Appendix A. A description of Euphorbiaceae phylogeny.

A description of Euphorbiaceae phylogeny

Sampling coverage and genetic distances for the Sphingidae of Australia.

<p>Taxonomic checklist, type localities, sample size (N), geographical origin and DNA barcode variations for analysed samples; underlined names highlight taxa with no DNA barcode available from Australia. CT = Capital Territory, EM = Eastern Malesia (Wallacea + Papuan region), NSW = New South Wales, NT = Northern Territory, OW = other regions of the world, Pi. = Pacific islands, QLD = Queensland, SA = South Australia, SEA = continental Southeast Asia, VIC = Victoria, WA = Western Australia, WM = Malesia West of the Wallacean region; δA, dA, δG and dG = maximum (δ) and mean (d) intraspecific K2P distance (%) within Australia (A) and globally (G); sd = standard deviation; numbers in the first column match numbered clusters in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone-0101108-g002" target="_blank">Figs 2</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone-0101108-g003" target="_blank">3</a>. The δ distances over 2% are highlighted in bold characters in cases involving at least one Confirmed Candidate Species (CCS), and in italics in cases where there is no complementary evidence available (Deep Conspecific Lineages, DCL). Species are given a null sample size in areas where they are known to occur but from where no sample was analyzed whereas empty cells mark areas where the species are considered absent in our current state of knowledge. Taxa are sorted by subfamily as follow: 1–50 = Macroglossinae, 51–55 = Smerinthinae, 56–72 = Sphinginae.</p>1<p>This species is only known to us from specimens bred or collected in the 1910’s. Previously referred as <i>M. heliophila queenslandi</i>. See Holloway (2011)</p>2<p>Previously referred as <i>M. insipida</i> Butler, 1875. See Holloway (2011)</p>3<p>A new species, <i>Coenotes arida Moulds & Melichar</i>, [2014], was described during the review of this study and does not appear in this table. Its original generic and specific identifications as <i>Synochea marmorata</i> were erroneous, and the affinity of these specimens with the genus <i>Coenotes</i> has been confirmed by morphology.</p>4<p><i>P. hausmanni</i> Eitschberger, 2001 syn. nov. (holotype sequenced) is here confirmed a synonym of <i>P. casuarinae</i>. It is neither morphologically nor genetically distinct from this species.</p>5<p><i>P. gloriosa</i> Eitschberger, 2001 syn. nov. (holotype sequenced) is here considered a synonym of <i>P. menephron</i>. It is neither morphologically nor genetically distinct. <i>P. menephron</i> represents a vast species complex in Asia and the Indo-Australian region, and a revision is needed to sort out the divisions within this complex (e.g. DNA barcodes reveal nine distinct clusters).</p>6<p><i>P. koalae</i> Eitschberger, 2001 syn. nov. (holotype sequenced) is here considered a synonym of <i>P. papuensis</i> (holotype sequenced). It is neither morphologically nor genetically distinct from this species.</p

DNA barcode variation in Australian Sphingidae.

<p>Neighbour Joining tree based on K2P distances for 1054(ranging from 0 to 9.7%, the circle line mark the 2% threshold); colour ranges highlight cases of synonymy (in blue), cryptic diversity (CCS, in red) as well as these species with 2% or more intraspecific distance (DCL, yellow) but not proven to represent two different species. Numbers refer to species numbers as listed in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone-0101108-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. An interactive and fully explorable version of the tree is available at <a href="http://itol.embl.de/shared/rodroug" target="_blank">http://itol.embl.de/shared/rodroug</a>. (See also <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone.0101108.s001" target="_blank">Fig. S1</a>.).</p

Distribution of Australian sphingid species.

<p>All 75 recognized species are linked by one or more coloured ribbons to the boundaries of their distributions (abbreviations as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone-0101108-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>). Species are ordered by distribution type, from the Australian endemics at the bottom left toward taxa with broader ranges at the top. Stars mark all species whose distributions were altered by our work, while text provides details about the cause of their distributional shift. The figure was assembled with the online application of Circos <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone.0101108-Krzywinski1" target="_blank">[57]</a>.</p

Geographical sampling.

<p>Distribution of the 1054 specimens of Australian Sphingidae with DNA barcodes analysed in this study (yellow) and of the 735 additional specimens of conspecifics (including hetero-subspecific taxa) from outside Australia and relevant closely related species with DNA barcodes (see details of record lists in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone.0101108.s008" target="_blank">Table S1</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone.0101108.s010" target="_blank">S3</a>).</p

DNA barcode variation in the geographically extended dataset.

<p>Neighbour Joining tree based on K2P distances for the 1054 Australian sphingid records analysed in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone-0101108-g002" target="_blank">Fig. 2</a> augmented by 735 records for conspecifics, co-subspecifics and closely related species from outside Australia. In the centre of the tree, the inner (red) and outer (green) histograms represent the maximum intraspecific distance (δG) and the distance to the nearest heterospecific Neighbour on BOLD (Δsp). The species with δG>2% and Δsp<2% are highlighted in the tree with red and green colour ranges, respectively; those species are also listed with numbers following species numbers in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone-0101108-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. An interactive and fully explorable and searchable version of this tree can be accessed at <a href="http://itol.embl.de/shared/rodroug" target="_blank">http://itol.embl.de/shared/rodroug</a>. (See also <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101108#pone.0101108.s005" target="_blank">Fig. S5</a>.).</p

Overlap of Lepidoptera species in frugivorous (this study) and leaf-chewer (different study, [68]) guilds.

<p>Overlap of Lepidoptera species in frugivorous (this study) and leaf-chewer (different study, [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0171843#pone.0171843.ref068" target="_blank">68</a>]) guilds.</p

The number of plant species attacked (black bar) and not attacked (white bar) by frugivorous Lepidoptera in samples categorized by (a) fruit weight and (b) the number of fruits.

<p>The number of plant species attacked (black bar) and not attacked (white bar) by frugivorous Lepidoptera in samples categorized by (a) fruit weight and (b) the number of fruits.</p

Relationship between seed and mesocarp volume for 268 plant species attacked and not attacked by Lepidoptera.

<p>Relationship between seed and mesocarp volume for 268 plant species attacked and not attacked by Lepidoptera.</p

Density of all frugivorous Lepidoptera, and both specialist and generalists, per fruit.

<p>Host species are ranked from highest to lowest density for 326 plant species with samples of >1 kg and >50 fruits. Note that all plants to the right of each curve exhibited zero density for the herbivore category in question that cannot be shown on the log scale d y axis.</p