Fig 1.
Merodon atratus (Oldenberg, 1919).
(A) Male genitalia, lateral view (e—epandrium; h—hypandrium; psl—posterior surstylus lobe). (B) Aedeagus and associated structures (ae—aedeagus).
Table 1.
Primers used for amplification of COI gene fragments.
Table 2.
Bioclimatic and elevation variables selected for the environmental niche analysis among the analyzed taxa.
Fig 2.
Merodon aureus clade sensu Mengual et al. [6].
Fig 3.
The distributional and elevation ranges of the Merodon atratus species complex.
(A) Map of Europe showing the distribution of the three species of the M. atratus species complex and sampling sites. The circles ● stand for M. atratus, triangles ▲ for M. virgatus sp. nov., and squares ■ for M. balkanicus sp. nov. (B) Variability plot of elevation ranges of taxa of the M. atratus species complex.
Fig 4.
(A) Merodon atratus; (B) M. virgatus sp. nov.; (C) M. balkanicus sp. nov.; (D) M. cinereus.
Fig 5.
Haplotype diversity within the Merodon atratus species complex.
(A) Haplotype Median-joining network; vertical lines represent the number of mutational steps. (B) Map of haplotype distribution.
Fig 6.
Strict consensus tree based on 3 equally parsimonious trees from analysis of combined COI sequences.
Length 526 steps, Consistency index (CI) 81, Retention index (RI) 82. Bootstrap values ≥60 are indicated near nodes. Filled circles represent non-homoplasyous changes and open circles homoplasyous changes.
Fig 7.
Species tree chronogram of Merodon atratus species complex inferred using BEAST.
Mean node ages were estimated using a Strict clock model (substitution rate 1.15% per million years) and Birth-Death tree model (black numbers). The scale bar represents million years. The time axis (mean ages) is indicated at the bottom. The blue numbers represent mean node ages estimated using Lognormal relaxed clock model [47] and Birth-Death tree model and the red numbers represent divergence time estimated by linear regression method [45].
Fig 8.
Wing shape differences among species of the Merodon atratus species complex.
(A) Scatter plot of individual scores of CV1 and CV2. (B) UPGMA phenogram constructed using Squared Mahalanobis Distances.
Fig 9.
Superimposed outline drawings showing wing shape differences between analyzed species.
Differences between the species were exaggerated five-fold to make them more visible.
Fig 10.
Scatter plots of surstylus shape differences among species of the Merodon atratus species complex.
(A) Scatter plot of individual scores of CV1 and CV2. (B) Thin-plate spline deformation grids showing overall differences in posterior surstylus lobe shape between analyzed species.
Fig 11.
Surstylus shape differences among species of the Merodon atratus species complex.
UPGMA phenogram constructed using Squared Mahalanobis Distances.
Table 3.
Environmental niche comparisons for the species of the Merodon atratus species complex.
Niche overlap values are presented for the comparisons of niche identity and similarity of species A with species B.
Fig 12.
Merodon atratus, male, lateral view.
Fig 13.
(A) Merodon atratus, hind leg. (B) Hind femur and hind trochanter with an inner spike.