02423nas a2200205   4500008004100000245010300041210006900144260000900213300001400222490000700236520176500243653001302008653001302021100002002034700002502054700002302079700002002102700002202122856007302144       2009                        eng d00aComparative phylogenetic histories of two louse genera found on Catharus thrushes and other birds.0 aComparative phylogenetic histories of two louse genera found on   c2009  a295 - 3070 v953 a<p>The louse genera Brueelia (Ischnocera) and Myrsidea (Amblycera) are broadly codistributed on songbirds (Passeriformes), but differ in a variety of life history characteristics. We used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences to assess levels of genetic divergence and reconstruct phylogenies of these 2 genera, focusing especially on Catharus thrushes in North America. We then qualitatively compared the phylogenies and levels of divergence within these 2 genera of codistributed parasites. Neither Brueelia nor Myrsidea appears to cospeciate with Catharus thrushes or passerine birds in general. The Myrsidea phylogeny exhibits significant levels of biogeographic structure, whereas the Brueelia phylogeny does not. Myrsidea and Brueelia also differ in their levels of intra-generic genetic divergence, with Myrsidea showing higher levels of genetic divergence and host specificity than Brueelia. Our genetic data support traditional morphology-based taxonomy in several instances in which the same species of Brueelia has been reported on multiple host taxa, e.g., all migrant Catharus spp. carry B. antiqua, with little haplotype divergence. Myrsidea found on each Catharus sp. are in general genetically distinct, except for M. incerta, which parasitizes both Catharus ustulatus and Catharus minimus. The strong biogeographic signal in the Myrsidea phylogeny and higher relativelevels of host specificity of Myrsidea spp. suggest that infrequent host-switching, followed by speciation, is shaping the evolutionary history of this group. In contrast, the relatively lower host specificity of Brueelia spp. suggests that host-switching, combined with more frequent ongoing dispersal, has been more important in the evolutionary history of Brueelia.</p>
10aBrueelia10aMyrsidea1 aBueter, Chelsea1 aWeckstein, Jason, D.1 aJohnson, Kevin, P.1 aBates, John, M.1 aGordon, Caleb, E.  uhttp://www.phthiraptera.info/sites/phthiraptera.info/files/47541.pdf01871nas a2200133   4500008004100000245006300041210006300104260003000167300001700197490001800214520141200232100002001644856007301664       2007                        eng d00aSpeciation Patterns in Chewing Lice from Catharus Thrushes0 aSpeciation Patterns in Chewing Lice from Catharus Thrushes  bLake Forest Collegec2007  a1 - 60 + iii0 vSenior Thesis3 aCospeciation is an interwoven process that impacts many organisms. It is important to study because no organism lives in a vacuum by itself. All organisms interact with other organisms on a daily basis. Some interactions are fleeting, whereas others may become more and more important as time progresses. This study attempts to discover if the interactions between parasitic chewing lice and their avian hosts are important enough to cause cospeciation.The first chapter of this work includes a literature review covering broad aspects that affect speciation. As this is a rather broad subject, I focused on antagonistic relationships and what I feel are the major factors that impact them: transmission and virulence. I focused especially on the specific interactions of chewing lice and their avian hosts, as they present an interesting system for a cospeciation study.
After the basics of cospeciation and the factors the influence it have been laid out, in chapter 1, I use phylogenetic analyses of two genera of chewing lice, Brueelia and Myrsidea from Catharus thrushes to experimentally test whether they have cospeciated. I chose Catharus thrushes because they are common captures at the Shaw Woods Avian Monitoring Project (SWAMP) and I knew that they were often heavily infested with lice. Also there was a published phylogeny of the Catharus thrushes for me to compare to my parasite phylogeny
1 aBueter, Chelsea  uhttp://www.phthiraptera.info/sites/phthiraptera.info/files/46955.pdf01529nas a2200145   4500008004100000245009500041210006900136260000900205520100000214653001301214653001301227653001201240100002001252856011101272       2006                        eng d00aCospeciation of Catharus thrushes and their parasitic chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera)0 aCospeciation of Catharus thrushes and their parasitic chewing li  c20063 aI tested for cospeciation between Catharus thrushes and their chewing lice by constructing phylogenies for the two genera of lice, Brueelia (Ischnocera) and Myrsidea (Amblycera), and comparing them to a published phylogeny for the thrushes. Lice were collected from five species of North American thrushes captured or collected in Northeastern Illinois in the spring of 2006. I extracted DNA from the lice, amplified and then sequenced three genes: CO1, 12s (mitochondrial), and EF1α (nuclear). I then created a louse phylogeny from these DNA sequences, plus sequences provided by Kevin P. Johnson, using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian analyses. Brueelia lice from thrushes do not appear to have speciated, much less cospeciated with their hosts. Myrsidea show a greater degree of diversification than Brueelia, but also do not appear to have cospeciated with thrushes. The lack of differentiation and/or cospeciation suggests that host switching is rampant in this system.10aBrueelia10aMyrsidea10aPhoresy1 aBueter, Chelsea  uhttp://learn.lakeforest.edu/symposium/index.php?option=com_scheduling&Itemid=88&action=viewAbstract&id=14302238nas a2200169   4500008004100000245009500041210006900136260000900205490003200214520160900246653001301855653001301868653001201881100002001893700002201913856013301935       2006                        eng d00aCospeciation of Catharus thrushes and their parasitic chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera)0 aCospeciation of Catharus thrushes and their parasitic chewing li  c20060 vArgonne National Laboratory3 aCospeciation between host and parasite is rarely strict. Noncongruent phylogenies may result from host switching, extinction, failure to speciate, and duplication. Chewing lice (Phthiraptera) are one of the few ectoparasites that complete their life cycle entirely on the body of their host. This lack of a free living stage may result in fewer host-switching opportunities and would suggest an increased likelihood for cospeciation between parasite and host. Over an evolutionary time scale, however, even a small amount of host-switching can lead to incongruent phylogenies. I tested for cospeciation between North American Catharus thrushes and their associated lice by constructing phylogenetic trees for the lice and comparing them to a published phylogeny for the thrushes. Lice were collected from the genera Brueelia (Ischnocera) and Myrsidea (Amblycera) in the field from mist-net captured birds and from Field Museum specimens. DNA was extracted from individual lice and I used amplified sequences of CO1, 12s (mitochondrial) and EF1? (nuclear) genes to conduct phylogenetic analyses using maximum likelihood parsimony algorithms in the program, PAUP*. Brueelia from Catharus thrushes do not appear to have speciated with their hosts. The Myrsidea show a greater degree of diversification than the Brueelia but it is too soon to asses whether or not Myrsidea have cospeciated with their hosts. The ability of Ischnoceran lice to hitch a ride on Hippoboscid flies to another host may produce enough gene flow to prevent speciation and therefore cospeciation with their respective Catharus hosts.10aBrueelia10aMyrsidea10aPhoresy1 aBueter, Chelsea1 aGordon, Caleb, E.  uhttps://phthiraptera.myspecies.info/content/cospeciation-catharus-thrushes-and-their-parasitic-chewing-lice-insecta-phthiraptera