Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Forty million years of mutualism: Evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association

Olle Pellmyr and James Leebens-Mack
PNAS August 3, 1999 96 (16) 9178-9183; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.16.9178
Olle Pellmyr
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Leebens-Mack
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Communicated by Ebbe S. Nielsen, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia (received for review October 30, 1998)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The obligate mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths is a major model system for the study of coevolving species interactions. Exploration of the processes that have generated current diversity and associations within this mutualism requires robust phylogenies and timelines for both moths and yuccas. Here we establish a molecular clock for the moths based on mtDNA and use it to estimate the time of major life history events within the yucca moths. Colonization of yuccas had occurred by 41.5 ± 9.8 million years ago (Mya), with rapid life history diversification and the emergence of pollinators within 0–6 My after yucca colonization. A subsequent burst of diversification 3.2 ± 1.8 Mya coincided with evolution of arid habitats in western North America. Derived nonpollinating cheater yucca moths evolved 1.26 ± 0.96 Mya. The estimated age of the moths far predates the host fossil record, but is consistent with suggested host age based on paleobotanical, climatological, biogeographical, and geological data, and a tentative estimation from an rbcL-based molecular clock for yuccas. The moth data are used to establish three alternative scenarios of how the moths and plants have coevolved. They yield specific predictions that can be tested once a robust plant phylogeny becomes available.

Obligate pollination mutualisms such as the yucca-yucca moth and fig-fig wasp associations provide some of the classically cited examples of coevolution (1, 2). In these interactions, the adult insects serve as the exclusive pollinators of their hosts. Their larvae subsequently feed on host seeds, but because many seeds are left intact the interaction carries a net positive effect for the plants. Both plants and insects show obvious coadapted traits, such as specific pollen collection and deposition behaviors in the insects, and structural adaptations that mediate pollinator specificity in the flowers.

Given the strong associations between these organisms, they serve as excellent model systems for exploring many aspects of evolutionary biology, such as the origins of mutualism (3–7), the evolution of virulence (8), evolution of mating systems (9), stability and reversal of obligate mutualism (5, 7, 10, 11), and consequences of specialization on population structure in species (12). Because of this utility for many branches of evolutionary biology, it would be highly desirable to develop a strong phylogenetic framework for the organisms and to establish a timeline for their diversification. This framework would allow for macroevolutionary analyses of the insect-host association, assessing for example the importance of codiversification (13), and the role of intrinsic and extrinsic factors in driving diversification (14).

Here we use molecular data in conjunction with biogeographic and fossil data to develop a phylogeny for the yucca moth family, Prodoxidae, to estimate minimum ages of divergence and determine patterns of diversification within the family. This work builds on an earlier study (15) based on limited molecular data that suggested variable rates of diversification among prodoxid genera. The present results support the following conclusions: (i) an explosive radiation of the yucca moths and evolution of pollination behavior had occurred no later than 40 million years ago (Mya), (ii) a second burst of yucca moth diversification is coincident with Pliocene desertification, (iii) derived nonpollinating cheater yucca moths have co-occurred with pollinators for at least 1.26 ± 0.96 My, and (iv) the radiation of yuccas occurred much earlier than suggested by the sparse fossil record. The emerging picture of early diversification in this obligate mutualism is consistent with a model of pollinator colonization of partly diversified host plant taxa, rather than strictly congruent diversification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Phylogenetic reconstruction was based on a 2.1-kb stretch of mtDNA, including most of the cytochrome oxidase I and II subunits and an intervening tRNAlys region (positions 1495–3603 in the Drosophila yakuba genome; ref. 16). The region was PCR-amplified, and both strands were sequenced either manually with Sequenase T7 polymerase or with Amersham Dye-terminator chemistry on an Applied Biosystems 377 automated sequencer following the manufacturer’s protocols (Amersham Pharmacia). All samples used for the analyses are listed in Table 1. For Prodoxidae, all but one genus were included, with a sufficient number of taxa for each genus to provide a stable topology. The unavailable genus Prodoxides from South America, known only from the type series, is basal or near-basal in the family (17), and its omission does not affect the current analyses. For the pollinating yucca moths and the derived nonpollinating cheater yucca moths, all taxa used in ref. 11 were included, resulting in representatives of all major life history categories. Outgroup taxa included single species from the three incurvarioid families (Adelidae, Heliozelidae, Cecidosidae) and four species from the Incurvariidae.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Samples used for the analyses

Relationships of the incurvarioid families have been established from morphological studies (17) (Fig. 1). Initial parsimony, neighbor-joining, and likelihood analyses of the complete COI-COII data set supported this phylogeny, except that the single available cecidosid, Cecidoses eremita, clustered with the basal Heliozelidae in all analyses. This finding also held true in an analysis based on amino acids for the COI and COII regions of the data. We hypothesized that this result was caused by an accelerated substitution rate in these lineages, leading to long branch attraction. This hypothesis was tested by using a parametric bootstrap procedure (18). Parameters for a five-taxon tree were estimated by assuming the topology in Fig. 1 and used as input data for the simulation program seq-gen, version 1.1 (19). After removing all third codon sites, maximum-likelihood estimates of base frequencies, transition bias (Tr/Ti), the distribution of substitution rates (approximation of the gamma parameter assuming four rate categories), and branch lengths were calculated on a tree constrained to have the topology presented in Fig. 1. Average stem node-to-tip branch lengths were estimated for Incurvariidae and Prodoxidae, giving single length estimates for each branch in the constraint tree (Fig. 2). By using the estimated parameters, 100 five-taxon data sets with sequence lengths equal to the analyzed data (1,182 bp) were generated under the evolutionary model of Hasegawa et al. (20) and Yang (21) and analyzed by using the unweighted parsimony algorithm in paup* (22). When the resulting most-parsimonious (MP) trees were tallied by topology, it became clear that the long branch leading to C. eremita was in fact causing problems. The true input topology was recovered only from 16% of the simulated data sets (Fig. 3). For this reason, we removed the C. eremita sequence from further analyses.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Proposed phylogeny for the families of Incurvarioidea, based on morphological data (17). Dashed line indicates that taxon was unavailable for DNA analysis, and placement is based on morphology alone.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Input parameters (topology, branch lengths, transition bias, and gamma parameter) used to generate simulated sequence data sets for the parametric bootstrap analysis. Branch lengths leading to prodoxids and incurvariids are averages for all sampled (see text).

Figure 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3

Frequency of parametric bootstrap replicates from which each topology was recovered as a single MP tree, one of two MP trees, or one of three MP trees. The true topology (lane A) was only recovered from 10 of the 100 simulated data sets. A = Adelidae, H = Heliozelidae, I = Incurvariidae, C = Cecidosidae, P = Prodoxidae.

After removing the Cecidoses sequence, topologies were estimated with paup* (22) by using unweighted parsimony, maximum likelihood, and neighbor joining. The maximum-likelihood and neighbor-joining trees were estimated assuming the nucleotide substitution model of Hasegawa et al. (20). Bootstrap support values for each node were estimated in the parsimony and neighbor-joining analyses. Given the low level of sequence divergence among members of the Tegeticula yuccasella complex, all codon positions were used for initial estimates of the topology.

Likelihood ratio tests were used to establish the best-supported model of molecular evolution for estimating minimum ages for the key life history traits. Rate heterogeneity across sites and among branches was tested. The substitution model of Hasegawa et al. (20) was assumed. As with the simulation experiment, third codon positions were dropped from the analysis to avoid the effects of substantial saturation. Standard likelihood ratio tests were applied in which the null hypothesis is a special case of the alternative hypothesis (23, 24). For example, the model that specifies a single substitution rate for all branches in the phylogeny is a special case of the model that estimates a separate rate parameter for each branch. In such cases, where the null hypothesis is nested within the alternative, two times the negative log of the likelihood ratio statistic: Math approximates the χ2 distribution with the degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the number of parameters estimated under the null and alternative hypotheses (24).

Finally, boundary ages were estimated for key events in the evolutionary history within the Prodoxidae. The topology shown in Fig. 4 was assumed. At each node, we used the two-cluster test of Takezaki et al. (26) to test the null hypothesis of equal substitution rates for the two clades above. When the null hypothesis was not rejected, the “height” of the node was estimated as half the average genetic distance between pairs of taxa sampled from the separate clades above the node (26). The relative age of the node then was estimated as quotient of the height of node of interest divided by the height of the reference node that defines the split between Incurvariidae and Prodoxidae+Cecidosidae (Fig. 1). Standard errors on the age estimates were estimated from the variance in this ratio (27). Covariances between node heights were estimated as described by Ayala et al. (28). Finally, the minimum age of each node was estimated as the relative age multiplied by 95 Mya, the minimum age of the split between the Incurvariidae and Prodoxidae+Cecidosidae clades.

Figure 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4

Phylogeny for Prodoxidae and three outgroup families; shown is one of 10 MP trees, with neighbor-joining and maximum-likelihood trees having identical topology. Numbers are bootstrap values based on 100 iterations. Moth families are given on right; names for unnamed taxa within the yuccasella complex are those given in ref. 11 and are based on host yucca and state (all of which are described in ref. 25). The terms early and late cheaters reflect use in ref. 11 and refer to the host phenological stage attacked. Asterisks identify taxa that were excluded in age estimations caused by significant rate deviations in two-cluster tests. Arrows indicate latest origin of four named traits to be explored.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Establishment of Topology.

Phylogenetic analysis of the entire COI-COII data set resulted in 10 MP trees that differed only in the placement of taxa within the yuccasella complex. One of the 10 MP trees was recovered in the neighbor-joining analysis of the full data set, assuming no rate variation among sites (Fig. 4). The maximum-likelihood tree recovered under the single rate model differed in that Vespina was pulled out of the Incurvariidae clade and placed below it. Both the maximum likelihood and MP/neighbor joining trees are consistent with an earlier phylogeny (15), including far fewer taxa, except that the basal genera within Prodoxidae (Greya and Lampronia+Tetragma) have switched positions. This difference holds up in all analyses of the current data. More importantly, inferences concerning yucca moth diversification are unaffected by alternative topological resolutions of the basal prodoxid genera.

Testing for Rate Variation Among Sites and Branches.

Under the assumption that the tree in Fig. 4 represents the true topology, the maximum-likelihood estimate of the gamma-distribution parameter was 0.18. The likelihood for the model including rate heterogeneity was significantly better than that of the single rate model (−2 log Λ = 3,406, P ≪ 0.01). The estimated value of gamma was very robust, remaining unchanged given alternative resolution of poorly supported nodes within the topology. The observed rate heterogeneity across sites was accounted for in the age estimations.

The likelihood ratio test for rate variation among branches was run, assuming the topology shown in Fig. 4 and rate variation among sites. The molecular clock assumption (no rate variation among branches) was rejected (−2 log Λ = 134, P = ≪ 0.01). Given this result, we turned to the distance-based tests of Takezaki et al. (26). The two-cluster test identified rate variation between clades at two nodes. The node-to-tip test identified taxa within these nodes as having significantly higher (two Prodoxus species) or lower (Lampronia) than average substitution rates. Therefore, these three taxa were not included in the age estimation analyses.

Age Estimation Within the Prodoxidae.

We proceeded to estimate ages for nodes of particular significance in prodoxid life history evolution. Both biogeographic and fossil data support a minimum age of 95 My for the prodoxid stemgroup (Fig. 5). Cecidosid moths combine a classical Gondwanan distribution with very low dispersal ability (29). Six genera within the family are gall-makers on Anacardiaceae, and they make up separate monophyletic groups in South America and southern Africa (30). Their shared host utilization suggests an origin before breakup of West Gondwana, which was definitive for all but very able dispersers 95–100 Mya (31). This date substantially predates the proposed 70-My age of the Anacardiaceae (32, 33), but is consistent with other biogeographic evidence (34). Further support for old age of the Cecidosidae is a recently discovered, unnamed genus (35) endemic to New Zealand, now regarded as basal within the family (R. Hoare and E.S. Nielsen, personal communication), indicating family origin before the isolation of New Zealand, approximately 82 Mya (36). Cecidosid diversification thus indicates a conservative age of >95 My for the prodoxid-cecidosid divergence. Because the Cecidosidae has evolved at a faster rate than the other families, however, it cannot be used for calibration. Instead we applied the 95-My estimate to the next lower node, between the Incurvariidae and Prodoxidae+ Cecidosidae clades.

Figure 5
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5

Phylogeny for Incurvariidae, Cecidosidae, and Prodoxidae, indicating key geological and biological events, and biogeographic benchmark dates used to infer minimum age of stemgroup Prodoxidae.

The fossil record is scant, but consistent with the age calculations based on biogeographic data. There are no prodoxid fossils, but 97-My-old leaf fossils with highly characteristic mines of the more derived group Ditrysia provide indirect evidence that the incurvarioid stemgroup was present at that time (37, 38), whereas a proposed 110- to 120-My-old incurvarioid wing (39) cannot be exclusively tied to the superfamily (40).

After age estimation for the family, we calculated minimum ages for nodes associated with major evolutionary events within the Prodoxidae (Fig. 6). Basal genera are confined to humid and semiarid habitats and feed on a variety of dicotyledonous families. Coincident with the invasion of arid habitats by Prodoxidae, woody monocots were colonized no later than 44.1 Mya, with extant members of the basal genus Mesepiola feeding on seeds of Nolinaceae. A very short internode to the Prodoxus+pollinator node indicates rapid colonization of the yuccas by 41.5 Mya. The pollinating genera Parategeticula and Tegeticula originated very closely in time 35–41 Mya. The estimated age of the node separating these two genera is younger than the basal node within Tegeticula, but not significantly so. In fact, all three genera feeding on Yucca arose so quickly that their ages overlap in the analysis. The distinct feeding and life history characteristics exhibited by Prodoxus, Parategeticula, and Tegeticula seem to have arisen in rapid succession shortly after the colonization of woody monocots (Fig. 6). Parsimonious trait reconstruction on the phylogeny places the colonization of woody monocots on the internode between the Lampronia+Tetragma and Mesepiola branches. and is consistent with a late burst of lineages quickly diversifying into all extant life histories. This reconstruction is consistent with the hypothesis that a burst of diversification occurred as the woody monocots were colonized, yielding all of the extant life histories observed in the monocot feeding prodoxids. Alternative scenarios of earlier colonization of the woody monocots require an early period of limited cladogenesis followed by explosive radiation, or consistent rate of cladogenesis with subsequent extinction of basal monocot feeders.

Figure 6
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6

Phylogeny for Prodoxidae as in Fig. 4, showing estimated minimum ages (± SE in parentheses) for select nodes. Taxa are given on the right, with nested brackets within the yuccasella complex indicating cheater yucca moth clades. Prodoxid hosts are given at far right.

After the early rapid diversification of prodoxids on Yucca, a subsequent explosive radiation occurred within the T. yuccasella complex 3.2 ± 1.8 Mya, giving rise to all pollinator lineages on capsular-fruited yuccas and the nonpollinating cheater yucca moths so quickly that the exact topology among major branches cannot be established from data presented here. However, additional data on nucleotide variation among host specific populations show definitively that there have been at least two independent losses of pollinating behavior in the T. yuccasella complex (unpublished work). By using maximum sequence divergence within the two independent cheater lineages, we find that two losses of pollination behavior in these two lineages is simultaneous given the coarse resolution of our age estimates. The early and late cheater lineages identified by Pellmyr et al. (11) arose 1.26 ± 0.96 and 1.26 ± 0.95 Mya, respectively.

Implications for Early Stages of the Mutualism.

The availability of a timeline for diversification of the yucca moths makes possible the erection of explicit predictions for patterns of host diversification under different models of how this plant-moth association has evolved (25, 41). Specific models that generate different predictions include strict cospeciation, synchronous diversification without cospeciation, and asynchronous diversification without cospeciation. In a strict cospeciation model, which is the most constrained model, parallel topologies are predicted between the yuccas and the moths, and diversification rates also should be synchronous. This is the predicted outcome if host shifts are very unlikely, and diversification strongly linked between the taxa. This model already can be rejected (4, 11). If moths can colonize new hosts, but still respond evolutionarily to host diversification, synchronous patterns of diversification are predicted for the moths and their hosts, but their topologies are not predicted to be congruent. In the least constrained model, where host switching is common and factors driving diversification of yuccas and yucca moths are unlinked, no correlations are expected in either relative rates or timing of plant and pollinator diversification.

Information about phylogeny and history of diversification of yuccas is still limited (42), preventing strong tests of the above predictions, but some inferences about the history of the association can be drawn. The estimated Eocene age of the association between yuccas and prodoxids provides indirect evidence of far older age of Yucca than previously documented. The macrofossil record (excluding Pleistocene subfossils; ref. 43) is limited to a 14-My-old vegetative fragment sharing one synapomorphy with extant Yucca (44). Applying a molecular clock to rbcL data, Eguiarte (45) proposed that Agavaceae and Nolinaceae diversified about 47 Mya, a date slightly older than that inferred here for basal diversification of prodoxids onto these families. Geologically, this period coincides with the onset of uplifting of western North America (46–48), which led to widespread development of semiarid habitats where extant yuccas are constituent taxa. Alternatively, Axelrod (49) speculated that Yucca may have evolved as early as late Cretaceous. Although a proposed Eocene origin would not exclude simultaneous diversification of moths and plants, a Cretaceous origin would indicate that early yuccas persisted without moths as pollinators, and that the yucca-yucca moth association originated as moths colonized extant hosts rather than through parallel diversification.

The second explosive radiation of yucca moths, within the yuccasella complex, occurred 3.2 ± 1.8 Mya. The moths derived from this radiation were primarily those of capsular-fruited yuccas, which occur in the northern portion of the Yucca geographic range. The onset of this radiation coincided with rapid aridification (50), leading to true deserts and treeless steppes, thus creating or extending the primary extant habitats for the capsular yuccas and their moth associates. There is currently neither fossil nor phylogenetic information for the history of Yucca within this Pliocene window. Rigorous tests of the predictions above must await a robust plant phylogeny.

Comparison with Other Obligate Mutualisms.

Obligate mutualisms have attracted particular interest in terms of their stability and endurance (10, 51). The presence of pollinating yucca moths for at least 40 My can be compared against available data for another obligate pollination mutualism, between fig wasps and figs. A fossil fig wasp of Oligocene age is known (52), but the presence of fig fruits from the Eocene onward (53) suggest that this mutualism has persisted as long as the yucca-yucca moth association. Furthermore, many associations between specific yuccas and yucca moths have persisted since the evolution of derived cheater yucca moths, which dramatically increased the cost to the plants (11), suggesting that these mutualisms retain evolutionary stability over long time spans.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Donahue, T. Friedlander, M. Gentili, J.-F. Landry, R. Leuschner, Z. Mazanec, N. Ryrholm, and D. Wagner for moth samples and E.A. Herre for references to fossil fig wasps. Collecting permits were provided by Big Bend National Park and the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. Work was funded by National Science Foundation Grants 95–09056 and 95–28072 and a grant from the National Geographic Society.

Footnotes

    • ↵‡ To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: olle.pellmyr{at}vanderbilt.edu.

    • Data deposition: The sequences reported in this paper have been deposited in the GenBank database (accession nos. U04880–1, U49021–30, U49032–43, and AF150907–28).

    ABBREVIATIONS

    Mya,
    million years ago;
    MP,
    most parsimonious
    • Received October 30, 1998.
    • Accepted June 21, 1999.
    • Copyright © 1999, The National Academy of Sciences

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Thompson J N
      (1994) The Coevolutionary Process (Univ. of Chicago, Chicago).
    2. ↵
      1. Fleming T H,
      2. Holland J N
      (1998) Oecologia 114:368–375.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    3. ↵
      1. Bronstein J L
      (1994) Q Rev Biol 69:31–51.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    4. ↵
      1. Bogler D J,
      2. Neff J L,
      3. Simpson B B
      (1995) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:6864–6867, pmid:7624333.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Pellmyr O,
      2. Huth C J
      (1994) Nature (London) 372:257–260.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
      1. Pellmyr O,
      2. Thompson J N,
      3. Brown J M,
      4. Harrison R G
      (1996) Am Nat 148:827–847.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    6. ↵
      1. Richter K S,
      2. Weis A E
      (1995) Nature (London) 376:557–558, pmid:7637801.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Herre E A
      (1993) Science 259:1442–1445.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Herre E A
      (1987) Nature (London) 329:627–629.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    9. ↵
      1. Bull J J,
      2. Rice W R
      (1991) J Theor Biol 149:63–74, pmid:1881147.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Pellmyr O,
      2. Leebens-Mack J,
      3. Huth C J
      (1996) Nature (London) 380:155–156, pmid:8600388.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Nason J D,
      2. Herre E A,
      3. Hamrick J L
      (1998) Nature (London) 391:685–687.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    12. ↵
      1. Farrell B D
      (1998) Science 281:555–559, pmid:9677197.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Becerra J X
      (1997) Science 276:253–256, pmid:9092474.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Brown J M,
      2. Pellmyr O,
      3. Thompson J N,
      4. Harrison R G
      (1994) Ann Entomol Soc Am 87:795–802.
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      1. Clary D O,
      2. Wolstenholme D R
      (1985) J Mol Evol 22:252–271, pmid:3001325.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Nielsen E S,
      2. Davis D R
      (1985) Syst Entomol 10:307–322.
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Ferris J D,
      2. Palumbi S R
      1. Huelsenbeck J P,
      2. Hillis D M,
      3. Jones R
      (1996) in Molecular Zoology: Advances, Strategies and Protocols, eds Ferris J D, Palumbi S R(Wiley, New York), pp 19–45.
    18. ↵
      1. Rambaut A,
      2. Grassly N C
      (1997) Comput Appl Biosci 13:235–238, pmid:9183526.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Hasegawa M,
      2. Kishino H,
      3. Yano T
      (1985) J Mol Evol 21:160–174.
      OpenUrl
    20. ↵
      1. Yang Z
      (1994) J Mol Evol 39:306–314, pmid:7932792.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Swofford D
      (1998) paup* 4.0b2 (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA).
    22. ↵
      1. Goldman N
      (1993) J Mol Evol 36:182–198, pmid:7679448.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Huelsenbeck J P,
      2. Rannala B,
      3. Yang Z H
      (1997) Evolution 51:410–419.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    24. ↵
      1. Pellmyr O
      (1999) Syst Entomol 24:243–270.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    25. ↵
      1. Takezaki N,
      2. Rzhetsky A,
      3. Nei M
      (1995) Mol Biol Evol 12:823–833, pmid:7476128.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    26. ↵
      1. Lynch M,
      2. Walsh B
      (1998) Genetic Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA).
    27. ↵
      1. Ayala F J,
      2. Rzhetsky A,
      3. Ayala F J
      (1998) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:606–611, pmid:9435239.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Becker V O
      (1977) Polsk P Entomol 47:79–86.
      OpenUrl
    29. ↵
      1. Nielsen E S
      (1985) J. Res. Lepid. Suppl. 1, 1–16.
    30. ↵
      1. Goldblatt P
      1. Pitman W S III,
      2. Cande S,
      3. LaBrecque J,
      4. Pindell J
      (1993) in Biological Relationships Between Africa and South America, ed Goldblatt P(Yale Univ. Press, New Haven), pp 15–34.
    31. ↵
      1. Cronquist A
      (1981) An Integrated System of Classification of the Flowering Plants (Columbia Univ. Press, New York).
    32. ↵
      1. Moran N A,
      2. Munson M A,
      3. Baumann P,
      4. Ishikawa H
      (1993) Proc R Soc London B 253:167–171.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Raven P H,
      2. Axelrod D I
      (1974) Ann Mo Bot Gard 61:539–673.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    34. ↵
      1. Dugdale J S
      (1989) N Z J Zool 16:277–281.
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Cooper R A,
      2. Millener P R
      (1993) Trends Ecol Evol 8:429–433.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Labandeira C C,
      2. Dilcher D L,
      3. Davis D R,
      4. Wagner D L
      (1994) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:12278–12282, pmid:11607501.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    37. ↵
      1. Kristensen N P
      (1997) Mem Mus Nat Hist Nat 173:253–271.
      OpenUrl
    38. ↵
      1. Whalley P
      (1977) Ann Transv Mus 31:70–89.
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      1. Kristensen N P
      1. Kristensen N P,
      2. Skalski A W
      (1999) in Lepidoptera: Moths and Butterflies 1, Handbook of Zoology, ed Kristensen N P(de Gruyter, Berlin), pp 7–25.
    40. ↵
      1. Page R D M
      (1996) Syst Biol 45:151–167.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    41. ↵
      1. Bogler D J,
      2. Simpson B B
      (1996) Am J Bot 83:1225–1235.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    42. ↵
      1. Betancourt J L,
      2. Van Devender T R,
      3. Martin P S
      , eds(1990) Packrat Middens: Late Quarternary Environments of the Arid West (Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson).
    43. ↵
      1. Tidwell W D,
      2. Parker L R
      (1990) Rev Palaeobot Palyn 62:79–95.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    44. ↵
      1. Eguiarte L E
      (1995) Bol Soc Bot Méx 56:45–56.
      OpenUrl
    45. ↵
      1. Raymo M E,
      2. Ruddiman W F
      (1992) Nature (London) 359:117–122.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
      1. Wolfe J A,
      2. Schorn H E,
      3. Forest C E,
      4. Molnar P
      (1997) Science 276:1672–1675.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      1. Kerr R E
      (1997) Science 275:1564–1565.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    47. ↵
      1. Axelrod D L
      (1979) Occ Pap Calif Acad Sci 132:1–174.
      OpenUrl
    48. ↵
      1. Webb S D
      (1977) Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:355–380.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    49. ↵
      1. Gilbert F
      1. Addicott J F,
      2. Bronstein J,
      3. Kjellberg F
      (1990) in Genetics, Evolution, and Coordination of Insect Life Cycles, ed Gilbert F(Springer, London), pp 143–161.
    50. ↵
      1. Brues C T
      (1910) Bull Mus Comp Zool 54:1–126.
      OpenUrl
    51. ↵
      1. Crane P R,
      2. Blackmore S
      1. Collinson M E
      (1989) in Evolution, Systematics, and Fossil History of the Hamamelidae, eds Crane P R, Blackmore S(Clarendon, Oxford), 2, pp 319–339.
      OpenUrl
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    Article Alerts
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Forty million years of mutualism: Evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Forty million years of mutualism: Evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association
    Olle Pellmyr, James Leebens-Mack
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 1999, 96 (16) 9178-9183; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9178

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Forty million years of mutualism: Evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association
    Olle Pellmyr, James Leebens-Mack
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 1999, 96 (16) 9178-9183; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9178
    Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Mendeley logo Mendeley
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 96 (16)
    Table of Contents

    Submit

    Sign up for Article Alerts

    Article Classifications

    • Biological Sciences
    • Evolution

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • MATERIALS AND METHODS
      • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • ABBREVIATIONS
      • References
    • Figures & SI
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    You May Also be Interested in

    Surgeons hands during surgery
    Inner Workings: Advances in infectious disease treatment promise to expand the pool of donor organs
    Despite myriad challenges, clinicians see room for progress.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/David Tadevosian.
    Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
    Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
    Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
    Image credit: Witsawat.S.
    Double helix
    Journal Club: Noncoding DNA shown to underlie function, cause limb malformations
    Using CRISPR, researchers showed that a region some used to label “junk DNA” has a major role in a rare genetic disorder.
    Image credit: Nathan Devery.
    Steamboat Geyser eruption.
    Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
    Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
    Listen
    Past PodcastsSubscribe
    Multi-color molecular model
    Enzymatic breakdown of PET plastic
    A study demonstrates how two enzymes—MHETase and PETase—work synergistically to depolymerize the plastic pollutant PET.
    Image credit: Aaron McGeehan (artist).

    Similar Articles

    Site Logo
    Powered by HighWire
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS Feeds
    • Email Alerts

    Articles

    • Current Issue
    • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
    • List of Issues

    PNAS Portals

    • Anthropology
    • Chemistry
    • Classics
    • Front Matter
    • Physics
    • Sustainability Science
    • Teaching Resources

    Information

    • Authors
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewers
    • Librarians
    • Press
    • Site Map
    • PNAS Updates

    Feedback    Privacy/Legal

    Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490