Research Article
Print
Research Article
Comparative mitogenomics and phylogenetic analyses of Meconematini (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae) provide insights into its systematic classification
expand article infoShao-Li Mao§, Hao Yuan|, Xuan-Zeng Liu, Yan-Wen Wang§, Lu-Yao Yang§, Ya-Fu Zhou§
‡ Xi’an Botanical Garden of Shaanxi Province/Institute of Botany of Shaanxi Province, Xi’an, China
§ Shaanxi Engineering Research Centre for Conservation and Utilization of Botanical Resources, Xi’an, China
| Xi’an Medical University, Xi’an, China
¶ Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an, China
Open Access

Abstract

The tribe Meconematini (Meconematinae) is a species-rich lineage whose genus- and species-level classifications remain taxonomically controversial. In this study, we obtained 17 new mitochondrial genomes using high-throughput sequencing and conducted the first comparative genomic and phylogenomic analyses within this tribe. The mitogenomes of Meconematini exhibit conserved structural features typical of Meconematinae, including conserved gene order, pronounced AT bias, and negative GC-skew. Notably, a rare mitochondrial initiation codon (GTG) was identified in the ATP6 gene in Meconematini. Evolutionary analyses indicated that strong purifying selection has dominated the evolution of Meconematini mitogenomes. Phylogenetic reconstructions strongly supported the monophyly of the genera Microconema Liu and Decma Gorochov, as well as the subgenus Eoxizicus Gorochov. In contrast, the genera Phlugiolopsis Zeuner, Xizicus Gorochov, and Xiphidiopsis Redtenbacher were not recovered as monophyletic. Additionally, the phylogenetic results support the recognition of Eoxizicus and Euxiphidiopsis Gorochov as distinct genera. Importantly, mitogenomic divergence patterns were correlated with genitalia structural traits: genera within the proximal clade possess membranous male genitalia (hagloid type), whereas those in more basal clades exhibit partially or fully sclerotized genitalia (tettigonioid or grylloid type). These findings collectively enable the proposal of taxonomic revisions for the non-monophyletic genera and establish a mitogenomic baseline for reconciling morphological convergence with evolutionary relationships in Meconematini.

Keywords

Meconematini, mitochondrial genome, phylogenetic analyses, PCG, Xiphidiopsis, Xizicus

1. Introduction

Meconematinae is one of the most species-rich subfamilies within Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera), currently comprising three tribes (Meconematini, Phisidini, and Phlugidini), 136 genera, and approximately 900 described species worldwide (Cigliano et al. 2026). Members of this subfamily are relatively small among katydids, typically ranging from 7 to 18 mm in body length, and are characterized by their slender body form (Wang 2015). They exhibit pronounced variation in wing length, ranging from brachypterous to macropterous forms (Fig. 1), as well as diverse male genital structures, which vary from entirely membranous (hagloid type) to sclerotized (grylloid or tettigonioid type) (Gorochov 1993).

Figure 1. 

Some representative species of Meconematini, illustrating variation in wing length. A. Acosmetura nigrogeniculata (Jiao & Shi, 2013); B. Similameconema sinica (Liu & Wang, 1998); C. Xizicus (Eoxizicus) howardi (Tinkham, 1956); D. Megaconema geniculata (Bey-Bienko, 1962); E. Microconema clavata (Uvarov, 1933); F. Xiphidiopsis (Euxiphidiopsis) gurneyi Tinkham, 1944.

Phylogenetic studies based on nuclear and mitochondrial gene markers (18S rDNA, 28S rDNA, COII, wingless, Tubulin Alpha I and histone 3) suggest that Meconematinae is paraphyletic, representing at least three distinct lineages—Meconematini, Phisidini, and Phlugidini—that have independently converged on similar morphological traits (Mugleston et al. 2013, 2016, 2018). Among these, the tribe Meconematini is recognized as monophyletic and speciose, predominantly distributed across the Indo-Malayan and Palearctic regions (Mugleston et al. 2018). Globally, Meconematini comprises 112 extant genera and over 780 described species, with China representing a major hotspot of diversity, harboring 55 genera and approximately 350 species (Cigliano et al. 2026).

Despite the well-supported monophyly of the tribe Meconematini, substantial taxonomic controversies persist at both generic and subgeneric levels, particularly regarding diagnostic characters and species delimitation (Liu 2000; Gorochov 2008, 2022). Notable challenges include the morphological similarity and unclear boundaries between genera such as Xiphidiopsis Redtenbacher, 1891 and Xizicus Gorochov, 1993—the two most diverse groups in Meconematini—which remain the most controversial in terms of species classification and subgeneric division (Jin et al. 2020; Gorochov 2022). Recent phylogenetic reconstructions based on mitogenomes have rejected the monophyly of both genera (Mao et al. 2020; Pang et al. 2024).

The genus Xiphidiopsis s.l. Redtenbacher, 1891 historically represented a heterogeneous assemblage until Gorochov’s (1993) taxonomic revision established clearer diagnostic boundaries. As currently defined (Xiphidiopsis sensu Gorochov, 1993), the genus exhibits distinct characteristics: hind tibia with three pairs of apical spurs; the male 10th tergite featuring a large posteromedian notch forming an unpaired (single) median process (symmetrical or asymmetrical); and complex male cerci displaying symmetry or asymmetry (Jin et al. 2020). The Orthoptera Species File (Cigliano et al. 2026) currently divides the genus into five subgenera: Xiphidiopsis Redtenbacher, 1891, Dinoxiphidiopsis Gorochov, 1993, Euxiphidiopsis Gorochov, 1993, Paraxiphidiopsis Gorochov, 1993, and Bhuxiphidiopsis Ingrisch, 2002. Among these, the taxonomic status and species assignment of Euxiphidiopsis remain particularly contentious. Liu and Zhang (2000) elevated Euxiphidiopsis to generic rank primarily based on the presence of a pair of lateral brown stripes on the pronotum—a diagnostic feature distinguishing it from related genera. Subsequent work by Bai et al. (2014) refined the generic diagnosis of Euxiphidiopsis and described two new species. However, Gorochov (2022) claimed that Euxiphidiopsis should retain subgeneric status under Xiphidiopsis, transferring several Chinese species previously placed in Euxiphidiopsis to Xizicus (Furxizicus) Gorochov, 2002 and Caprixizicus Gorochov, 2022. Similarly, the taxonomic status of Eoxizicus remains controversial, specifically whether it should remain a subgenus of Xizicus or be elevated to independent genus rank. These conflicting treatments underscore the urgent need for comprehensive phylogenetic assessments integrating both molecular and morphological data.

Recent mitogenome-based phylogenetic studies involving limited generic sampling have further highlighted uncertainties in intergeneric relationships within Meconematini (Mao et al. 2018, 2020; Pang et al. 2024), reinforcing the necessity for a stable, phylogenetically informed classification. As emphasized by Jin et al. (2020), achieving taxonomic stability in this group will likely require recognition of genus-group subdivisions or subtribes through combined morphological and molecular analyses. Ongoing discoveries of new taxa and continued evaluation of apomorphic characters are expected to refine generic delimitations and enhance our understanding of evolutionary relationships within the tribe.

These ongoing taxonomic challenges highlight the need for informative molecular markers. Among these, mitogenomes have emerged as a key tool for insect phylogenetic reconstructions, and they hold considerable promise for Meconematini. In Orthoptera, the mitogenome is highly conserved in terms of both gene content and size, typically forming a circular molecule of 14–18 kb that encodes the standard set of 37 genes: 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), two ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes, and 22 transfer RNA (tRNA) genes (Zhao et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2025). Orthoptera exhibit exceptionally large genomes (Mao et al. 2020; Yuan et al. 2021; Hawlitschek et al. 2023) and high genomic complexity (Wang et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2022; Yuan et al. 2024), which presents challenges for nuclear-based phylogenetic reconstruction and highlights the unique opportunities for mitogenome-based phylogenetics (Fenn et al. 2008). Over the past decade, an increasing number of studies have employed mitogenome data to resolve phylogenetic relationships across various taxonomic scales (Song et al. 2015; Zhou et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2023; Pang et al. 2024) or to investigate the evolution of specific traits within a phylogenetic framework in Orthoptera (Chang et al. 2020; Song et al. 2020; Yuan et al. 2021). Although several mitogenomes of Meconematini have been published (Mao et al. 2020; Pang et al. 2024), their representation across genera remains limited. To date, only 23 complete mitogenomes (representing 22 species) from 13 genera belonging to Meconematini are available in GenBank (as of March 2026)—a representation that is far from sufficient given species diversity of this tribe, particularly due to the lack of sequences for key taxa with unresolved taxonomic issues.

In this context, we sequenced 17 complete mitogenomes representing 14 genera/subgenera within the tribe Meconematini, eight of which—Decma (Idiodecma) Gorochov, 1993, Kuzicus Gorochov, 1993, Macroteratura (Stenoteratura) Gorochov, 1993, Megaconema Gorochov, 1993, Nigrimacula Shi, Bian & Zhou, 2016, Tamdaora Gorochov, 1998, Teratura Redtenbacher, 1891, and Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis)—were sequenced for the first time. We performed comparative mitogenomic analyses focusing on nucleotide composition, codon usage, and selection pressure on protein-coding genes. Combined with previously published mitogenomes, we assembled a dataset of 40 mitogenomes, based on which we reconstructed the first comprehensive phylogeny of Meconematini. This study aims to improve understanding of mitogenome evolution within the tribe, resolve generic-level phylogenetic relationships, and evaluate the taxonomic utility of key morphological characters by integrating morphological evidence with phylogenetic analyses, thereby offering novel insights into the morphological taxonomy of this group. Our results indicate that male genital characteristics possess significant taxonomic value and exhibit an evolutionary trend from sclerotized to membranous forms within Meconematini. Furthermore, the phylogenetic findings support the recognition of Euxiphidiopsis and Eoxizicus as distinct genera.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample collection and DNA extraction

A total of 17 species representing 14 genera/subgenera of the tribe MeconematiniDecma (Idiodecma), Decma (Decma), Kuzicus, Macroteratura (Macroteratura), Macroteratura (Stenoteratura), Megaconema, Nigrimacula, Similameconema Dou & Shi, 2018, Tamdaora, Teratura, Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis), Xiphidiopsis (Euxiphidiopsis), Xizicus, and Phlugiolopsis Zeuner, 1940—were collected from Hainan, Henan, Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Xizang provinces of China (Table S1). The species names follow the Orthoptera Species File (OSF) (Cigliano et al. 2026). All samples were preserved in 100% ethanol and stored at –20 °C in the Xi’an Botanical Garden of Shaanxi Province (Institute of Botany of Shaanxi Province). Total genomic DNA was extracted from the hind femur muscles of each individual using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAGEN 69504), following the manufacturer’s protocol, and subsequently stored at –20 °C.

2.2. Mitochondrial genome assembly and annotation

Total genomic DNA extracted from each of the 17 Meconematini species (Table S1) was used to construct shotgun sequencing libraries using the NEBNext® Ultra™ II DNA Library Prep Kit, with the Illumina TruSeq single-index adapters supplied in the kit. The libraries were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform, generating 150 bp paired-end reads. Prior to assembly, raw reads were subjected to quality control and filtering using Trimmomatic v0.39 (Bolger et al. 2014) with the following parameters: ILLUMINACLIP:TruSeq3‑PE‑2.fa:2:30:10 LEADING:3 TRAILING:3 SLIDINGWINDOW:4:15 MINLEN:50. The resulting clean data used for assembly exceeded 2 Gb per species. Based on estimates of mitochondrial genome size, the final sequencing depth achieved was over 100× for each species. The filtered reads were assembled by mapping to the mitochondrial genome of Xizicus fascipes (JQ326212) as a reference using MIRA 4.0.2 (Chevreux et al. 2004) and MITObim v1.8 (Hahn et al. 2013) (Main parameter: -start 1 -end 100 -sample testpool -ref Xizicus_fascipes -mt -readpool input.fastq --quick JQ326212-ref.fasta --clean --NFS_warn_only >log). The complete mitochondrial genomes were initially annotated automatically using MITOS2 (Bernt et al. 2013). The resulting annotations were subsequently transferred to Geneious Prime (Kearse et al. 2012) for manual curation and boundary refinement by comparison with complete mitogenomes of related species. Transfer RNA genes predicted by MITOS2 were further confirmed in Geneious Prime using the same comparative approach (http://mitos.bioinf.uni-leipzig.de/index.py).

2.3. Nucleotide feature and evolutionary rates of Meconematini mitogenomes

Nucleotide base compositions were determined using Geneious Prime (Kearse et al. 2012). Composition skew was assessed with the formulas: AT-skew = [A–T]/[A+T] and GC-skew = [G–C]/[G+C] (Perna and Kocher 1995). Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) values for protein-coding genes (PCGs) in the newly sequenced species were computed using MEGA v11.0 software (Tamura et al. 2021). Substitution saturation tests were performed with DAMBE7, and cumulative skew plots were generated for datasets of 13 PCGs and 2 ribosomal RNAs (PCG123R) (Xia 2018). Heterogeneity in nucleotide variation among sequences was evaluated for different datasets using AliGROOVE v1.05 (Kück et al. 2014).

We compared the Ka/Ks values for each protein-coding gene (PCG) across all species. The proportions of synonymous (Syn) and non-synonymous (Nsyn) substitutions for each PCG were calculated using DnaSP v6.12.03 (Librado et al. 2009). One-way ANOVA was conducted using SAS software to assess differences in Ka/Ks values among PCGs across all Meconematini species, with the aim of detecting signals of selection pressure.

2.4. Phylogenomic analyses

We retrieved the 23 published mitogenome sequences of Meconematini (22 species) and two outgroup sequences (Stenopelmatus fuscus from Stenopelmatidae and Diestrammena asynamora from Rhaphidophoridae) from GenBank. These were combined with the 17 mitogenome sequences generated in this study, resulting in a total of 42 sequences for phylogenetic reconstruction (Table S1). Phylogenetic relationships were inferred from partitioned datasets of 13 PCGs and two ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs) using Bayesian inference (BI) and maximum likelihood (ML) approaches. Prior to phylogenetic inference, all PCGs and rRNAs were individually aligned using ClustalW implemented in MEGA v11.0 (Tamura et al. 2021). For the 13 PCGs, stop codons were removed and the sequences were translated into amino acids to verify alignment accuracy. Then, we concatenated the aligned genes into a single data matrix using SequenceMatrix v.1.8 (Vaidya et al. 2011). The best-fit partitioning scheme and optimal nucleotide substitution model for the concatenated data matrix were selected in PartitionFinder v2.1.1 (Lanfear et al. 2012) using the “greedy” search algorithm (heuristic search) and “unlinked” branch lengths. The maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) criteria were used to construct the phylogenetic tree in RAxML (Stamatakis et al. 2005), IQ-TREE v1.6.9 (Nguyen et al. 2015) and MrBayes v3.2 (Ronquist et al. 2012). Both ML and BI analyses employed the optimal partitioning scheme and models selected above; ML nodal support was evaluated with 1,000 bootstrap replicates. For BI, four Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains were run for 100,000,000 generations, sampling every 5,000 generations. After discarding the first 25% of generations as burn-in, posterior probabilities (PPs) were calculated in a consensus tree. The resulting phylogenetic trees were visualized and edited using the FigTree v1.4.4 (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk).

3. Results

We generated 17 new mitogenomes from 14 genera/subgenera of Meconematini, including the first reported mitogenomes from eight genera/subgenera [Decma (Idiodecma), Kuzicus, Macroteratura (Stenoteratura), Megaconema, Nigrimacula, Tamdaora, Teratura, and Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis)]. The newly determined complete mitogenomes ranged from 15,271 bp to 17,195 bp in size [some bases in the control region of Similameconema sinica (Liu & Wang, 1998) were not fully sequenced].

3.1. Features of Meconematini mitogenomes

As detected in previous studies (Pang et al. 2024), the new sequenced mitogenomes show circular structures and contain the typical conserved set of 37 genes, including the 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), large and small rRNAs (rrnL and rrnS), 22 transfer RNAs (tRNAs), and a large non-coding region referred to as the A+T-rich region or control region (CR) (Table S2). Gene order and arrangement are identical to the published Meconematini mitogenomes. The mitogenomes of Meconematini exhibit a distinct AT bias (66.8% – 74.9%) and are notably deficient in G (9.9% – 11.7%). The overall GC-skew ranges from –0.3233 to –0.2047, and the AT-skew varies between 0.0069 and 0.0707 (Table S3). Similarly, the PCGs show a pronounced AT bias (66.6%–74.2%), with AT-skew and GC-skew values ranging from 0.0126 to 0.0904 and –0.3231 to –0.1818, respectively (Table S3).

For the 17 newly sequenced species, almost all PCGs have the typical initiation codon of ATN (Table S4). However, ATP6 in Xizicus (Eoxizicus) sinuatus (Liu & Zhang, 2000) initiated from a non-standard initiation codon of GTG. With respect to termination codons, about half of the PCGs have a typical termination codon TAA in all species (Table S4). The COI, ND4, and ND5 genes in all species, the COIII gene in most species, and the COII and ATP6 genes in a minority of species use the incomplete codon T as their termination codon. The PCGs exhibit a significant codon usage bias (Fig. 2). The four most preferred codons are UUA (Leu1), UUU (Phe), AUU (Ile), and AUA (Met), with average relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) values of 3.551, 1.558, 1.712, and 1.664, respectively. With the exception of Nigrimacula xizangensis (Jiao & Shi, 2013), which shows the lowest RSCU value (0.05) for CUG (Leu), the codon AGG (Arg) exhibits the lowest usage across all other species. Furthermore, the codon AGG (Arg) is not used in the following species: Macroteratura (Macroteratura) megafurcula (Tinkham, 1944), Macroteratura sp., Kuzicus sp., Decma (Decma) tristis Gorochov & Kang, 2005, Decma (Idiodecma) birmanica (Bey-Bienko, 1971), Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis) bituberculata Ebner, 1939, and Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis) minorincisus Han, Chang & Shi, 2015.

Figure 2. 

Relative synonymous codon usage and codon count of mitochondrial protein-coding genes in 17 species of Meconematini. Codon families are shown on the x-axis.

Base substitution saturation analysis showed that the Iss value for dataset PCG123R was lower than the critical value (Iss.c), indicating that the dataset did not exhibit substitution saturation and is appropriate for phylogenetic analysis (Table S6). No obvious heterogeneous outliers were detected in AliGROOVE (Fig. S1).

3.2. Evolutionary rates of Meconematini mitogenomes

The evolutionary rates evaluated by Ka/Ks values of the 13 PCGs for all 37 Meconematini mitogenomes were much less than 1, indicating that strong evolutionary constraints and purifying selection have dominated the evolution of Meconematini mitogenomes (Figs 3, S2). Among them, the ATP8 gene had the highest Ka/Ks ratio, while the COI gene had the lowest, indicating that the COI gene experienced more substantial evolutionary selection pressure. The order of the mean Ka/Ks ratios for the 13 PCGs in Meconematini was ATP8 > ND6 > ND2 > ND5 > ND4 > ND4L > ND1 > ND3 > ATP6 > COII > CYTB > COIII > COI (Fig. 3; Table S5). In pairwise comparisons of PCGs, the Ka/Ks values showed significant differences (F = 947.52, P < 0.001) among genes, except for comparisons between ATP6, ND1, and ND3 and between CYTB and COIII.

Figure 3. 

Natural selection strength and the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions for the 13 protein-coding mitochondrial genes of Meconematini species.

3.3. Phylogeny reconstruction

The phylogenetic trees inferred from the datasets of 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs using the maximum likelihood (from RAxML and IQ-TREE) and Bayesian inference (from MrBayes) methods showed almost identical tree topologies, except for a minor difference in the position of the species Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis) appendiculata Tinkham, 1944 (Figs 4, S3). However, the bootstrap values of multiple branch nodes do not reach the trusted threshold range, especially in the maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic trees.

Figure 4. 

Phylogeny of Meconematini inferred from maximum likelihood analysis (IQ-TREE) based on the PCGs and rRNAs. Bootstrap support values and Bayesian posterior probabilities are indicated at the nodes. The blue branches represent species with membranous male genitalia, while the red branches represent species possessing partially or completely sclerotized male genitalia.

The phylogenetic reconstructions show that the monophyly of the genera Microconema, Eoxizicus, and Decma was robustly supported (BS ≥ 99 or BPP = 1), while species of the genera Phlugiolopsis, Xizicus, and Xiphidiopsis are not recovered as monophyletic (Figs 4, S3). The monophyletic Eoxizicus is clearly separated from the rest of the Xizicus species and is sister to a clade comprising of Alloxiphidiopsis Liu & Zhang, 2007 + Grigoriora Gorochov, 1993 in all phylogenetic trees. The monophyly of Phlugiolopsis is weakly supported, mainly due to the inclusion of the species Paraphlugiolopsis jiangi Bian & Shi, 2014, which was established based on the apices of posttibiae bearing two pairs of spines (Bian et al. 2014). Species of the genera Xizicus and Xiphidiopsis are intermingled. The species Xiphidiopsis (Euxiphidiopsis) gurneyi Tinkham, 1944, Xiphidiopsis (Xiphidiopsis) autumnalis Gorochov, 1998, Xizicus (Haploxizicus) maculatus (Xia & Liu, 1993), Xizicus (Xizicus) fascipes (Bey-Bienko, 1955) and X. (X.) appendiculata cluster together, forming a highly supported clade (BS = 100, BPP = 1). The remaining two species, X. (X.) bituberculata and X. (X.) minorincisus, form a distinct clade directly related to the clade of Paraphlugiolopsis Bian & Shi, 2014 + Phlugiolopsis + Chandozhinskia Gorochov, 1993 + Xizicus (excluding the subgenus Eoxizicus) + Xiphidiopsis.

4. Discussion

In this study, we newly sequenced the mitogenomes of 17 species, including eight genera/subgenera of the tribe Meconematini sequenced for the first time. Combining these with previously published data, we performed a comprehensive comparative analysis of 40 mitochondrial sequences from 37 Meconematini species, revealing key features of their mitochondrial genomes in terms of nucleotide composition, codon usage, and selective pressures. Notably, we report the first identification of GTG as a start codon for ATP6 in this subfamily. Purifying selection was found to be the dominant evolutionary force shaping the evolution of these mitogenomes. Phylogenetic analyses strongly support a key evolutionary trend in male genitalia, transitioning from sclerotized to membranous structures. Furthermore, our results provide robust molecular evidence for revising the taxonomy of problematic groups, specifically supporting the elevation of Eoxizicus and Euxiphidiopsis as distinct genera, thereby resolving long-standing morphological controversies. In the following sections, we discuss these major findings in more detail and highlight certain caveats to be considered when interpreting the data.

4.1. Mitochondrial genome characteristics of the tribe Meconematini

The mitogenomes of Meconematini have a typical gene composition of 37 genes and variable sizes of AT-rich control regions—a common feature documented extensively in metazoan mitochondrial genomes (Clary and Wolstenhome 1985; Boore 1999). Like the vast majority of ensiferans, the gene arrangement retains the ancestral Orthoptera condition, as previously reported in related groups (Song et al. 2015; Dan et al. 2022). Regarding start codon usage, previous research has shown that mitochondrial protein-coding genes of Orthoptera exhibit not only the typical standard start codons ATN (ATA, ATT, ATC, ATG), but also unconventional ones such as GTG, TTG, AGT, TTA, CTG, and CCT (Zhao et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2023). In our study, we identified for the first time in the subfamily Meconematinae the exceptionally rare start codon GTG in the ATP6 gene, expanding the known diversity of initiation codons in this group. Our analysis also revealed high consistency in termination codons across all examined Meconematini species: all 37 species utilize the incomplete codon T as the termination signal for COI, ND4, and ND5. According to the classical model proposed by Ojala et al. (1981), these incomplete codons may form complete termination signals through post-transcriptional polyadenylation, thereby facilitating transcription termination.

In animal mitogenomes, all 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs) are involved in aerobic metabolism, and positive selection is often associated with adaptation to new environments. In the 37 mitogenomes examined, the Ka/Ks ratios for all 13 PCGs were below 1, indicating that purifying selection has dominated the evolution of Meconematini mitogenomes. Among these genes, ATP8 exhibited the highest Ka and Ka/Ks values, whereas COI showed the lowest, suggesting that COI has experienced stronger evolutionary constraints (Fig. 3). These findings are consistent with previous studies on Orthoptera (Chang et al. 2020) and Ensifera (Dan et al. 2022). However, the ranking of Ka/Ks values among the 13 PCGs differs from their results. Meanwhile, a study on Tettigoniidae PCGs by Zhao et al. (2025) reported that COIII exhibited the strongest signals of purifying selection, indicating evolutionary conservation, and positively selected sites were detected in ND1 and COI, which may reflect lineage-specific adaptations or ecological niche shifts that are not pervasive across all Ensifera.

4.2. Phylogenetic analyses provide insights into the morphological classification of Meconematini

Our study represents the first formal phylogenetic analysis of Meconematini. The tree topologies recovered by the two phylogenetic methods were consistent at the generic level, aligning with the recent findings of Pang et al. (2024). Although only 22 genera and 37 species were involved in our phylogenetic analysis, the results still provide significant insights into the morphological classification of Meconematini. In the phylogenetic tree, genera within the proximal clade (Paraphlugiolopsis, Phlugiolopsis, Chandozhinskia, Xiphidiopsis, Xizicus, Microconema, Nigrimacula, Eoxizicus, Alloxiphidiopsis, Tamdaora) are characterized by males with membranous genitalia (hagloid type in Gorochov 1993, 1998), while genera distributed in the basal half (Acosmetura Liu, 2000, Pseudocosmetura Liu, Zhou & Bi, 2010, Similameconema, Meconema Serville, 1831, Pseudokuzicus Gorochov, 1993, Shoveliteratura Shi, Bian & Chang, 2011, Decma, Kuzicus, Teratura, Macroteratura Gorochov, 1993 and Megaconema) have sclerotized male genitalia (grylloid type with partially or completely sclerotized dorsal lobe; tettigonioid type with a pair of sclerotized titillators; Gorochov 1993, 1998) (Fig. 5). These findings indicate a potential evolutionary trend in the male genitalia of Meconematini, shifting from sclerotized to membranous structures. The degree and configuration of genital sclerotization may provide phylogenetically informative characters for delimiting genus-group or subtribe taxa within the tribe.

Figure 5. 

Male genitalia of Meconematini species in anterior-ventral view. AD membranous genitalia (hagloid type): A Xiphidiopsis (Euxiphidiopsis) gurneyi; B Microconema clavata; C Alloxiphidiopsis emarginata; D Xizicus (Eoxizicus) sinuatus; EG genitalia with sclerotized titillators (tettigonioid type): E Pseudokuzicus (Pseudokuzicus) pieli; F Decma (Decma) fissa; G Decma (Decma) tristis; HL genitalia with partially or completely sclerotized dorsal lobe (grylloid type): H Teratura darevskyi; I Acosmetura nigrogeniculata; J Similameconema sinica; K Macroteratura (Macroteratura) megafurcula; L Megaconema geniculata. Scale bar = 1 mm. Nearly the entire membranous genitalia, along with the sclerotized titillators and dorsal lobe of the sclerotized genitalia, are outlined with a red circle in the figure. Images were captured using a Leica Ivesta 3 stereo light microscope.

In addition, our phylogenetic reconstructions provide robust support for the current taxonomic framework of the genera Kuzicus, Macroteratura, Teratura, and Megaconema. The genus Teratura was established by Redtenbacher (1891), and Gorochov (1993) subdivided Teratura into three subgenera, Teratura, Macroteratura, and Stenoteratura, principally according to the characteristics of the male tenth abdominal tergite, epiproct, and genitalia. Subsequent taxonomic studies (Wang 2015; Chen et al. 2020; Jin et al. 2020) elevated Teratura (Macroteratura) to full generic status, while transferring Teratura (Stenoteratura) to Macroteratura. This reclassification aligns with two critical synapomorphies: the male 10th tergite with a pair of long lobes and hind tibia bearing three pairs of apical spurs. These diagnostic traits exhibit phylogenetic coherence with Macroteratura and Kuzicus Gorochov, 1993, forming a distinct clade that contrasts markedly with Teratura and Megaconema. The latter genera are characterized by the male 10th tergite without long lobes and hind tibia bearing two pairs of apical spurs. Our molecular phylogenies demonstrate strong corroboration with these morphological discontinuities. Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses resolve Macroteratura + Kuzicus and Megaconema + Teratura as reciprocally monophyletic groups with strong nodal support (BPP = 1.0, BS = 100), validating the current classification schema based on evolutionary distinctiveness.

Overall, our phylogenetic reconstructions corroborate the synapomorphic value of genital morphology in generic delineation as originally proposed by Gorochov (1993, 1998), thereby validating the taxonomic utility of these characters in Meconematini classification. However, critical issues emerge regarding current generic circumscriptions: paraphyletic tendencies observed in Xiphidiopsis sensu lato; ambiguous morphological boundaries between genera, such as Xizicus and Euxiphidiopsis; and incongruence in character-state distributions among molecular clades. Nevertheless, we will not propose any changes to generic classification herein without sufficiently thorough taxon sampling. As a species-rich and diverse group, Meconematini comprises > 780 described species, so an integrative taxonomic framework incorporating dense molecular sampling and multivariate morphometric analyses will be essential for future taxonomic studies. Future investigations should prioritize sequencing type species and examining topotypic specimens to establish robust phylogenetic hypotheses before implementing taxonomic changes.

4.3. Non-monophyly of the genera Xiphidiopsis and Xizicus

The genera Xiphidiopsis and Xizicus are the two most diverse groups in Meconematini, and are also the most controversial in terms of species classification and subgeneric division (Jin et al. 2020; Gorochov 2022). Our phylogenetic reconstructions reject the monophyly of both Xiphidiopsis and Xizicus genera, consistent with previous phylogenetic studies (Mao et al. 2020; Pang et al. 2024).

In the genus Xiphidiopsis, whether Euxiphidiopsis should be treated as a subgenus or an independent genus has long been a matter of taxonomic debate. In our study, two species traditionally regarded by Chinese researchers as members of the genus EuxiphidiopsisX. (E.) gurneyi and Xiphidiopsis (Euxiphidiopsis) autumnalis—formed a well-supported clade in the phylogenetic tree. This clade subsequently grouped with X. (H.) maculatus and X. (X.) fascipes, while exhibiting a distant relationship with other Xiphidiopsis species (Fig. 4). Similar results were also obtained in the previous phylogenetic analyses based on mitogenome data (Mao et al. 2020; Pang et al. 2024) or COI + ITS1-5.8S rDNA-ITS2 fragments (Han 2016). Moreover, COI-5P barcode analyses have further corroborated this relationship, recovering a monophyletic cluster comprising both Xiphidiopsis autumnalis and Xiphidiopsis gurneyi (Zhou et al. 2019). Taken together, these results support the taxonomic treatment proposed by Liu and Zhang (2000) and Bai et al. (2014), advocating the recognition of Euxiphidiopsis as a distinct genus. However, whether the disputed species transferred by Gorochov (2022) to other genera should instead be placed in Euxiphidiopsis remains to be determined and will require additional evidence—both morphological and molecular. In particular, the exploration of new taxonomic characters will be essential for refining morphological diagnoses and resolving the placement of these species.

Regarding the genus Xizicus, although Eoxizicus remains classified as a subgenus of Xizicus in recent taxonomic treatments (Di et al. 2015; Gorochov 2022; Su et al. 2023; Cigliano et al. 2026), our phylogenetic analyses provide substantial evidence supporting its elevation to generic rank as proposed by several researchers (Liu and Zhang 2000; Wang et al. 2015; Jin et al. 2020). The three examined Eoxizicus species formed a strongly supported monophyletic branch (BS = 100; BPP = 1) at the base of the membranous genitalia clade and were sister to the branch comprising the genera Grigoriora and Alloxiphidiopsis, distinctly divergent from other species of Xizicus and Xiphidiopsis. These phylogenetic results, revealing distinct evolutionary trajectories and consistent morphological differentiation, strongly corroborate the taxonomic proposal to recognize Eoxizicus as a distinct genus rather than maintain its current subgeneric status under Xizicus.

5. Declarations

Authors’ Contributions. Shao-Li Mao: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Validation; Funding acquisition; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. Hao Yuan: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Software; Visualization. Xuan-Zeng Liu: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Software; Visualization; Writing—review & editing. Yan-Wen Wang: Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing—review & editing. Lu-Yao Yang: Investigation; Writing—review & editing. Ya-Fu Zhou: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Resources; Validation; Visualization; Writing—review & editing. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding. This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31601887), Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (No. 2022JM-110), Xi’an Science and Technology Plan Project (No. 23NYGG0024), Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi (2025NC-YBXM-063) and Special Program for Enhancing Scientific and Technological Capacity of Xi’an Medical University (No. 2024NLTS026).

Data availability statement. The mitochondrial genomes newly generated in this study have been deposited in GenBank (accession number in Table S1).

Conflicts of interest. The authors declare no competing interests.

6. Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Yuan Lu for assisting in the collection of the Tibetan specimens used in this study. We also thank Yang Li for assisting in conducting the One-way ANOVA statistical analysis of the data.

7. References

  • Bai JR, Han L, Mao SL, Shi FM (2014) Two new species of the genus Euxiphidiopsis Gorochov, 1993 (Orthoptera: Meconematinae) from China. Zootaxa 3827 (3): 387–391. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3827.3.8
  • Bernt M, Donath A, Jühling F, Externbrink F, Florentz C, Fritzsch G, Pütz J, Middendorf M, Stadler PF (2013) MITOS: Improved de novo Metazoan Mitochondrial Genome Annotation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 69 (2): 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.08.023
  • Bian X, Xie GL, Chang YL, Shi FM (2014) One new genus and two new species of the tribe Meconematini (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae) from Yunnan, China. Zootaxa 3793 (2): 286–290. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3793.2.9
  • Chang H, Qiu Z, Yuan H,Wang X, Huang Y (2020) Evolutionary rates of and selective constraints on the mitochondrial genomes of orthoptera insects with different wing types. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 145: 106734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106734
  • Chen L, Cui P, Zhuo Z, Chang YL (2020) Notes on the genus Macroteratura Gorochov, 1993 (Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae: Meconematini) with description of one new species from China. Zootaxa 4858(1): 95–104. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4858.1.6
  • Chevreux B, Pfisterer T, Drescher B, Driesel AJ, Müller WEG, Wetter T, Suhai S (2004) Using the miraEST assembler for reliable and automated mRNA transcript assembly and SNP detection in sequenced ESTs. Genome Research 14: 1147–1159. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.1917404
  • Dan ZC, Guan DL, Jiang T, Wang H, Zhao L, Xu SQ (2022) Evolution of Gene Arrangements in the Mitogenomes of Ensifera and Characterization of the Complete Mitogenome of Schizodactylus jimo. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23: 12094. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232012094
  • Fenn JD, Song H, Cameron SL, Whiting MF (2008) A preliminary mitochondrial genome phylogeny of Orthoptera (Insecta) and approaches to maximizing phylogenetic signal found within mitochondrial genome data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49: 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.07.004
  • Gorochov AV (1993) A contribution to the knowledge of the tribe Meconematini (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Zoosystematica Rossica 2(1): 63–92.
  • Gorochov AV (1998) New and little known Meconematinae of the tribes Meconematini and Phlugidini (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Zoosystematica Rossica 7(1):101–131.
  • Gorochov AV (2008) New and little known katydids of the tribe Meconematini (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae) from south-east Asia. Труды Зooлoгическoгo Институтa РAН 312: 26–42. https://doi.org/10.31610/trudyzin/2008.312.1-2.26
  • Gorochov AV (2022) Taxonomy of the katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from East Asia and adjacent islands. Communication 15. Far Eastern Entomologist 459: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.25221/fee.459.1
  • Hahn C, Bachmann L, Chevreux B (2013) Reconstructing mitochondrial genomes directly from genomic next-generation sequencing reads-A baiting and iterative mapping approach. Nucleic Acids Research 41: e129. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt371
  • Han L (2016) Molecular Phylogeny of genera Xizicus and Xiphidiopsis from China. Master’s thesis, Hebei University, Baoding, China.
  • Hawlitschek O, Sadílek D, Dey L-S, Buchholz K, Noori S, Baez IL, Wehrt T, Brozio J, Trávníček P, Seidel M, Husemann M (2023) New estimates of genome size in Orthoptera and their evolutionary implications. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0275551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275551
  • Jin XB, Liu XW, Wang HQ (2020) New taxa of the tribe Meconematini from South-Pacific and Indo-Malayan Regions (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Meconematinae). Zootaxa 4772 (1): 001–053. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4772.1.1.
  • Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C, Thierer T, Ashton B, Meintjes P, Drummond A (2012) Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28: 1647–1649. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199
  • Kück P, Meid SA, Groß C, Wägele JW, Misof B (2014) AliGROOVE–visualization of heterogeneous sequence divergence within multiple sequence alignments and detection of inflated branch support. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 294. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/15/294
  • Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SY, Guindon S (2012) PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29(6): 1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss020
  • Liu X, Majid M, Yuan H, Chang H, Zhao L, Nie Y, He L, Liu X, He X, Huang Y (2022) Transposable element expansion and low-level piRNA silencing in grasshoppers may cause genome gigantism. BMC Biology 20(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-022-01441-w
  • Liu XW, Zhang WN (2000) Studies on Chineae Katydids, I Ten New Species of the Tribe Meconematinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidea: Meconematidae) from China. Entomotaxonomia 22(3): 157–170.
  • Mao S, Yuan H, Chang H, Shi F, Zhou Y (2020) Comparative mitochondrial genomics of Shoveliteratura triangula (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Meconematinae) and the first description of a female specimen. Zootaxa 4751 (3): 507–520. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4751.3.5
  • Mao SL, Yuan H, Lu C, Zhou Y, Wang Y (2018) The complete mitochondrial genome of Xizicus (Haploxizicus) maculatus revealed by Next-Generation Sequencing and phylogenetic implication (Orthoptera, Meconematinae). ZooKeys 773(1): 57–67. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.773.24156
  • Mugleston J, Naegle M, Song H, Bybee SM, Ingley S, Suvorov A (2016) Reinventing the leaf: multiple origins of leaf-like wings in katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Invertebrate Systematics 30(4): 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS15055
  • Mugleston JD, Naegle M, Song H, Whiting MF (2018) A comprehensive phylogeny of Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera: Ensifera) reveals extensive ecomorph convergence and widespread taxonomic incongruence. Insect Systematics and Diversity 2(4),5: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixy010
  • Mugleston JD, Song H, Whiting MF (2013) A century of paraphyly: a molecular phylogeny of katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) supports multiple origins of leaf-like wings. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 69(3): 1120–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.07.014
  • Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, Von Haeseler A, Minh BQ (2015) IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32(1):268–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu300
  • Pang S, Zhang Q, Liang L, Qin Y, Li S, Bian X (2024) Comparative Mitogenomics and Phylogenetic Implications for Nine Species of the Subfamily Meconematinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Insects 15: 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15060413
  • Perna NT, Kocher TD (1995) Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 41:353–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00186547
  • Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Van Der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61(3): 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029
  • Song H, Amédégnato C, Cigliano MM, Desutter-Grandcolas L, Heads SW, Huang Y, Otte D, MF Whiting (2015) 300 million years of diversification: elucidating the patterns of orthopteran evolution based on comprehensive taxon and gene sampling. Cladistics 31: 621–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12116.
  • Song H, Béthoux O, Shin S, Donath A, Letsch H, Liu S, McKenna DD, Meng G, Misof B, Podsiadlowski L, Zhou X, Wipfler B, Simon S (2020) Phylogenomic analysis sheds light on the evolutionary pathways towards acoustic communication in Orthoptera. Nature Communications 11: 4939. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18739-4
  • Su J, Duan Y, Liu Q, Chang YL (2023) One new species of the genus Xizicus Gorochov, 1993 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Meconematinae) from Yunnan, China. Zootaxa 5318(2): 286–290. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.9
  • Wang HQ (2015) Systematic study on subfamily Meconematinae from China (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). PhD Thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
  • Wang X, Fang X, Yang P, Jiang X, Kang L (2014) The locust genome provides insight into swarm formation and long-distance flight. Nature Communications 5(1): 2957. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3957
  • Xia X (2018) DAMBE7: New and improved tools for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35, 1550–1552. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy073
  • Yuan H, Huang Y, Mao Y, Zhang N, Nie Y, Zhang X, Zhou YF, Mao SL (2021) The Evolutionary Patterns of Genome Size in Ensifera (Insecta: Orthoptera). Frontiers in Genetics 12: 693541. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.693541
  • Yuan H, Liu XJ, Liu XZ, Zhao LN, Mao SL, Huang Y (2024) The evolutionary dynamics of genome sizes and repetitive elements in Ensifera (Insecta: Orthoptera). BMC Genomics 25: 1041. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-024-10949-0
  • Zhang C, Mao B, Wang H, Dai L, Huang Y, Chen Z, Huang J (2023) The Complete Mitogenomes of Three Grasshopper Species with Special Notes on the Phylogenetic Positions of Some Related Genera. Insects 14: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010085
  • Zhao T, Lin Z, Yang H, Song F, Xia Z, Huang W (2025) Evolutionary history and divergence times of Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) inferred from mitochondrial phylogenomics. Frontiers in Genetics 16: 1495754. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2025.1495754
  • Zhou ZJ, Guo HF, Han L, Chai J, Che XT, Shi FM (2019) Singleton molecular species delimitation based on COI-5P barcode sequences revealed high cryptic/undescribed diversity for Chinese katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 19: 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-019-1404-5
  • Zhou ZJ, Zhao L, Liu N, Guo H, Guan B, Di J, Shi FM (2017) Towards a higher-level Ensifera phylogeny inferred from mitogenome sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 108: 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.01.014
  • Zhu W, Guan D, Chen Z, Dey L-S, Huang H, Li X, Fondjo, JAY, Hawlitschek O, Zhang Z, Husemann M, Xu S-Q (2025) Mitogenomics provide insights into the tribe-level systematics and historical phylogeography of band-winged grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Oedipodinae). Cladistics 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.70006

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1 

Tables S1–S6

Mao SL, Yuan H, Liu XZ, Wang YW, Yang LY, Zhou YF (2026)

Data type: .xlsx

Explanation notes: Table S1. Information of the mitogenomes downloaded from GenBank or sequenced by this study. — Table S2. Organization of the 17 newly sequenced Meconematini mitogenome. — Table S3. Characteristics of all 37 Meconematini mitogenomes used in this study. — Table S4. Initiation/Termination codons of PCGs in 17 newly sequenced Meconematini species. — Table S5. The mean Ka/Ks ratios of the 13 PCGs in Meconematini species. Table S6. Saturation test for concentrations of PCG123 and two rRNAs, as implemented in DAMBE.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/ licenses/odbl/1.0). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (35.24 kb)
Supplementary material 2 

Figures S1–S3

Mao SL, Yuan H, Liu XZ, Wang YW, Yang LY, Zhou YF (2026)

Data type: .zip

Explanation notes: Figure S1. AliGROOVE heterogeneity analysis of mitochondrial sequence composition for the dataset PCG123R [.pdf file]. — Figure S2. Distribution of Ka/Ks values for 13 PCGs across Meconematini species [.pdf file]. — Figure S3. The Maximum Likelihood tree constructed by RAxML based on PCGs and rRNAs for the tribe Meconematini [.pdf file].

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/ licenses/odbl/1.0). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (110.75 kb)
login to comment