Asian genus Ptilocerembia Friederichs with all Neotropical and an African genus placed historically in only few species. Members of Notoligotoma are relatively Embiidae. In this context, Archembiidae was defined based conspicuous elements of the Australian Embioptera fauna. The on tergite X with a large basal membranous region separating two currently recognized species may represent several more 10R and 10L except for a slender connection and the mandibles (Ross, 1963). Their natural history was discussed by Ross relatively short and with well-differentiated incisor and molar (1963) and Edgerly & Rooks (2004). teeth regions on the mandibles (Szumik, 2004). As defined here, the family Notoligotomidae comprises Based on this analysis, Archembiidae, as defined by Szumik only a monophyletic Notoligotoma (Figs 2–4). The other (2004), is not monophyletic (Figs 2–4). Rather, results support genus placed historically in this group, Ptilocerembia, is not a monophyletic group corresponding to Ross’s (2001) lim- closely related to Notoligotoma (Figs 2–4, see below under its on the subfamily definition, that is, the genera Archembia Ptilocerembiidae). Notoligotomidae is resolved in a clade and Calamoclostes together (Figs 2–4). All other Neotropi- together with Andesembiidae, Anisembiidae and Archembi- cal Archembiidae sensu Szumik (2004) are together mono- idae (s.s., see above) (Figs 2–4). Of this clade, Notoligoto- phyletic, but not related to the Archembia + Calamoclostes midae is the only group that is not Neotropical. This Aus- clade (Figs 2–4). The Archembia + Calamoclostes clade does tralian/Neotropical relationship suggesting an ancestral Gond- correspond to Szumik’s (2004) ‘Group A’. Because of wanian distribution of ancestral taxa is the only one like it in the seemingly clear evidence of monophyly of Archem- Embioptera. bia + Calamoclostes (Figs 2–4), historical emphasis on close relationship between these taxa (e.g. Ross, 2001), other phy- Diagnosis. Members of this group have the left cercomeres logenetic analyses grouping these taxa in their own clade (e.g. fused (apomorphic) and males that are either apterous or Szumik, 2004) and evidence that this clade is not closely winged with vein MA not bifurcate and with tergite X related to other Archembiidae sensu Szumik (2004), the fam- completely divided to the base with each hemitergite separated ily Archembiidae is here restricted to include only the genera by a broad membrane.

Taxon content. Under the deﬁnition used here, Notoligoto- from doing so. Placement of Oedembia and the African ‘Embi- midae includes only the extant genus Notoligotoma Davis, idae’ (EB142) suggest that there may well be additional, cur- 1936. An extinct genus, Burmitembia Cockerel, 1919 has been rently unrecognized family-group clades in the Embioptera. placed in this family in its own subfamily, Burmitembiinae Additional taxon sampling will be required to test the limits of Engel and Grimaldi, 2006. Embiidae adequately and establish formally these other family groups.

Embiidae Burmeister, 1839 Diagnosis. This family has the most problematic definition Embiidae Burmeister, 1839:768, as family (‘Embidae’) of in Embioptera because many of the diagnostic features have Tribus Corrodentia; type genus: Embia Latreille, 1925. similar corresponding features in other taxa, and the group evidently is not monophyletic (Figs 2–4). As currently defined, Discussion. This family has been one of the most problem- the family has males with vein MA bifurcate (in alate males), atic from the standpoint of classification, probably because the left basal cercomere apically clavate or with a medial it is the original family in the group and over time distinc- process and bearing echinulations, and tergite X entirely tive groups have been carved out of it leaving behind a loose divided medially. assemblage of taxa without convincing synapomorphies. The main subdivision in recent years was the removal of numer- Taxon content. Although now more restricted in its taxon ous taxa placed into the family Archembiidae Ross (Szumik, content than historically, and still probably not monophyletic, 2004), which was erected originally as a subfamily of Embiidae Embiidae includes numerous genera. Given the problems with to include most of the New World species (Ross, 2001). This the phylogeny of this group, a thoroughgoing phylogenetic resulted in a major reduction in the overall number of taxa in analysis with much deeper taxon sampling will result in more Embiidae restricting it to several genera in the Mediterranean changes to the content of this taxon. Along with the extinct region, throughout Africa, and in South and Southeast Asia. genus Electroembia Ross 1956, the following extant genera Members of the group are diverse in morphology and natural are assigned currently to Embiidae: history which has been discussed to a limited extent by Ross Acrosembia Ross, 2006 (2001) and Szumik (2004). Some members of the group are Apterembia Ross, 1957 parthenogenetic (Ross, 1960). Arabembia Ross, 1981 As defined historically, the family Embiidae is not mono- Berlandembia Davis, 1940 phyletic in this analysis under any optimality criterion Chirembia Davis, 1940 (Figs 2–4). Embiidae has been defined as Embioptera with Cleomia Stefani 1953 males having vein MA bifurcate (in alate males), the left Dihybocercus Enderlein, 1912 basal cercomere apically clavate or with a medial process and Dinembia Davis, 1939 bearing echinulations, and tergite X entirely divided medi- Donaconethis Enderlein, 1909 ally (e.g. Davis, 1940a). Each of these conditions occur in Embia Latreille, 1825 other currently recognized families, however, suggesting that Enveja Navas,´ 1916 Embiidae is not well-established based on morphology. In our Leptembia Krauss, 1911 analyses, Embiidae is separated distinctly into three groups. Machadoembia Ross, 1952 Embia (the type genus), Odontembia and two African species Macrembia Davis, 1940 (EB133 and EB140) are resolved in a distinct clade. An addi- Metembia Davis, 1939 tional African species (EB142) is isolated with an ambiguous Odontembia Davis, 1939 placement in each separate analyses (Figs 2–4). Our single Oedembia Ross, 2007 included species of Oedembia is resolved in a clade with Ptilo- Parachirembia Davis, 1940 cerembia (Figs 2–4). Oedembia is a Southeast Asian group Parembia Davis, 1939 which, although well-supported as sister group to Ptilocerem- Parthenembia Ross, 1960 bia, shares no unambiguous morphological synapomorphies Pseudembia Davis, 1939 with that group. Given that Embiidae has experienced considerable historical change in taxon composition, it is unsurprising Ptilocerembiidae Miller and Edgerly, new family that the group is not monophyletic. Because relatively few taxa Ptilocerembiidae Miller and Edgerly, new family: type currently placed in the family were included in this analysis, genus: Ptilocerembia Friederichs, 1923. and the few that were are not monophyletic, no changes to the classification are made here. Although it is tempting to Discussion. This group includes usually large embiopterans expand the definition of Ptilocerembiidae to include Oedem- in Southeast Asia that make large sheets of silk on trees bia, as no unambiguous synapomorphies were found for this as domiciles in the wet season when they breed. In the dry clade and there appears to be other additional Southeast Asian season, they appear to reside in silk retreats in leaf litter. The taxa possibly related to Oedembia (Ross, 2007) which were single genus, Ptilocerembia Friederichs, has been placed in not included here, we take a conservative approach and refrain Notoligotomidae for much of its history, although Ross (2007)

© 2012 The Authors Systematic Entomology © 2012 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology, 37, 550–570 562 K. B. Miller et al. implied that the genus should be placed in a new family. taxa included here belong to the historically recognized sub- Evidence from this anlaysis indicates that Ptilocerembia is family Scelembiinae Ross (2001), although the type genus, not closely related to Notoligotoma (Figs 2–4), the other Scelembia Ross (= Rhagadochir Enderlein), is not included. extant genus historically placed in Notoligotomidae. Instead, Pachylembia (the only genus in the historical Pachylembi- Ptilocerembia is resolved in a clade with taxa placed inae Ross) is not included in the analysis and its relation- currently in Embiidae (Figs 2–4). In addition to P. roepkei ships therefore were not examined. Based on the description Friederichs, specimens that appear to represent other species by Ross (2001) it appears that members of this genus are of Ptilocerembia are included in this analysis (Figs 2–4). more closely related to Scelembiinae than Archembiidae s.s., Although it is possible that Oedembia, sister to Ptilocerembia, although absence of a medial lobe on the basal left cercomere should be placed here, we take a conservative approach to this in Pachylembia makes placement of this taxon in Scelem- problem and leave Oedembia in Embiidae (see under Embiidae biinae problematic and worthy of further investigation. Of for further explanation). the two available names for this taxon, Scelembiinae Ross, 2001 and Pachylembiinae Ross, 2001, each has equal priority, but the first name includes the bulk of the known diversity Diagnosis. Ptilocerembiidae is characterized by M bifur- A in the clade. Further, as no members assigned to Pachylem- cated, antennal segments generally with long setae, tergite biinae were included in this analysis, the name Scelembi- X obliquely divided into two unequal sclerites with the area inae Ross, 2001 is resurrected and elevated here to family between the hemitergites depressed, HP relatively long (longer rank within Embioptera to include Scelembia, Pachylembia than the length of H), and the left cercomeres fused, some- and related genera (see list below), new status. Pachylem- times with the suture between the cercomeres indistinctly biinae Ross, 2001, previously in synonymy with Archembi- visible. idae Ross, 2001, is moved to synonymy with Scelembiidae Ross, 2001, new synonym. Under each optimality criterion, Taxon content. Ptilocerembiidae is erected here to include Scelembiidae is closely associated with a clade of Embiidae only the genus Ptilocerembia Friederichs, 1923. found in the Mediterranean region (including the genus Embia) and Africa (Figs 2–4). Scelembiidae (represented by Pararha- Scelembiidae Ross, 2001, new status gadochir) was included in the analysis by Szumik et al. (2008) Scelembiinae Ross, 2001:24; as subfamily of Embi- where similarly it was not associated with the clade containing idae Burmeister, 1839; type species: Scelembia Ross, 1960 Archembia. (= Rhagadochir Enderlein 1912); synonymy by Szumik (2004). Diagnosis. Scelembiidae is characterized by a reduced Pachylembiinae Ross 2001:81; as subfamily of Embiidae anal region of the wings, MA bifurcated (some specimens Burmeister 1839; type species: Pachylembia Ross 1984a; new with MA not bifurcated), the basal left cercomere with a synonymy. prominent medial process that is echinulate (though this is variable, especially in some Pararhagadochir, is not echinulate Discussion. Ross (2001) recognized four subfamilies of in Conicercembia and is absent entirely in Pachylembia), American Embiidae, Archembiinae Ross, Scelembiinae Ross, the anterior margin of the clypeus evenly curved (without Pachylembiinae Ross and Microembiinae Ross. Szumik (2004) processes), and the medial flap not elevated and without a reclassified this group placing Microembiinae in synonymy sclerite in the posterior membrane of tergite IX. with Anisembiidae and placing all other American taxa and the African genus Rhagadochir Enderlein in the family Archem- Taxon content. This is a large family of mostly New World biidae without subfamily divisions, thereby synonymizing genera and the African genus Rhagadochir Enderlein. Under Scelembiinae and Pachylembiinae with Archembiidae. Results this new definition, this subfamily includes the following from our analysis indicate that Archembiidae should be rede- genera: fined to reflect more closely the composition recognized orig- Ambonembia Ross, 2001 inally by Ross (2001) (see Archembiidae s.s. above). The Biguembia Szumik, 1997 remaining taxa represented in this analysis are from Ross’s Conicercembia Ross, 1984 (2001) concept of Scelembiinae, and they are together mono- Dolonembia Ross, 2001 phyletic (Figs 3–4) except in the parsimony analysis where Ecuadembia Szumik, 2004 Biguembia is in an unresolved position with sister to the Embolyntha Davis, 1940 other scelembiids one parsimonious solution. Pachylembiinae Gibocercus Szumik, 1997 comprises a single genus, Pachylembia Ross, which is not Litosembia Ross, 2001 represented in this analysis. Malacosembia Ross, 2001 Because of convincing evidence presented here that Archem- Neorhagadochir Ross, 1944 biidae sensu Szumik (2004) is polyphyletic, a new family Ochrembia Ross, 2001 group name is required for the monophyletic group of taxa Pachylembia Ross, 2984 not related to Archembia + Calamoclostes (Figs 2–4). All the Pararhagadochir Davis, 2940

Rhagadochir Enderlein, 1912 species are now among the most commonly encountered Xiphosembia Ross, 2001 Embioptera. The genus Haploembia includes both sexual and parthenogenetic taxa, as discussed in numerous papers by Teratembiidae Krauss, 1911 Stefani (1953, 1954, 1955a, b, 1956, 1960). Teratembiidae Krauss, 1911:33; as family of Embiidina; type Of the six currently valid genera, ﬁve were included in this genus: Teratembia Krauss, 1911. analysis. The group appears to be demonstrably monophyletic based on other analyses (Szumik, 1996; Szumik et al., 2008), and is also monophyletic in this analysis under each opti- Discussion. This is a group of four genera found in the New mality criterion (Figs 2–4). The genus Aposthonia, however, World. Ross (1970) has indicated, however, that the greatest appears not to be monophyletic (Figs 2–4) with each of the diversity in the group actually is found in Africa with other other included genera nested within this genus. Others already species in India and Thailand, although none of this diversity have proposed the possible paraphyly of Aposthonia (Ross, has been described formally. The known taxa are among the 2007), and there appear to be large numbers of undescribed smallest Embioptera. Their biology and natural history has taxa (Ross, 2007) suggesting that a thorough phylogenetic revi- been little investigated. sion within the family will be required to provide for a more The taxa included here, which may be a small representa- natural classiﬁcation. tion of the actual diversity (see Ross, 1970) are monophyletic Oligotomidae is resolved as the sister group to Teratembiidae and sister to Oligotomidae (Figs 2–4), a result consistent with in this analysis under each optimality criterion (Figs 2–4). historical assumptions about relationships between these two These two families, though mutually monophyletic, have been families (Krauss, 1911; Davis, 1940a; Ross, 1944) and recent closely associated historically (Krauss, 1911; Davis, 1940a; cladistic analyses (Szumik, 1996; Szumik et al., 2008). Ross, 1944), and have been resolved together as monophyletic in previous analyses (Szumik, 1996; Szumik et al., 2008). Diagnosis. As currently delimited, Teratembiidae is characterized by having vein MA bifurcated, the hind basitarsus with a single, apical bladder, tergite X incompletely divided lon- Diagnosis. Oligotomidae are characterized by lacking me- gitudinally, but divided transversely to the right margin and dial echinulations on the left basal cercomere (whether lobed with the anterior margin of tergite X extended ventrad under or not), tergite X incompletely divided longitudinally, but the posterior margin of tergite IX. The species generally are divided transversely to the right margin, and wing vein MA small. An undescribed African species assigned by Ross (1970) not bifurcated (when alate). to Teratembiidae apparently have MA not furcated. Taxon content. Six genera are currently assigned to Oligo- Taxon content. Teratembiidae includes four genera currently, tomidae: though Ross (1970) has indicated that most of the diversity of Aposthonia Krauss, 1911 the group remains undescribed, and presumably many new taxa Bulbosembia Ross, 2007 will be added to the family in the future. Currently included Eosembia Ross, 2007 genera are: Haploembia Verhoeff, 1904 Diradius Freiderichs, 1934 Lobosembia Ross, 2007 Oligembia Davis, 1939 Oligotoma Westwood, 1837 Paroligembia Ross, 1952. Teratembia Krauss, 1911 Embonychidae Navas,´ 1917 Embonychidae Navas,´ 1917:16; as family of Embioptera; Oligotomidae Enderlein, 1909 type genus: Embonycha Navas,´ 1917. Oligotomidae Enderlein, 1909:175; as family of Embiidina; type genus: Oligotoma Westwood, 1837. Discussion. This family is represented by a single species, Embonycha interrupta Navas,´ known only from northern Viet- Discussion. This family has had a similar composition since nam (Navas,´ 1917). Poorly known, this taxon has been pro- its inception over a century ago (Enderlein, 1909; Ross, posed as a close relative to Notoligotomidae or Ptilocerembia 1970), with three historically recognized genera: Oligotoma (Davis, 1940a; Ross, 1970). The family is unrepresented in our Westwood, Aposthonia Krauss and Haploembia Verhoeff. analysis. Three additional genera were described from Southeast Asia (Ross, 2007). Members of the group are endemic to the Mediterranean regions (Haploembia, although some additional Diagnosis. The description is inadequate to comprehen- taxa from other regions of the world are ambiguously placed sively diagnose the family, but according to Ross (2007) it in this genus, see Ross, 1966) and Central and Southeast Asia can be diagnosed by having vein MA bifurcated, the left cer- and Australia (all other genera). Members of the group have comeres fused, at least partially, the antennae without long been introduced throughout the world, however, and several setae, and the wings with white maculae.

Taxon content. Embonychidae includes only the genus and 2. Alate; adult males not neotenous; Neotropical ...... species Embonycha interrupta Navas,´ 1917...... Clothodidae – Apterous; adult males neotenous with simplified terminalia; Paedembiidae Ross, 2006 central Palaearctic ...... Paedembiidae Paedembiidae Ross, 2006:786; as family of Paedembiamor- 3. Left cercomeres completely fused and distinctly curved; pha; type genus: Paedembia Ross, 2006. right basal cercomere broad and short; males always apterous; easternAustralian...... Australembiidae – Left cercomere fused or not; right basal cercomere elongate Discussion. This, the most recently described family, was andslender;malesapterousoralate...... 4 erected for two new genera and species from Central Asia 4. Mandibles sickle-shaped, apically pointed and not dentate or (Gorochov & Anisyutkin, 2006; Ross, 2006). At least one with small denticles; vein MA not bifurcated; hind basitarsus species is unusual for being entirely subterranean, and both with a single bladder; Nearctic and Neotropical ...... have males that are strikingly neotenous. Ross (2006) found ...... Anisembiidae the unusual biology and morphology of these species to be – Mandibles robust, not sickle-shaped, generally with promi- so compelling he erected not only a new family, but also a nent teeth; vein MA bifurcate or not; hind basitarsus with one new infraorder, Paedembiamorpha Ross. Szumik et al. (2008) ortwobladders...... 5 thought then either to be sister to all embiopterans except 5. Tergite X incompletely divided longitudinally, with distinct Clothoda or sister to all embiopterans. The main feature sclerotized basal connection between hemitergites, (in Archem- supporting this is the nearly symmetrical condition of the male biidae and Scelembiidae comprised of only slender basal con- genitalia, but this may not be plesiomorphic within the order nection)...... 6 (see under Clothodidae above). Because paedembiids were – Tergite X completely divided longitudinally with distinct not included in our analysis, its relationships were not tested membranous area between hemitergites ...... 9 here. The natural history of the group was discussed by Ross 6. Tergite X nearly completely divided with only slender basal (2006). connection between hemitergites; basal left cercomere in most species with prominent medial process bearing small echinu- Diagnosis. Males of Paedembiidae are wingless and strongly lations (lobe variable in Pararhagadochir, prominent but not neotenous with highly reduced male genitalia that are nearly echinulate in Conicercembia and absent in Pachylembia).... symmetrical. As such, they are somewhat similar to Clothodi- ...... 7 dae but differ in lacking wings. – Tergite X with broad connection between hemitergites ...... 8 Taxon content. Paedembiidae includes the genera Paedem- 7. Anal region of wings not expanded; medial flap of tergite bia Ross, 2006 and Badkhyzembia Gorochov and Anisyutkin, X not elevated and without a sclerite in posterior membrane 2006. of tergite IX; Neotropical and Afrotropical . . . . . Scelembiidae – Anal region of wings moderately expanded; medial flap of tergite X elevated or with a distinct sclerite in posterior Key to the extant families of Embioptera (males only) membrane of tergite IX; Neotropical ...... Archembiidae 8. Vein MA with single branch; cosmopolitan ...... Embiopterans are difficult to key and difficult to identify ...... Oligotomidae to family. Although there are a few characters that might –VeinMA bifurcate; Neotropical (with numerous undescribed be used to identify females, males are the only life stage taxa apparently Afrotropical and Oriental) . . . . . Teratembiidae that can be reliably and consistently identified based on 9. Vein MA withsinglebranch...... 10 current knowledge, which makes identification of the several –VeinMA bifurcate...... 11 parthenogenetic taxa particularly problematic. The best key 10. Left cercomeres fused, sometimes incompletely with characters are general features of the wings, male genitalia suture visible between cercomeres; with two bladders on hind and number of bladders on the hind basitarsus, each of which basitarsus;Australian...... Notoligotomidae requires some special knowledge of Embioptera morphology. – Left cercomeres not fused; with one bladder on hind The best single comprehensive reference for Embioptera basitarsus;Neotropical...... Andesembiidae morphology is an excellent work by Ross (2000) which should 11. Left cercomeres fused, sometimes incompletely with be consulted for explanation of the characters included in this suture visible between cercomeres; basal cercomere without key. Characters in the following key refer to males. echinulations...... 12 – Left cercomeres not fused (a few rare taxa fused); basal 1. Male terminalia approximately symmetrical, tergite X not cercomere clavate or with distinct medial lobe bearing small medially divided; hind basitarsus with two bladders ...... 2 echinulations; Palaearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental ...... – Male terminalia strongly asymmetrical, tergite X medially ...... Embiidae completely or incompletely divided; hind basitarsus with one 12. Antennae with elongate setae; wings without maculae; ortwobladders...... 3 Oriental ...... Ptilocerembiidae

– Antennae without elongate setae; wings with white maculae; cryptic colonies of Clothoda, other Ecuadorian webspinners Oriental ...... Embonychidae and many of the Thai species.

Supporting Information References

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online Beutel, R.G. & Gorb, S.N. (2006) A revised interpretation of the evo- version of this article under the DOI reference: lution of attachment structures in Hexapoda with special emphasis on Mantophasmatodea. Arthropod Systematics and Phylogeny, 64, 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2012.00628.x 3–25. Table S1. Taxon sampling, voucher codes, collecting data Boudreaux, H.B. (1979) Arthropod Phylogeny with Special Reference and GenBank numbers. Taxonomy follows classification to Insects. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Burmeister, H. (1839) Handbuch der entomologie, Zweiter Band: prior to changes introduced in text. Befonbere etomologie. Zweite ubtheilung. Rauterfe. Gymnognatha. Table S2. Primers used for amplification and sequencing. T.C.F. Enslin, Berlin. Davis, C. (1936a) Studies in Australian Embioptera. Part I. System- Table S3. Amplification conditions used in PCR reactions. atics. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 61, Table S4. Characters included by Szumik et al. (2008) 230–253. Davis, C. (1936b) Studies in Australian Embioptera. Part II. Further but excluded in this analysis with explanations. notes on systematics. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New Table S5. Morphological characters analysed for Embio- South Wales, 61, 254–258. ptera and outgroups. Characters marked with ‘+’ are treated Davis, C. (1938) Studies in Australian Embioptera. Part III. Revision = = of the genus Metoligotoma, with descriptions of new species, and as additive. $ polymorphic, states 0,1; ? unknown; other notes on the family Oligotomidae. Proceedings of the Linnean −=inapplicable. Society of New South Wales, 63, 226–272. Nexus files. All data including morphology and aligned Davis, C. (1940a) Family classification of the order Embioptera. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 33, 677–682. molecular data. Morphology, 16S, 18S, 28S, CO1, H3. Davis, C. (1940b) Taxonomic notes on the order Embioptera. XX. The Please note: Neither the Editors nor Wiley-Blackwell distribution and comparative morphology of the order Embioptera. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 65, are responsible for the content or functionality of any 533–542. supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries Edgar, R.C. (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with (other than missing material) should be directed to the high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research, 32, corresponding author for the article. 1792–1797. Edgerly, J.S. (1997) Life beneath silk walls: a review of the primitively social Embiidina. The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids (ed. by J.C. Choe and B. Crespi), pp. 14–25. Cambridge Acknowledgements University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Edgerly, J.S. & Rooks, E.C. (2004) Lichens, sun, and fire: a search for We thank several individuals who provided specimens or an embiid-environment connection in Australia (Order Embiidina: advice during this project including S. L. Cameron, E. S. Ross, Australembiidae and Notoligotomidae). Environmental Entomology, C. Szumik and M. Terry. Thanks also to the following individ- 33, 907–920. uals who provided logistical support and camaraderie during Edgerly, J.S., Szumik, C.A. & McCreedy, C.N. (2007) On new numerous field campaigns, especially M. S. Adams, J. Cryan, characters of the eggs of Embioptera with the description of a new T. McCabe and J. Urban. Also assisting in fieldwork were E. C. species of Saussurembia (Anisembiidae). Systematic Entomology, Rooks. P. Poolprasert and P. Wongprom. Laboratory work was 32, 387–395. ¨ facilitated by several students from BYU and UNM including Enderlein, G. (1903) Uber die morphologie, gruppierung und sys- tematische stellung der Corrodentien. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 26, E. Bybee, W. Edelman, C. Geisik, T. Grzymala, A. Hodson, 423–437. H. Hopkins, S. MacNeil, E. Montano, A. Tafoya, N. Telles Enderlein, G. (1909) Die Klassifikation der Embiidinen, nebst mor- and R. Zalar and from SCU including S. Cook, J. Davila, phologischen und physiologischen Bemerkungen, besonders uber¨ K. Dejan, W. Knott, and K. Powers. Funding was provided das Spinnen derselben. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 35, 166–191. in part by NSF Collaborative Grants #DEB–0515924 (K.B. Enderlein, G. (1912) Embiidinen monographische bearbeitet. Collec- Miller, M. Whiting), #DEB-0515865 (J. Edgerly-Rook), and tions Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys Longchamps, 3, 1–121. #DEB-0515868 (C. Hayashi). We acknowledge the assistance Engel, M.S. & Grimaldi, D.A. (2006) The earliest webspinners of M. Sharkey (University of Kentucky) of the Thailand Inven- (Insecta: Embiodea). American Museum Novitates, 3514, 1–15. tory Group for Entomological Research (NSF #DEB-0542864) Flook, P.K. & Rowell, C.H.F. (1998) Inferences about orthopteroid who helped us obtain permits to collect in national parks of phylogeny and molecular evolution from small subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Insect Molecular Biology, 7, 163–178. Thailand, and W. Rojas and G. Banda Cruz for assistance Friederichs, K. (1923) Okologische¨ beobachtungen uber¨ embiidinen. in organizing permits in Ecuador. Permits for Thailand and Capita Zoologica, 2, 1–29. Ecuador were awarded to JSE (respectively, #002.3/6410 and Genecodes (1999) Sequencher, Version 3.1.1. Gene Codes Corpora- 018-IC-FAU-DNBAPVS/MA). Finally, we thank E. S. Ross tion, Ann Arbor, Michigan [WWW document] URL http://www. for his invaluable advice, allowing us to locate populations of genecodes.com.

Goloboff, P. (1995) NONA, Version 2.0. Published by the author. Ross, E.S. (1966) The Embioptera of Europe and the Mediterranean Gorochov, A.V. & Anisyutkin, L.N. (2006) A new genus and species region. Bulletin of the British Museum, 17, 272–326. of Paedembiidae from Turkmenistan. Proceedings of the American Ross, E.S. (1970) Biosystematics of the Embioptera. Annual Review Academy of Arts and Sciences, 57, 795–798. of Entomology, 15, 157–172. Grimaldi, D.A. & Engel, M.S. (2005) Evolution of the Insects. Ross, E.S. (1971) A new Neotropical genus and species of Embioptera. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. Wasmann Journal of Biology, 29, 29–36. Hagen, H.A. (1861) Synopsis of the described Neuroptera of North Ross, E.S. (1987) Studies in the insect order Embiidina: a revision of America, with a list of South American species. Smithsonian the family Clothodidae. Proceedings of the California Academy of Miscellaneous Collections, 4, xx, 1–347. Sciences, 45, 9–34. Hagen, H.A. (1885) A monograph of the Embidina. Canadian Ross, E.S. (1991) Embioptera – Embiidina (Embiids, web-spinners, Entomologist, 17, 141–155, 171–178, 190–199, 206–229. foot-spinners). The Insects of Australia, Chapter 26 (ed. by Hennig, W. (1969) Die stammesgeschichte der insecten. W. Kramer, I.D. Naumann, P.B. Carne, J.F. Lawrence et al.), pp. 405–409. Frankfurt. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Hennig, W. (1981) Insect Phylogeny. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Ross, E.S. (2000) Embia: contributions to the biosystematics of the Huelsenbeck, J.P. & Ronquist, F. (2001) MrBayes: bayesian inference insect order Embiidina. Part 1, origin, relationships and integumental of phylogeny. Bioinformatics, 17, 754–755. anatomy of the insect order Embiidina. Part 2. A review of the Ishiwata, K., Sasaki, G., Ogawa, J., Miyata, T. & Su, Z.-H. (2011) biology of Embiidina. Occasional Papers of the California Academy Phylogenetic relationships among insect orders based on three of Sciences, 149, 1–53, 1–36. nuclear protein-coding gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics Ross, E.S. (2001) Embia: contributions to the biosystematics of the and Evolution, 58, 169–180. insect order Embiidina. Part 3. The Embiidae of the Americas Jintsu, Y., Uchifune, T. & Machida, R. (2010) Structural features of (Order Embiidina). Occasional Papers of the California Academy eggs of the basal phasmatodean Timema monikensis Vickery & of Sciences, 150, 1–86. Sandoval, 1998 (Insecta: Phasmatodea: Timematidae). Arthropod Ross, E.S. (2003a) Embia: contributions to the biosystematics of the Systematics & Phylogeny, 68, 71–78. insect order Embiidina. Part 4. Andesembiidae, a new Andean Kjer, K.M., Carle, F.L., Litman, J. & Ware, J. (2006) A molecular family of Embiidina. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences, 153, 1–13. phylogeny of Hexapoda. Arthropod Systematics and Phylogeny, 64, Ross, E.S. (2003b) Embia: contributions to the biosystematics of the 35–44. insect order Embiidina. Part 5. A review of the family Anisembiidae Klass, K.-D. (2008) The female abdomen of ovipositor-bearing with descriptions of new taxa. Occasional Papers of the California Odonata (Insecta: Pterygota). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny, Academy of Sciences, 154, 1–123. 66, 45–142. Ross, E.S. (2006) Paedembiidae, a remarkable new family and Klass, K.-D. (2009) A critical review of current data and hypotheses on infraorder of Embiidina from Afghanistan. Proceedings of the hexapod phylogeny. Proceedings of the Arthropodan Embryological California Academy of Sciences, 57, 785–794. Society of Japan, 43, 3–22. Ross, E.S. (2007) The Embiidina of Eastern Asia, Part I. Proceedings Klass, K.-D. & Ulbricht, J. (2009) The female genitalic region and of the California Academy of Sciences, 58, 575–600. gonoducts of Embioptera (Insecta), with general discussions on Stamatakis, A. (2006) RAxML -VI - HPC: maximum likelihood-based female genitalia in insects. Organisms Diversity and Evolution, 9, phylogenetic analysis with thousands of taxa and mixed models. 115–154. Bioinformatics, 22, 2688–2690. Klass, K.-D., Picker, M.D., Damgaard, J., van Noort, S. & Tojo, K. Stefani, R. (1953) La fisiologia dell’accopiamento in “Haploembia (2003) The taxonomy, genitalic morphology, and phylogenetic rela- solieri” Ram. (“Embioptera: Oligotomidae”). Rediconti Accademia tionships of southern African Mantophasmatodea. Entomologische Nazionale dei Lincei, 15, 211–216. ◦ Abhandlungen, 61, 3–67. Stefani, R. (1954) 1 contributo all conoscenza della cariologia negli Krauss, H.A. (1911) Monographie der Embien. Zoologica (Stuttgart), insetti Embiotteri: La diganetia maschile tipo XO in Haploembia 23, 1–78. solieri Ramb. Rendiconti del Seminario della Facoltà di Scienze Latreille, P.A. (1825) Familles naturelles du règne animal, exposèes dell’ Università di Cagliari, 17, 82–86. succinctment et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs Stefani, R. (1955a) Revisione del genere Haploembia Verh. e genres. J.B. Bailliere,` Paris. descrizione di una nuova specie (Haploembia palaui n. sp.) Miller, K.B. (2009) The genus- and family-group names in the (Embioptera, Oligotomidae). Bollettino della Società Entomologica Embioptera (Insecta). Zootaxa, 2055, 1–34. Italiana, 85, 110–120. Miller, K.B. & Edgerly, J.S. (2008) Systematics and natural history of Stefani, R. (1955b) Studio citologico e zoogrografico della parteno- the Australian genus Metoligotoma Davis (Embioptera: Australem- genesi in Haploembia (Insetti Embiotteri). Bolletino di Zoologia, biidae). Invertebrate Systematics, 22, 329–344. 21, 121–124. Navas,´ L. (1917) Néuroptères de l’Indo-Chine,Vol.7,2eSerie.´ Revue Stefani, R. (1956) Il problema della partenogenesi in Haploembia Illustree´ d’Entomologie, Rennes. solieri Ramb. (Embioptera: Oligotomidae). Atti della Accademia Nixon, K.C. (2002) WinClada, Version 1.00.08. Published by the Nazionale dei Lincei, Series VIII, 5, 127–201. author. Stefani, R. (1960) I rapporte tra parassitosi sterilita maschile parteno- Ross, E.S. (1944) A revision of the Embioptera, or webspinners of the genesi accidentale in popolazio naturali di Haploembia solieri Ram. New World. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 94, Anfigonica. Revista Parassitologia, 21, 277–287. 401–504. Szumik, C.A. (1996) The higher classification of the order Embioptera: Ross, E.S. (1960) Parthenogenetic African Embioptera. Wasmann a cladistic analysis. Cladistics, 12, 41–64. Journal of Biology, 18, 297–304. Szumik, C.A. (2004) Phylogenetic systematics of Archembiidae Ross, E.S. (1963) The families of Australian Embioptera, with (Embiidina, Insecta). Systematic Entomology, 29, 215–237. descriptions of a new family, genus, and species. Wasmann Journal Szumik, C.A., Edgerly, J.S. & Hayashi, C. (2008) Phylogeny of of Biology, 21, 121–136. embiopterans (Insecta). Cladistics, 24, 993–1005.

Terry, M.D. & Whiting, M.F. (2005) Mantophasmatodea and phy- 3(4). Male mandible shape. (0) not elongate and sickle- logeny of the lower neopterous insects. Cladistics, 21, 240–257. shaped, apex with multiple teeth. (1) elongate, sickle- Thomas, M.A., Walsh, K.A., Wolf, M.R., McPheron, B.A. & Mar- shaped, apex acute without multiple teeth. den, J.H. (2000) Molecular phylogenetic analysis of evolutionary 4(6). Number of molar teeth on left and right mandibles of trends in stonefly wing structure and locomotor behavior. Proceed- males (additive). (0) 3–2; (1) 2–1; (2) 1–1. ings of the National Academy of Science, U.S.A., 97, 13178–13183. Westwood, J.O. (1837) Characters of Embia, a genus of insects allied 5(8). Incisor position on mandibles. (0) not concentrated at to the white ant (termites), with a description of the species of which apex of mandible; (1) concentrated at apex of mandible. it is composed. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 17, 6(11). Convexity on the lateral margin of mandibles. (0) 369–374. absent; (1) present. Wheeler, W.C., Whiting, M.F., Wheeler, Q.D. & Carpenter, J.C. 7(14). Anterior margin of clypeus in males (additive). (2001) Phylogeny of the extant hexapod orders. Cladistics, 17, (0) concave; (1) straight; (2) convex. 1–89. 8(15). Anterior margin of clypeus in females. (0) concave; Whiting, M.F. (2002) Mecoptera is paraphyletic: multiple genes and (1) straight. phylogeny of Mecoptera and Siphonaptera. Zoologica Scripta, 31, 9(16). Epistomal sulcus in males. (0) medial discontinu- 93–104. Whiting, M.F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. (2003) Loss and recovery ous externally; (1) continuous. Szumik et al. (2008) of wings in stick insects. Nature, 421, 264–267. referred to the ‘episomal’ sulcus, but presumably meant Wipfler, B., Machida, R., Mueller, B. & Beutel, R.G. (2011) On the ‘epistomal’. head morphology of Grylloblattodea (Insecta) and the systematic 10(17 in part). Ecdysial suture in males. (0) absent; (1) position of the order, with a new nomenclature for the head muscles present. The condition of this suture was coded in a of Dicondylia. Systematic Entomology, 36, 241–266. Yoshizawa, K. (2007) The Zoraptera problem: evidence for Zoraptera + single additive character by Szumik et al. (2008). It Embiodea from the wing base. Systematic Entomology, 32, is included here as two characters because the state 197–204. ‘absent’ in this character is not logically homologous Yoshizawa, K. (2011) Monophyletic Polyneoptera recovered by wing with the various conditions of the ‘present’ state rele- base structure. Systematic Entomology, 36, 377–394. gated to the following character. 11(17 in part). Ecdysial suture in males. (0) carinate; (1) a Accepted 19 March 2012 pigmented line. Those taxa without an evident ecdysial suture in character 10 are scored as inapplicable for this Appendix character. 12(18 in part). Ecdysial suture in females. (0) absent; (1) Morphological characters analysed in the cladistic analysis of present. Szumik et al. (2008) presented this character Embioptera. Number in parentheses refer to corresponding as a single additive character. See character 10 for a character numbers in Szumik et al. (2008). Characters in description of the treatment of that similar character in Szumik et al. (2008) not included here are presented in Table males. S4 along with an explanation for the exclusion. See further 13(18 in part). Ecdysial suture in females. (0) prominent and discussion under Morphology section above. distinctly carinate; (1) not prominent, represented by a pigmented line. See character 12. 14(21 in part). Length proportions of scape and pedicel. (0) scape = pedicel; (1) scape > pedicel. This charac- General ter and the following were combined into one additive character by Szumik et al. (2008), but this does not 0(0). Male development. (0) not neotenous; (1) neotenous. appear justifiable from the standpoint of homology and Males of some species seemingly have, especially, the it is not treated as additive here. 0, 1 and 2. head and thorax under-developed relative to males in 15(21 in part). Length proportions of flagellomere I and other species. pedicel. (0) flagellomere I = pedicel; (1) flagellomere 1(2). Ecdysial longitudinal white band on thorax and abdomen. I > pedicel. 0 = 0, 1 = 1, 2 = 0 (0) absent; (1) present. 16(22). Apical antennomeres in males. (0) not pigmented; (1) pigmented, similar to other antennomeres. Head 17(23). Apical antennomeres in females. (0) not pigmented; (1) pigmented, similar to others. 2(3). Male mandible shape. (0) with incisor and molar areas 18(26). Male mentum. (0) not sclerotized; (1) sclerotized. not differentiated; (1) with incisor and molar areas well 19(27). Male submentum, anterior margin. (0) membranous, differentiated. Szumik et al. (2008) coded this with not well defined; (1) straight; (2) concave; (3) convex. three states, but their states 1 and 2 did not appear to be Szumik et al. (2008) used a complicated cost matrix adequately differentiated in the taxa to which the states for this character, although it is not clear that such were assigned, and these two states were combined into a matrix is warranted. It is treated here as a single, state 1. multistate, nonadditive character.

20(28). Male submentum, width of base. (0) broader than 40(64). MA1 –MA2 cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. anterior margin; (1) subequal to anterior margin. 41(65). MA2 –MP cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. 21(31). Male submentum, surface. (0) with two deep concav- 42(66). MP –CuA cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. ities, or fovea, one on each side; (1) with one shallow 43(68). Cu–A cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. concavity; (2) without concavity. Szumik et al. (2008) treated this character as additive, but it is not clear that Abdomen the homology assessment justiﬁes additivity, and it is not treated as additive here. 44(81). Abdominal laterotergites on I–VIII in males. (0) comprised of a single sclerite per side; (1) divided Thorax into two sclerites, on anterior and one posterior. 45(82). Abdominal laterotergite in females. (0) comprised of 22(32). Male prothorax. (0) not pigmented; (1) pigmented. a single sclerite; (1) divided into two sclerites. 23(33). Female prothorax. (0) not pigmented; (1) pigmented. 46(83). Abdominal lateral white band in males. (0) absent; 24(34). Female mesoprescutum. (0) not divided into two (1) present. sclerites; (1) divided into two sclerites, one on each 47(84). Abdominal lateral white band in females. (0) absent; side. (1) present. 25(35). Mesoacrotergite (additive). (0) undivided; (1) partially divided medially; (2) completely divided medially Female terminalia into two sclerites, one on each side.

Legs 48(85). First valvifers. (0) well developed and clearly separated from medial sclerite; (1) well developed and par- 26(36). Medial bladder (pulvilli) on hind basitarsus in males. tially separated from medial sclerite; (2) differentiated (0) absent; (1) present. from medial sclerite by two emarginations on posterior 27(37). Medial bladder on hind basitarsus in females. (0) margin; (3) inconspicuous, differentiated from medial absent; (1) present. sclerite only by difference in pigmentation. Szumik 28(38). Medial bladder size in males. (0) large, >0.5 × width et al. (2008) coded this character as additive, but here of basitarsus; (1) small, <0.4 × width of basitarsus. it is coded as nonadditive. Outgroup taxa were coded 29(40). Medial bladder position in males (additive). (0) basal; based in large part on explanations by Klass (2008), (1) medial, (2) apical. Klass et al. (2003) and Klass & Ulbricht (2009). 30(41). Medial bladder position in females (additive). (0) 49(87 in part). Posterior margin of medial sclerite. (0) convex; basal; (1) medial, (2) apical. (1) straight. This character was coded with three 31(49). Coxal pigmentation in males. (0) absent; (1) present. additive states by Szumik et al. (2008), but here we have divided their character into what appears to be a more logical two characters. Character 49 emphasizes Wings (only in male) the states ‘convex’or ‘straight’ and character 50 includes only the convex state which may be ‘not 32(51). Wings. (0) absent; (1) present. This character was emarginate’ or ‘emarginate’ but which is ambiguous coded with three states by Szumik et al. (2008) who for those taxa coded ‘straight’ for this character. included a state for brachyptery. Because that state 50(87 in part). Posterior margin of medial sclerite. (0) not seemingly grades into full-sized wings across the emarginate; (1) emarginate. See discussion under char- group (and within a species, in some cases), we acter 49. have coded brachyptery and fully winged as simply 51(88). Posterior margin of second valvifers (ninth sternum, ‘wings present’. A number of taxa (e.g. Embia species, Ross, 2000). (0) bilobed; (1) convex, (2) straight. Szu- Anisembia species) were coded incorrectly for this by mik et al. (2008) coded this character as additive, Szumik et al. (2008) because they are polymorphic for but this does not necessarily follow from the states wings present and absent. These were recoded for this involved, and the character is not treated as addi- analysis. Those taxa with wings absent (but not those tive here. that are polymorphic) were coded as ambiguous for all the following wing characters. Male terminalia 33(52). Anal area in both anterior and posterior wings. (0) not expanded; (1) expanded. 52(90). Apical cercomere. (0) not pigmented; (1) pigmented. 34(54). MA. (0) not bifurcated; (1) bifurcated. 53(91). Basal cercomere. (0) not strongly curved, (1) strongly 35(56). Cu. (0) not furcated; (1) bifurcated. curved. 36(59). R1 –RS + MA cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. 54(93 in part). Ratio between lengths of basal and api- 37(61). RS –MA cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. cal left cercomeres (additive). (0) apical cercomere 38(62). RS –MA1 cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. length > basal cercomere length; (1) lengths sube- 39(63). MA –MP cross-veins. (0) absent; (1) present. qual; (2) apical cercomere length = 0.5–0.9 × basal

cercomere length; (3) apical cercomere length much that the entire series of states is justifiably so, and this shorter, <0.5 × length of basal cercomere. This character is not treated as additive here. The con- character and the following were coded as the dition of tergite 10 will require considerably more same character with additive states by Szumik et al. investigation to develop better coding and scoring in (2008). It is not clear, however, that cercomere fusion Embioptera. This character, as coded here, should be is logically related to the ratio of lengths of the cer- considered provisional. comeres in taxa with two clear segments, so this 61(117). LPP. (0) not fused to HP; (1) fused to HP. character was divided into two independent charac- 62(118). EP. (0) not fused to 10RP2; (1) fused to 10RP2. ters for this analysis with fusion incorporated into 63(119). 10RP2. (0) absent, (1) present. Szumik et al. (2008) character 55. Taxa coded for state 1 in character 55 coded the conditions of 10RP2 as separate states (see below) were coded as inapplicable for this char- in this character (which would more defensively be acter. included in a separate character), but those conditions 55(93 in part). Left cercomeres. (0) not fused; (1) fused. See (‘present as a small node’ versus ‘well developed’) character 54. Szumik et al. (2008) coded both appear to be relatively gradational in the included partial fusion and complete fusion as separate taxa and are not coded here. The previous character states (in their character 93, see our character 54). and the following three characters are scored as However, they did not, in fact, code any taxa inapplicable for taxa with the absent state for this as completely fused (their state 5 of character character. 93), possibly as an oversight because there are 64(120). 10RP2 shape. (0) broad; (1) slender. This wording numerous taxa that have the cercomeres entirely is a reinterpretation of Szumik’s et al. (2008) states, fused with no evidence of a suture between them but seems to be accurate. Szumik et al. (2008) coded (such as australembiids). Relatively fewer taxa (such several taxa with state 2, but did not describe a state as notoligotomids) have the cercomeres apparently 2. Those taxa coded with state 2 by Szumik et al. fused with a moderately distinct suture remaining (2008) should apparently be coded as state 1. between them. This condition is difficult to assess, 65(121). Microtrichiae on 10RP2. (0) absent; (1) present. however, and only the clearly unfused or relatively 66(123). Longitudinal and laminate keels on 10RP2. (0) absent; clearly fused condition is coded here (regardless of (1) present. whether a vague suture is visible or not). 67(126). Small, echinulate process on medial margin of 10R. 56(97). Medial process on left basal cercomere. (0) absent; (0) absent; (1) present. (1) present. Szumik et al. (2008) are not particularly 68(127). Anteromedial angle of 10L. (0) not excavated; clear or precise about which process on the left basal (1) excavated. cercomere is referenced in their various characters. 69(128). Posterior margin of 10L (additive). (0) convex; In many taxa there is a more-or-less distinctive (1) straight; (2) concave. prominence or process along the medial surface of 70(135). 10LP origination (additive). (0) at posteromedial the left basal cercomere which occurs roughly at midlength or more apically along the cercomere (see angle; (1) medially along posterior margin of 10L; character 58). There may also be another process (2) at anteromedial angle. This character was coded located more proximally along the cercomere (see by Szumik et al. (2008) as additive, but with states character 59). Characters 56 to 58 refer to the more 0 and 1 reversed with respect to our coding which apically- or medially-located process. We assume seems more defensible with respect to additive homology between these, but not between these and coding. the proximal processes. There are some taxa with 71(136). 10LP apex. (0) not expanded; (1) expanded. both processes. 72(140 in part). Longitudinal carina on 10LP1. (0) absent; 57(99). Length of medial process on left basal cercomere. (1) present. This character and the following were (0) < width of cercomere; (1) > width of cercomere. included in one additive character by Szumik et al. 58(100). Position of medial process on left basal cercomere. (2008), but it is here divided into two characters (0) apical; (1) at midlength. to reflect absence/presence and differences in the 59(105). Proximal process on left basal cercomere. (0) absent; present condition (character 73). (1) present. 73(140 in part). Longitudinal carinae on 10LP1. 0) one; ◦ 60(111). 10 tergite condition. (0) one sclerite; (1) partially (1) many. See character 72. This character is coded divided longitudinally into two subequal sclerites; as ambiguous for those coded ‘absent’ in character (2) completely divided longitudinally into two sube- 72. qual plates; (3) obliquely divided into two unequal 74(141). Surface between 10LP and 10L. (0) not depressed; sclerites; (4) divided medially with division extend- (1) depressed. ing transversely to right side. Szumik et al. (2008) 75(149). Longitudinal keel on 10RP1. (0) absent; (1) present. coded this character as additive. Whereas some in 76(152). Microtrichiae on 10RP1. (0) absent; (1) the series might be justifiably additive, it is not clear present.

77(155). LPP and RPP. (0) each well developed and subequal; (2) distinctly originating from right margin of H; (3) (1) RPP reduced. Szumik et al. (2008) included an distinctly originating from left margin of H. Szumik additional state for this character, but this seemed et al. (2008) developed a complex cost matrix for this ambiguous and their states 1 and 2 were merged into character that was not adopted for this analysis. a single state (1) for this analysis. 85(165). HP length. (0) < length of H; (1) > length of H. 78(156). Small process with microtrichiae between LC1 and 86(167). Transversal carinae on HP. (0) absent; (1) present. 10L. (0) absent; (1) present. 87(169). Microtrichiae on EP. (0) absent; (1) present. 79(158). LPP sclerotization (additive). (0) entirely membra- 88(170). EP shape. (0) inconspicuous; (1) broad and sclero- nous; (1) partially membranous and partially sclerotized; (2) narrow and sclerotized; (3) narrow and tized; (2) completely sclerotized. sclerotized with caudal apex expanded. Szumik et al. 80(160). Posteromedial angle of LPP. (0) without a process; (2008) treated these states as additive, but we treat (1) with a thornlike process; (2) with a prominent the states as nonadditive for this analysis. node; (3) with a ﬂat hook. Szumik et al. (2008) 89(175). Microtrichia on 10RP2. (0) absent; (1) present. coded these states as additive, but it is not clear that 90(178). Medial basal area of 10T. (0) without triangular these states are logically additive and are treated as sclerite; (1) with a triangular sclerite. nonadditive in this analysis. 91(180). RC1 shape. (0) not robust, short and broad; (1) robust, 81(161). Small process on anterolateral angle of LPP. short and broad. (0) absent; (1) present. 82(162). Microtrichiae on LPP. (0) absent; (1) present. 83(163). RPP sclerotization (additive). (0) entirely membra- New characters not included in Szumik et al. (2008) nous; (1) partially membranous and partially sclerotized; (2) completely sclerotized. Szumik et al. 92. Silk glands on prothoracic basitarsus. (0) absent; (1) (2008) included an additional state (3) refering to present. degree of sclerotization of RPP, but this state 93. Bladders on mesothoracic tarsi. (0) absent; (1) present. appeared indifferentiable from state 2 and was 94. Females. (0) not neotenous; (1) neotenous. See explana- merged with state 2 in this analysis. tion above under ‘Morphology’. 84(164). HP. (0) conspicuous, originates medially on H; (1) inconspicuous, arising more-or-less medially;

K.B. Miller et al, 2012. The Phylogeny and Classification of Embioptera (Insecta), Systematic Entomology

Supporting Information

Table S1 Taxon sampling, voucher codes, collecting data and GenBank numbers. Taxonomy follows classification prior to changes introduced in text.

GenBank Numbers Higher taxon Species 16S 18S 28S COI H3 Outgroup Mantoida Mantodea EF383315 EF383475 EF383637 EF383799 AY491333 schraderi Grylloblatta Grylloblattodea – FJ918664 FJ918686 – FJ918645 barberi Pteronarcys Plecoptera EF623261 AY521880 AY521812 – AY521726 californica Tyrannophasma Mantophasmatodea DQ890285 DQ457303 DQ457338 DQ890216 GU066923 gladiator Blattodea Blatta orientalis FJ806140 FJ806323 FJ806521 FJ802746 DQ873951 Orthoptera Gryllus assimilis EF050748 AY521869 AY521719 EF050743 AY521719 Locusta Orthoptera AY856117 AF370793 EF685941 GU122437 AF370817 migratoria Phasmida Timema knulli – AY121162 AY125302 AF410147 AY125246 Agathemera Phasmida Z93320 AY121186 AY125326 – AY125269 crassa Ingroup Code Locality Andesembia Ecuador, Azuay, Baños, nr Cuenca, 2º55.908’S Andesembiidae KBMC EB143 JQ907181 JQ907257 JQ907013 JQ907078 JQ907125 banosae 79º4.133’W, date, JS Edgerly, leg. USA, Oklahoma, Comanche Co., Witchita National Anisembia Anisembiidae KBMC EB34 Wildlife Refuge, NE Slope Little Baldy Mts, JQ907151 JQ907208 JQ906978 JQ907041 – texana 25 May 2003, EA Bergey, leg. Brasilembia Anisembiidae KBMC EB5 Brazil, Barra Velha, Sta Catarina – AY521845 AY521769 – JQ907093 beckeri Anisembiidae Chelicerca davisi KBMC EB54 Costa Rica JQ907154 JQ907215 JQ906984 JQ907047 JQ907101 Chelicerca Anisembiidae KBMC EB28 Label data unknown. JQ907148 JQ907205 JQ906975 JQ907038 – fangosa Chelicerca Anisembiidae KBMC EB79 Label data unknown. – JQ907240 JQ906999 JQ907062 – heymonsi Cryptembia French Guiana, Kaw Mt Res, Amazone Lodge, Anisembiidae KBMC EB59 JQ907158 JQ907220 JQ906989 JQ907052 JQ907106 amazonica 4º33’N º12.66’W, 8 Feb 2005, KB Miller, leg. Cryptembia Anisembiidae KBMC EB78 Label data unknown. JQ907167 JQ907239 JQ906998 JQ907061 JQ907112 multicolor USA, Arizona, Santa Cruz Co., nr Pena Blanca Dactylocerca Anisembiidae KBMC EB57 Reservoir, 31º23.78'N 111º5.249'W, 11 May 2003, JQ907156 JQ907218 JQ906987 JQ907050 JQ907104 rubra KB Miller, leg. Anisembiidae Stenembia sp. KBMC EB36 Trinidad, Moras, 10 July 2003, J Edgerly, leg. – JQ907210 JQ906980 JQ907042 JQ907100 Aphanembia Peru, Madre de Dios, Explorers Inn, 12º50.208’S Archembiidae KBMC EB56 – JQ907217 JQ906986 JQ907049 JQ907103 obscura 69º17.603’W, 10 Aug 2005, GJ Svenson, leg. Archembia Peru, Madre de Dios, Explorers Inn, 12º50.208’S Archembiidae KBMC EB62 JQ907161 JQ907223 JQ906992 JQ907055 JQ907108 batesi 69º17.603’W, 10 Aug 2005, GJ Svenson, leg. Archembiidae Archembia dilata KBMC EB27 Uruguay, P.Prov., Misiones, 10 Dec 1999, Szumik, JQ907147 JQ907204 JQ906974 – JQ907097 2

leg. Biguembia Archembiidae KBMC EB4 Brazil, E of Nazare do Pinhui JQ907139 JQ907196 JQ906966 JQ907029 JQ907092 multivenosa Calamoclostes Ecuador, Cañar, Ingapirca, 2º32.95’S 78º52.3’W, Archembiidae KBMC EB136 JQ907178 JQ907254 JQ907010 JQ907075 JQ907123 sp. date, JS Edgerly, leg. Conicercembia Mexico, 8km S Mazatla, 15 Dec 2005, JS Edgerly, Archembiidae KBMC EB80 JQ907168 JQ907241 JQ907000 JQ907063 JQ907113 septentrionalis leg. Conicercembia Mexico, El Ocotillo, 10km SE Tepic, 17 Dec 2005, Archembiidae KBMC EB85 JQ907170 JQ907244 JQ907003 JQ907066 JQ907116 tepicensis JS Edgerly, leg. Gibocercus Archembiidae KBMC EB23 Label data unknown. JQ907143 JQ907201 JQ906970 JQ907034 JQ907095 chaco Gibocercus Ecuador, Pano, Aliñahui, 1º2.0833’S 77º34.783’W, Archembiidae KBMC EB146 JQ907182 JQ907259 – JQ907080 JQ907127 sandrae date, JS Edgerly, leg. Ecuador, Pano, 13km N Archidona, 0º45.49’S Archembiidae Gibocercus sp. KBMC EB134 – JQ907252 – JQ907073 JQ907121 77º47.75’W, date, JS Edgerly, leg. Neorhagadochir Archembiidae KBMC EB75 Mexico, nr Morelia, JS Edgerly, leg. JQ907166 JQ907236 JQ906997 JQ907060 JQ907111 moreliensis Pararhagadochir Argentina, Corrientes, PNM Burucuyé, 30 Mar Archembiidae KBMC EB26 JQ907146 JQ907203 JQ906973 JQ907037 JQ907096 confusa 2001. Bolivia, Dpto Santa Cruz, Potrerillos del Guenda Pararhagadochir Archembiidae KBMC EB61 Res., 17º40.262’S 63º27.445’W, 14 Jan 2005, KB JQ907160 JQ907222 JQ906991 JQ907054 – flavicollis Miller, leg. Pararhagadochir Argentina, Corrientes, PNM Burucuyé, 30 Mar Archembiidae KBMC EB25 JQ907145 JQ907202 JQ906972 JQ907036 – schadei 2001. Pararhagadochir Ecuador, Pano, Aliñahui, 1º2.0833’S 77º34.783’W, Archembiidae KBMC EB145 – JQ907258 JQ907014 JQ907079 JQ907126 sp. date, JS Edgerly, leg. Bolivia, Sta Cruz, Florida, ~13km W Pampa Pararhagadochir Archembiidae KBMC EB147 Grande, 18º5.422’S 64º8.468’W, 04 Oct 2007, KB – JQ907260 JQ907015 JQ907081 – sp. Miller, leg. Pararhagadochir Archembiidae KBMC EB42 Brazil, 12 km SE Patos, 7 Jun 2001 JQ907153 JQ907213 JQ906983 JQ907045 – sp. Pararhagadochir Archembiidae KBMC EB6 Brazil, 12 km SE Patos, 7 Jun 2001 JQ907140 JQ907197 JQ906967 JQ907030 – sp. Pararhagadochir Archembiidae KBMC EB24 Argentina, Salta Prov. JQ907144 – JQ906971 JQ907035 – trachelia Australembia Australia, Queensland, Magnetic Island, JS Australembiidae KBMC EB194 – JQ907273 JQ907028 JQ907090 JQ907137 incompta Edgerly, leg. Australembia Australia, Queensland, Hidden Valley, 2 Dec 2002, Australembiidae KBMC EB8 EU157037 JQ907198 AY521771 EU157063 EU157029 rileyi JS Edgerly, leg. Australia, New South Wales, Tathra, south head, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB76 mouth of Bega River, 36º43.746’S 149º58.966’E, EU157048 JQ907237 EU157060 EU157072 EU157035 begae 21 Nov 2005, Miller and Rooks, legs. Australia, New South Wales, Tathra, south head, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB63 mouth of Bega River, 36º43.746'S 149º58.966'E, EU157040 JQ907224 EU157052 EU157066 EU157032 bidens 21 Nov 2005, Miller and Rooks, legs. Australia, New South Wales, Tuross Head, nr Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB69 Moruya, 36º3.514’S 150º7.766’E, 19 Nov 2005, EU157046 JQ907230 EU157058 EU157071 JQ915209 brevispina Miller and Rooks, legs. Metoligotoma Australia, New South Wales, Moruya Head north, Australembiidae KBMC EB65 EU157042 JQ907226 EU157054 EU157065 EU157033 extorris 35º54.025'S 150º8.12'E, 19 Nov 2005, Miller and 3

Rooks, legs. Australia, New South Wales, Austinmer, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB67 34º18.116'S 150º55.554'E, 14 Nov 2005, Miller and EU157044 JQ907228 EU157056 EU157069 JQ915208 illawarrae Rooks, legs. Australia, Australia Capital Territory, Canberra, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB68 Black Mountain, 35º16'S 149º6'E, 26 Nov 2005, EU157045 JQ907229 EU157057 EU157070 – ingens Miller and Rooks, legs. Australia, New South Wales, Shellharbour, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB66 Blackbutt Reserve, 34º34.122'S 150º50.544'E, 15 EU157043 JQ907227 EU157055 EU157068 JQ915207 pentanesiana Nov, 2005, Miller and Rooks, legs. Australia, New South Wales, Central Tilba, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB64 36º18.319'S 150º4.359'E, 20 Nov 2005, Miller and EU157041 JQ907225 EU157053 EU157067 JQ915206 pugionifer Rooks, legs. Australia, New South Wales, Otford Lookout, Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB70 34º12’S 151º1’E, 14 Nov 2005, Miller and Rooks, EU157047 JQ907231 EU157059 EU157064 EU157034 reducta legs. Australia, New South Wales, Platypus Res., 4km E Metoligotoma Australembiidae KBMC EB77 Bombala, 36º54’S 149º16.7’E, 24 Nov 2005, Miller EU157049 JQ907238 EU157061 EU157073 EU157036 rooksi and Rooks, legs. Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad, date, JS Edgerly, Clothodidae Antipaluria urichi KBMC EB9 JQ907142 JQ907199 JQ906969 JQ907032 – leg. Clothoda nr. Ecuador, Pano, near Tena, 1º3.917’S Clothodidae KBMC EB135 – JQ907253 JQ907009 JQ907074 JQ907122 longicauda 77º53.967’W, date, JS Edgerly, leg. Italy, Sardinia, Nuoru Prov., 15km E Seui, M. Embiidae Embia nuragica KBMC EB74 Tonneri Rd., 39º52.569'N 9º20.717'E, 953m, 18 JQ907165 JQ907235 JQ906996 JQ907059 JQ907110 Apr 2006, KB Miller, leg. Italy, Pisa, Pisa Reg., Santa Luce, 43º28'N Embiidae Embia ramburi KBMC EB101 JQ907173 JQ907247 – – – 10º34'E, 30 Apr 2006, KB Miller, leg. Italy, Sardinia, Cagliari Prov., S Antioco Island nr Embiidae Embia sp. KBMC EB73 Colonia, 39º0.649'N 8º23.012'E, 30m, 19 Apr 2006, JQ907164 JQ907234 JQ906995 JQ907058 – KB Miller, leg. Italy, Sardinia, Cagliari Prov., 2.5km N Embiidae Embia tyrrhenica KBMC EB72 Fluminimaggiore, 39º26.819'N 8º27.84'E, 29m, 20 JQ907163 JQ907233 JQ906994 JQ907057 – Apr 2006, KB Miller, leg. Zambia, Northwestern Province, Nkunya military Embiidae Embiidae sp. KBMC EB133 base, stream, 11º48.79’S 24º22.01’E, 07 Nov JQ907177 JQ907251 – JQ907072 JQ907120 2007, Miller and Edgerly, leg. Zambia, Northwestern Province, Nkunya military base, ~12km SW Mwinilunga, 11º48.79’S Embiidae Embiidae sp. KBMC EB140 JQ907179 JQ907255 JQ907011 JQ907076 JQ907124 24º22.01’E, 1450m, 04 Nov 2007, Miller and Edgerly, leg. Zambia, Northwestern Province, Mwinilunga, Embiidae Embiidae sp. KBMC EB142 11º43.667’S 24º26.488’E, 1275m, 05 Nov 2007, JQ907180 JQ907256 JQ907012 JQ907077 – Miller and Edgerly, leg. Ghana, Volta Region, Volta Region; Nkwanta, near Odontembia Embiidae KBMC EB84 Wildlife Division office; 7º15.542’N 0º31.137’E, JQ907169 JQ907242 JQ907001 JQ907064 JQ907114 jacobi 225m, 13-17 Jun 2005, KB Miller, leg. Thailand: Dol Inthanon, 18°32.608'N 98°31.521'E, Embiidae Oedembia sp. KBMC EB170 JQ907192 JQ907270 JQ907025 JQ907089 JQ907134 1273m, date, JS Edgerly, leg. Notoligotomidae Notoligotoma KBMC EB18 Australia, Queensland, Magnetic Island, 2002, J. S. EU157038 JQ907200 EU157050 JQ907033 EU157030 4

hardyi Edgerly, leg. Australia, New South Wales, Mumbulla Falls, Notoligotoma Notoligotomidae KBMC EB89 Biamanga National Park, 36º34’S 149º56’E, 21 JQ907171 JQ907245 JQ907004 JQ907067 – nitens Nov 2005, KB Miller, leg. Ptilocerembia Malaysia, Sarawak, Lambir Hills National Park, Notoligotomidae KBMC EB129 JQ907175 JQ907249 JQ907007 JQ907070 – roepkei 4º11.9’N 114º2.523’E, 12 Oct 2006, KB Miller, leg. Thailand, Hom Pok, 20°00.633'N 99°09.718'E, Notoligotomidae Ptilocerembia sp. KBMC EB151 JQ907183 JQ907261 JQ907016 JQ907082 – 1399m, 21 Apr 2008, JS Edgerly, leg. Thailand, Myanmar, Thai border, 20°07.976'N Notoligotomidae Ptilocerembia sp. KBMC EB157 JQ907185 JQ907263 JQ907018 – JQ907129 99°09.562'E, 2068m, 4 April 2008, JS Edgerly, leg. Thailand: Dol Inthanon, 18°32.608'N 98°31.521'E, Notoligotomidae Ptilocerembia sp. KBMC EB162 JQ907187 JQ907265 JQ907020 JQ907085 – 1273m, date, JS Edgerly, leg. Thailand, Chang Dao Wildlife Sanc., date.., JS Notoligotomidae Ptilocerembia sp. KBMC EB164 JQ907189 JQ907267 JQ907022 – JQ907132 Edgerly, leg. Aposthonia Thailand, Hom Pok, 20°00.633'N 99°09.718'E, Oligotomidae KBMC EB154 JQ907184 JQ907262 JQ907017 JQ907083 JQ907128 borneensis 1399m, 21 Apr 2008, JS Edgerly, leg. Aposthonia India, Karnataka, Siddapur, 14º20.307’N Oligotomidae KBMC EB58 JQ907157 JQ907219 JQ906988 JQ907051 JQ907105 ceylonica 74º52.881’E, 07 Oct 2004, KB Miller, leg. Australia, New South Wales, Tantawango Aposthonia Oligotomidae KBMC EB71 Mountain Road, 36º47.268’S 149º36.206’E, 23 Nov JQ907162 JQ907232 JQ906993 JQ907056 JQ907109 glauerti 2005, Miller and Rooks, legs. Australia, Northern Territory, 6km W Alice Springs, Aposthonia Oligotomidae KBMC EB60 23º44.3'S 133º44.484'E, 08 Oct 2002, KB Miller, JQ907159 JQ907221 JQ906990 JQ907053 JQ907107 gurneyi leg. Australia, New South Wales, Tathra, south head, Oligotomidae Aposthonia sp. KBMC EB103 mouth of Bega River, 36º43.746’S 149º58.966’E, JQ907174 JQ907248 JQ907006 JQ907069 JQ907118 21 Nov 2005, Miller and Rooks, legs. Malaysia, Sarawak, Gunung Mulu National Park, nr Oligotomidae Aposthonia sp. KBMC EB130 headquarters, 4º2.15’N 114º48.967’E, 16 Oct JQ907176 JQ907250 JQ907008 JQ907071 JQ907119 2006, KB Miller, leg. Thailand, Inthanon, 18°31.771'N 98°36.599'E, Oligotomidae Aposthonia sp. KBMC EB158 JQ907186 JQ907264 JQ907019 JQ907084 JQ907130 583m, 1 May 2008, JS Edgerly, leg. Thailand, Dol Suthap, 18°48.975'N 98°53.351'E, Oligotomidae Aposthonia sp. KBMC EB165 JQ907190 JQ907268 JQ907023 JQ907087 – 1527m, date, JS Edgerly, leg. Thailand, Lumpini Botanical Garden, Bangkok, Oligotomidae Aposthonia sp. KBMC EB171 JQ907193 JQ907271 JQ907026 – JQ907135 date…, JS Edgerly, leg. Eosembia Thailand, Chang Dao Wildlife Sanc., date.., JS Oligotomidae KBMC EB168 JQ907191 JQ907269 JQ907024 JQ907088 JQ907133 auripecta Edgerly, leg. Thailand, Huay Nam Dang, 19°18.917N Oligotomidae Eosembia sp. KBMC EB173 JQ907194 JQ907272 JQ907027 – JQ907136 98°36.348E, 1597m, date, JS Edgerly, leg. Haploembia Oligotomidae KBMC EB29 USA, California, Riverside. JQ907149 JQ907206 JQ906976 JQ907039 JQ907098 solieri Italy, Pisa, Pisa Reg., Santa Luce, 43º28'N Oligotomidae Haploembia sp. KBMC EB86 – JQ907243 JQ907002 JQ907065 JQ907115 10º34'E, 30 Apr 2006, KB Miller, leg. USA, California: Mountain View, 14 Jul 06, N Oligotomidae Haploembia sp. KBMC EB93 JQ907172 JQ907246 JQ907005 JQ907068 JQ907117 Calvert, leg. Thailand, Dol Pha Hom Pak, at guesthouse, Oligotomidae Lobosembia sp. KBMC EB163 JQ907188 JQ907266 JQ907021 JQ907086 JQ907131 20°2.730'N 99°8.726'E, JS Edgerly, leg. Oligotoma India, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad City, University Oligotomidae KBMC EB55 JQ907155 JQ907216 JQ906985 JQ907048 JQ907102 humbertiana of Hyderabad campus, MVL, 2 Nov 2004, GJ 5

Svenson, leg. USA, Arizona, Maricopa Co., Pioneer Park, Mesa, Oligotomidae Oligotoma nigra KBMC EB1 JQ907138 JQ907195 AY125274 – JQ907091 15 Jun 2000, MD Terry, leg. Oligotoma Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad, date, JS Edgerly, Oligotomidae KBMC EB50 EU157039 JQ907214 EU157051 JQ907046 EU157031 saundersii leg. Trinidad and Tobago, Tobago, Speyside, 1 July Teratembiidae Diradius sp. KBMC EB35 JQ907152 JQ907209 JQ906979 – – 2003. Diradius USA, Florida, Miami-Dade Co., Everglades, Royal Teratembiidae KBMC EB37 – JQ907211 JQ906981 JQ907043 – vandykei Palm Park, 13 Jul 2003, Edgerly, leg. Oligembia USA, Florida, Miami-Dade Co., Coral Gables, 17 Teratembiidae KBMC EB38 – JQ907212 JQ906982 JQ907044 – hubbardi Jun 2003, J. Edglery, leg. Teratembia Teratembiidae KBMC EB31 Argentina, Chaco. JQ907150 JQ907207 JQ906977 JQ907040 JQ907099 geniculata Teratembiidae Teratembia sp. KBMC EB7 Brazil, hill above Gurinhem JQ907141 AY121135 JQ906968 JQ907031 JQ907094

K.B. Miller et al, 2012. The Phylogeny and Classification of Embioptera (Insecta), Systematic Entomology

Supporting Information

Table S2. Primers used for amplification and sequencing.

Gene Primer Direction Sequence (5’–3’) COI C1–J–1718 (“Mtd6”)A For GGA GGA TTT GGA AAT TGA TTA GTT CC COI C1–J–2183 (“Jerry”)A Rev CAA CAT TTA TTT TGA TTT TTT GG COI TL2–N–3014 (“Pat”)A Rev TCC AAT GCA CTA ATC TGC CAT ATT A COI C1–J–1751 (“Ron”)A For GGA TCA CCT GAT ATA GCA TT CCC COI C1–N–2191(“Nancy”)A Rev CCC GGT AAA ATT AAA ATA TAA ACT TC COI EBCOIF1B For GTW ATA CCM ATY ATA ATT GGW GG COI EBCOIF2B For CCM ATY ATA ATT GGW GGW TTY GG COI EBCOIF3B For GAA GTY TAY ATT CTW ATY YTA CCK GG COI EBCOIR1B Rev CCM GGT ARR ATW AGA ATR TAR ACT TC COI EBCOIR2B Rev GRG TWA TRA TRT GRG ARA TTA TWC C COI EBCOIR3B Rev RGT WGC TGA WGT RAA RTA RGC TC COI EBCOIR4B Rev RTG RGC TAC TAC ATA RTA WGT RTC H3 HafC For ATG GCT CGT ACC AAG CAG ACG GC H3 HarC Rev ATA TCC TTG GGC ATG ATG GTG AC 28S Rd1aD For CCC SCG TAA YTT AGG CAT AT 28S Rd4bD Rev CCT TGG TCC GTG TTT CAA GAC 28S Rd3aD For AGT ACG TGA AAC CGT TCA GG 28S 28SAD For GAC CCG TCT TGA AGC ACG 28S 28SBD Rev TCG GAA GGA ACC AGC TAC 28S Rd4.5aD For AAG TTT CCC TCA GGA TAG CTG 28S Rd5aD For GGY GTT GGT TGC TTA AGA CAG 28S Rd5bD Rev CCA CAG CGC CAG TTC TGC TTA C 28S Rd7b1D Rev GAC TTC CCT TAC CTA CAT 18S 1FD For TAC CTG GTT GAT CCT GCC AGT AG 18S b5.0D Rev TAA CCG CAA CAA CTT TAA T 18S aiD For CCT GAG AAA CGG CTA CCA CAT C 18S biD Rev GAG TCT CGT TCG TTA TCG GA 18S b0.5D Rev GTT TCA GCT TTG CAA CCA T 18S a1.0D For GGT GAA ATT CTT GGA YCG TC 18S 7RD Rev GCA TCA CAG ACC TGT TAT TGC 18S a2.0D For ATG GTT GCA AAG CTG AAA C 18S 9RD Rev GAT CCT TCC GCA GGT TCA CCT AC 16S AE For CGC CTG TTT ATC AAA AAC AT 16S BE Rev CTC CGG TTT GAA CTC AGA TCA ASimon et al. (1994) BMiller and Edgerly (2008) CColgan et al. (1998) DWhiting (2002) ESvenson and Whiting (2004)

Colgan, D. J., A. McLauchlan, G. D. F. Wilson, S. P. Livingston, G. D. Edgecombe, J. Macaranas, G. Cassis, and M. R. Gray. 1998. Histone H3 and U2 snRNA DNA sequences and arthropod molecular evolution. Australian Journal of Zoology 46:419– 437. Miller, K. B., and J. S. Edgerly. 2008. Systematics and natural history of the Australian genus Metoligotoma Davis (Embioptera: Australembiidae). Invertebrate Systematics 22:329- 344. Simon, C., F. Frati, A. Beckenbach, B. Crespi, H. Liu, and P. Flook. 1994. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved 7

polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87:651-701. Svenson, G. J., and M. F. Whiting. 2004. Phylogeny of Mantodea based on molecular data: Evolution of a charismatic predator. Systematic Entomology 29:359-370. Whiting, M. F. 2002. Mecoptera is paraphyletic: multiple genes and phylogeny of Mecoptera and Siphonaptera. Zoologica Scripta 31:93-104.

K.B. Miller et al, 2012. The Phylogeny and Classification of Embioptera (Insecta), Systematic Entomology

Supporting Information

Table S3. Amplification conditions used in PCR reactions.

Hot start StepDenature Anneal Extension Cycles H3 95º (12min) 1 94º (0.5min) 48–50º (1min) 70º (1.5min) 40 COI 95º (12min) 1 94º (1min) 54–58º (0.5 min) 60º (1.5min) 5 2 50–52º (0.5 min) 5 3 45º (0.5 min) 30 16S, 18S, 28S 95º (12min) 1 94º (1min) 46–54º (1min) 70º (1.5min) 40

K.B. Miller et al, 2012. The Phylogeny and Classification of Embioptera (Insecta), Systematic Entomology

Supporting Information

Table S4. Characters included by Szumik et al. (2008) but excluded in this analysis with explanations.

9 24 25 39 55 58 60 67 69 102 129 134 138 139 Uninformative because of reduction in taxon sampling 143 148 151 153 154 172-174 176 181-183 1 5 42 43 44-47 53 70-80 86 108 109 122 Homology and assessments could not be confirmed because the states appear gradational in the included taxa 12 13 29 30 104 110 115 116 142 144 145 147 157 States are ambiguously explained and also have limited 159 168 184 185 applicability to the included taxa 19 20 48 89 92 94-96 98 101-104 113 114 125 130- Characters or states are ambiguous, not explained well 133 137 146 150 166 171 180 enough, or wording is unclear such that they could not be coded for included taxa 7 Evidently duplicate 6 and 10? 10 formula “not 1-2” in molar teeth combination seems to not represent a convincing homology 50 Evidently logically correlated with 49 57 Difficult to reconcile with 56, evidently duplicates at least in part 106 Evidently duplicates 105, and character description ambiguously worded (“bare-like”??) 112 Evidently duplicates 111, at least in part 124 Evidently duplicates 120 133 Evidently duplicates 136 177 Evidently duplicates 170 179 Evidently duplicates 111, at least in part

K.B. Miller et al, 2012. The Phylogeny and Classification of Embioptera (Insecta), Systematic Entomology

Supporting Information

Table S5. Morphological characters analyzed for Embioptera and outgroups. Characters marked with “+” are treated as additive. $ = polymorphic, states 0,1; ? = unknown;  = inapplicable.

0000000000 1111111111 2222222222 3333333333 4444444444 5555555555 6666666666 7777777777 8888888888 999999 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 0123456789 012345 + + + + + + + + + + GryAssim Gryllus assimilis 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -111111111 111100000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 TyrGlad Tyrranophasma gladiator 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -10------00000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 LocMig Locusta migratoria 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -111111111 111100000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 BlaOri Blatta orientalis 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -10------00000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 MN009 Mantoida schraderi 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -111111111 111100000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 R000 Grylloblatta barberi 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -10------00000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 BYU ACPL6 Pteronarcys californica 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -111111111 111100001? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 WS20 Timema knulli 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -10------00000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 WS98 Agathemera crassa 0000?00001 1?1?10111? ??11??00-- -10------00000? ??100????? 0????????? ???-?????? ?????????? ??000 EB135 Clothoda nr. longicauda 0110000111 1010100012 1111111100 0110110111 1111000032 0200100--0 00-0---001 -00-000001 0001001000 00111 EB9 Antipaluria urichi 0110100111 0-10100011 1001111101 0010110011 1111001?3? ??00100--0 1011000001 000-000100 0001000020 00111 EB62 Archembia batesi 0110210111 1111010010 1200011100 0011010011 0001001110 0210001110 3011110001 0010000101 0011201010 00111 EB27 Archembia dilata 0110210111 1111101010 1201021111 0111010111 0001010010 0210001110 3011110011 010-000101 0011201010 00111 EB56 Aphanembia obscura 0110100110 1111101010 1210011101 0110110111 $$01110020 0210101010 3001100011 000-110102 2011001020 00111 EB4 Biguembia multivenosa 0110100100 1110101010 1211001101 1110110111 1111110020 0210101001 3001100011 000-110102 2001301020 00111 EB23 Gibocercus chaco 0110100010 1111101010 1201011101 0110110111 0101110020 0210001101 3001100012 000-111102 2011201020 00111 EB146 Gibocercus sandrae 0110100010 1111101010 1201011101 0110110111 0101110020 0210001101 3001100012 000-111102 2011201020 00111 EB134 Gibocercus sp. 0110100010 1111101010 1201011101 0110110111 0101110020 0210001101 3001100012 000-111102 2011201020 00111 EB136 Calamoclostes sp. 01101000?0 11??01??11 1?1?010?-1 ?110010111 01110????? ??10101100 3011110002 0010000101 0001200010 00111 EB80 Conicercembia septentrionalis 0110100110 1110101111 1110021101 1110110011 1101110121 0210201100 3001100010 200-000101 0001001010 00111 EB85 Conicercembia tepicensis 0110100110 1110101111 1110021101 1110110011 1101110121 0210201100 3001100010 200-000101 0001001010 00111 EB75 Neorhagadochir moreliensis 0110100110 1010100010 1210021101 1110110010 0001110120 1210200--0 3001100010 2010000101 0001201010 00111 EB26 Pararhagadochir confusa 0110100110 0-11101102 1211111112 1110100$11 0001010020 0210101000 3001101012 000-100112 2011201021 00111 EB24 Pararhagadochir trachelia 0110200011 1111101102 0200021111 0100100010 0001010021 0210101000 3001101011 000-000112 3011001021 00111 EB25 Pararhagadochir schadei 0110200000 1111101102 1200021112 1110110010 0001010020 0210101000 3001101011 000-000112 3011001021 00111 EB61 Pararhagadochir flavicollis 01102000?0 11??101?02 120?021111 ?110110010 00010?0??? ??10?01000 3001101011 000-000112 3001?01021 00111 EB147 Pararhagadochir sp. 01101000?1 11??01??11 1?1?011?01 ?110110111 01111????? ??10101100 3011110002 0010000101 0001200010 00111 EB6 Pararhagadochir sp. 01102000?0 11??101?02 120?021111 ?110110010 00010?0??? ??10?01000 3001101011 000-000112 3001?01021 00111 EB42 Pararhagadochir sp. 01102000?0 11??101?02 120?021111 ?110110010 00010?0??? ??10?01000 3001101011 000-000112 3001?01021 00111 EB145 Pararhagadochir sp. 01102000?0 11??101?02 120?021111 ?110110010 00010?0??? ??10?01000 3001101011 000-000112 3001?01021 00111 EB194 Australembia incompta 0100000000 1111101111 02110000-- -10------110000 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 0012100020 01111 EB8 Australembia rileyi 1000000110 100-101111 00110000-- -10------110000 0000-11000 2011110102 0011000102 0012100020 11111 EB70 Metoligotoma reducta 1000000101 1110101111 1211001101 110------111101 0000-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB68 Metoligotoma ingens 1000000110 110-001111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB69 Metoligotoma brevispina 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB65 Metoligotoma extorris 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 11

EB67 Metoligotoma illawarrae 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB76 Metoligotoma begae 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB77 Metoligotoma rooksi 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB66 Metoligotoma pentanesiana 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB63 Metoligotoma bidens 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB64 Metoligotoma pugionifer 1000000110 1111101111 0211001101 010------110101 0010-11000 2011110102 0111000102 2012100020 11111 EB86 Haploembia solieri 1110100110 1111101102 1201001101 010------000030 1210101000 4111000001 100-000101 0001211010 00111 EB93 Haploembia solieri 1110100110 1111101102 1201001101 010------000030 1210101000 4111000001 100-000101 0001211010 00111 EB29 Haploembia solieri --10100-1- --11---1-- ---100-1-- 0-0------0-030 12------111 EB55 Oligotoma humbertiana 0110200110 0-0-101112 12111200-- -110000000 00010000?? ??10100--0 4111000001 100-000101 0000310010 00111 EB50 Oligotoma saundersii 0110200110 0-0-101112 02111000-- -110000000 0001000031 0210100--0 4111000001 100-000101 0001311010 00111 EB1 Oligotoma nigra 0110200110 0-0-101112 12111200-- -110000000 00010000?? ??10100--0 4111000001 100-000101 0000310010 00111 EB58 Aposthonia ceylonica 0110200110 0-0-101112 12110100-- -110001000 0001000031 0210101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB60 Aposthonia gurneyi 0110200110 0-0-101112 12110100-- -110000000 00010000?? ??10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB71 Aposthonia glauerti 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00?? ??10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB154 Aposthonia borneensis 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00?? ??10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB158 Aposthonia borneensis 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB165 Aposthonia sp. 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB171 Aposthonia sp. 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB103 Aposthonia sp. 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB130 Aposthonia sp. 0110200110 0-0-101?12 121?010?-- ?110000000 00010?00??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB168 Eosembia auripecta 0110200110 0-0-100?12 121?011111 ?110000000 00010000??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 1000311010 00111 EB173 Eosembia sp. 0110200110 0-0-100?12 121?011111 ?110000000 00010000??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 1000311010 00111 EB163 Lobosembia sp. 0110200110 0-0-101112 12110100-- ?110000000 00010000??? ?10101000 4111000001 100-000101 0000311010 00111 EB31 Teratembia geniculata 0110200110 0-0-011101 02110000-- ?110110000 00010000300 210101100 4111000002 000-000101 0000311020 00111 EB7 Teratembia sp. 01102001?0 0-??011?01 021?000?-- ?110110000 00010?00300 210101100 4111000002 000-000101 0000311020 00111 EB37 Diradius vandykei 01102001?0 0-??011?02 121?020?-- ?110110000 00010?00??? ?10201000 4111000002 000-000101 0000011020 00111 EB35 Diradius sp. 01102001?0 0-??011?02 121?020?-- ?110110000 00010?00??? ?10201000 4111000002 000-000101 0000011020 00111 EB38 Oligembia hubbardi 0110200110 0-11011101 12110200-- -110100000 00010000300 210201000 4111000002 000-000101 0000010020 00111 EB34 Anisembia texana 01111-1100 0-11101110 12110000-- -1$0010111 ?0010000201 210-11000 10-0---001 000-000102 0002001010 00111 EB54 Chelicerca davisi 01111-0110 1111011110 02110200-- -110010100 000000002?? 211301000 10-0---002 000-000102 0001011010 00111 EB79 Chelicerca heymonsi 01111-0110 1111011110 02110200-- -110010100 000000002?? 211301000 10-0---002 000-000102 0001011010 00111 EB28 Chelicerca fangosa 01111-1211 0-11101110 02110200-- -110000000 00000000200 211201000 10-0---002 000-000102 0001211110 00111 EB57 Dactylocerca rubra 01111-01?1 11?-101?10 0211020?-- ?110010000 00010?0???? ?10-10--0 10-0---002 000-000102 0001011110 00111 EB5 Brasilembia beckeri 01111-01?1 11?-101?10 021?020?-- ?110010000 00000?0???? ?11101000 10-0---002 000-000102 0001001020 00111 EB59 Cryptembia amazonica 01111-02?1 0-?-100?10 021?020?-- ?010010101 00010?0???? ?10101000 10-0---002 000-000102 0001011010 00111 EB78 Cryptembia multicolor 01111-02?1 0-?-100?10 021?020?-- ?010010101 00010?0???? ?10101000 10-0---002 000-000102 0001011010 00111 EB36 Stenembia sp. 01111-11?? 0-?-101?10 011?0200-- -110010000 00010?0???? ?00100--0 10-0---001 000-000102 0002?11010 00111 EB89 Notoligotoma nitens 0110200100 1111011111 1001001112 2110010111 00011100100 200-110003 011110000 0010000101 0001201020 00111 EB18 Notoligotoma hardyi 0110200111 0-0-011113 0100001112 111001$111 01011100110 200-110003 011110000 0010000101 0001201020 00111 EB129 Ptilocerembia roepkei 01102001?1 ????001?10 021?0201-1 ?110111011 00010?0???? ?10-110003 011100000 0011100101 0001311020 00111 EB151 Ptilocerembia sp. 01102001?1 ????001?10 021?0201-1 ?110111011 00010?0???? ?10-110003 011100000 0011100101 0001311020 00111 EB164 Ptilocerembia sp. 01102001?1 ????001?10 021?0201-1 ?110111011 00010?0???? ?10-110003 011100000 0011100101 0001311020 00111 EB162 Ptilocerembia sp. 01102001?1 ????001?10 021?0201-1 ?110111011 00010?0???? ?10-110003 011100000 0011100101 0001311020 00111 EB157 Ptilocerembia sp. 01102001?1 ????001?10 021?0201-1 ?110111011 00010?0???? ?10-110003 011100000 0011100101 0001311020 00111 EB101 Embia ramburi 0110100110 0-0-101102 12111000-- -1$0110011 00010000210 2102010002 011100000 000-100102 1102000020 00111 12

EB74 Embia nuragica 0110100110 0-0-101102 12111000-- -1$0110011 00010000210 2102010002 011100000 000-100102 1102000020 00111 EB72 Embia tyrrhenica 0110100110 0-0-101102 12111000-- -1$0110011 00010000210 2102010002 011100000 000-100102 1102000020 00111 EB73 Embia sp. 0110100110 0-0-101102 12111000-- -1$0110011 00010000210 2102010002 011100000 000-100102 1102000020 00111 EB84 Odontembia jacobi 0110000111 0-0-101110 1211121101 2110110011 $0$11000210 2002011002 011100000 000-100102 1002200020 00111 EB140 Embiidae sp. 01100001?1 0-??101?0? 1?1?111?01 ?110111100 00010?0???? ?100011002 011100000 000-000102 0002201020 0?111 EB142 Embiidae sp. 01100001?1 0-??101?0? 1?1?111?01 ?10------0?0???? ?11-10--02 011100000 000-000102 0002201020 0?111 EB133 Embiidae sp. 01100001?1 0-??101?0? 1?1?111?01 ?110111100 00000?0???? ?100011002 011100000 000-000102 0002201020 0?111 EB170 Oedembia sp. 01100001?1 0-??101?0? 1?1?011?01 ?110111100 00000?0???? ?100011002 011100000 000-000102 0002201020 0?111 EB143 Andesembia banosae 00101011?0 11??101?00 021?000?-- ?110000000 00000?0???? ?100010003 1-0---002 1010000102 0001001020 00111