Molecular insights into the phylogeny of Blapstinina (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Opatrini)

Abstract

The monophyly of the North and South American endemic subtribe Blapstinina (Tenebrionidae: Opatrini) is tested through phylogenetic analyses using five molecular markers [nuclear ribosomal 28S (28S), cytochrome oxidase subunit II (COII), arginine kinase (ArgK), carbamoyl‐phosphate synthetase domain of rudimentary (CAD), wingless (wg)]. Representatives of several opatrinoid subtribes were taken into consideration, including other geographically overlapping endemic genera, namely Ammodonus, Ephalus and Pseudephalus (all previously considered representatives of Ammobiina). A comparative study of morphology was performed to assess resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. Analyses support the monophyly of Blapstinina; however, they also strongly indicate that Ammodonus should be included within the subtribe. Mecysmus is nested within Blapstinus and therefore, a new synonymy, Blapstinus (= Mecysmus syn.n.), and the following combinations are introduced: Blapstinus advena comb.n., B. angustus comb.r., B. laticollis comb.n., B. parvulus comb.n., B. tenuis comb.n. Morphological analysis showed a close affiliation between Ephalus and Pseudephalus. Based on these results, Pseudephalus is synonymized with Ephalus [Ephalus (= Pseudephalus syn.n.)], and the following combination is introduced: Ephalus brevicornis comb.n. Recovered topologies also strongly support transferring Ephalus stat.n. into Opatrina, making the distribution of Opatrina amphi‐Atlantic.

Reevaluation ofBlapimorpha and Opatrinae: addressing a major phylogeny‐classification gap in darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Blaptinae)

“…This exact topology was predicted by Medvedev (2001) based on an examination of morphological data. From a taxonomic perspective, the delimitation of Amphidorini is unambiguous based on the presence of aedeagal clavae in the males and undivided ovipositor coxites in the females of all Amphidorini genera (Peña, 1971; Doyen & Lawrence, 1979; Johnston, 2016; Lumen et al ., 2020), while distinction between Blaptini and Platyscelidini is more complicated, as the two tribes are much more closely related (Fig. 2).…”

“…These regions were chosen because when concatenated, they recovered a strongly supported phylogeny for relationships for tribes traditionally included within the concept of Blapimorpha (i.e., Dendarini, Pedinini, Platynotini and Opatrini (Kamiński et al ., 2018, 2019a; Lumen et al . 2020)).…”

“…All sequences of Dendarini, Pedinini, Platynotini and Opatrini were generated during previous phylogenetic projects (Kamiński et al ., 2018, 2019a,b; Lumen et al ., 2020), as were selected Amphidorini (Johnston, 2019). Other sequences were newly generated for this study or were sequenced as part of Kanda's (2017) unpublished dissertation.…”

“…(2014) and Kanda (2017) tested some of the higher level (i.e., subfamily) problems within Tenebrionidae, their scope and taxon sampling did not provide enough data to test the concepts of Blapimorpha and Opatrinae by themselves. Recent phylogenetic efforts based on molecular data from independent research groups from China, France, Poland and the United States have provided some insights into the relationships within some of the most commonly included tribes within Blapimorpha and Opatrinae: Amphidorini (Johnston, 2019), Blaptini (Condamine et al ., 2011, 2013; Soldati et al ., 2017), Platyscelidini (Bai et al ., 2019), Dendarini, Pedinini, Platynotini and Opatrini (Kamiński et al ., 2018, 2019a; Lumen et al ., 2020). This has resulted in a diverse dataset of DNA sequences which when combined, provide a unique opportunity to test the historically morphologically based concepts of Blapimorpha and Opatrinae with molecular data.…”

Review of genus-group names in the family Tenebrionidae (Insecta, Coleoptera)

“…The classification presented in Table 2 is a synthesis starting from works on Tenebrionidae family-group names (e.g., Bouchard and Bousquet 2020a) with additional data published in recent regional catalogues (e.g., Bousquet et al 2018;, on fossils (Nabozhenko 2019), as well as on the diversity, taxonomy and phylogenetics of various clades (e.g., Bremer and Lillig 2014;Aalbu et al 2017Aalbu et al , 2018Kamiński et al 2019aKamiński et al , b, c, 2021bLumen et al 2020;Lillig and Bremer 2021;Gearner et al 2021). Only nomenclaturally available names are included in Table 2 wherein the valid genus-group names are listed in alphabetical order under each valid family-group name and the synonyms (preceded by "=") are given in chronological order.…”