The phylogeny of all major insect lineages reveals how and when insects diversified and provides a comprehensive reliable scaffold for future comparative analyses of evolutionary innovations among insects.
At the ordinal level, the analysis provided clear support for the hypothesis that Megaloptera + Neuroptera are sister groups, which upsets the conventional Megalptera’+’Raphidioptera hypothesis.
Results from holomorphological and recent molecular cladistic analyses of Neuropterida agree in supporting the sister‐group relationships between: (1) the Raphidioptera and the clade Megaloptera + Neuroptera, and (2) the suborder Nevrorthiformia and all other Neuroptera.
P phylogenetic analysis of the heterogeneous Neuroptera remains a challenge with respect to selection of the proper genes and mutatis mutandis the morphological approach, and the hypothesis of a sister‐group relationship Raphidioptera put forward in recent morphological analyses is supported.
Aquatic larvae, regarded as independent apomorphies of megaloptera and neuropteran Nevrorthidae and Sisyridae for a long time, are re‐interpreted as a synapomorphy of Megaloptera + Neuroptera and thus plesiomorphic within these groups.
The results are in agreement with an aquatic ancestor of Neuroptera and secondarily acquired terrestrial habits within the lineage (Neuroptera exclusive of Nevrorthidae), and another invasion of the aquatic environment by Sisyridae.
A robust, fully resolved phylogeny and divergence time estimation for Neuropterida is presented with strong statistical support for almost all nodes and competing hypotheses regarding the life style of early neuropteridan larvae as either aquatic or terrestrial are evaluated.
It is shown that contrary to general belief, developed and heavily-studied parts of the world are important reservoirs of unknown species, and the importance of developing a system that better supports and guides this formidable workforce as they seek to overcome the Taxonomic Impediment and speed up the process of describing the planetary biodiversity before it is too late.
The results suggest that Ascalaphidae may not be monophyletic, as they collapse into an unresolved polytomy under the Bayesian analysis, and the recovered phylogenetic relationships diverge from the traditional classification scheme for ascalaphids.
The hypothesis of a sister‐group relationship of the Rhachiberothidae to the Berothidae is re‐established and the phylogenetic position of the Dilaridae as an adelphotaxon of the monophyletic group is discussed.