Phylogenetic analysis of Elateriformia (Coleoptera: Polyphaga) based on larval characters

Abstract

External and internal structures of larvae of Elateriformia were studied and interpreted phylogenetically. Detailed descriptions of the head of representatives of the superfamilies Dryopoidea (Lanternarius sp.; Heteroceridae), Elateroidea (Melanotus sp.; Elateridae), and Cantharoidea (Phosphaena sp.; Lampyridae) are presented. Internal structures of larvae of Eulichadidae, Callirhipidae, Psephenidae, Dryopidae, Limnichidae, Artematopidae, Drilidae, and Homalisidae were examined for the first time. Loss of the mandibular mola is a common derived feature of Elateriformia. Prognathism, the presence of a broad, sclerotized gula, and an abdominal apex which is formed by tergite IX are considered as synapomorphies of Dryopoidea + Elateroidea + Cantharoidea. The presence of a characteristic maxillolabial complex and vertically arranged extrinsic maxillary muscles strongly support a monophylum comprising Dryopoidea (excluding Eulichadidae and Ptilodactylidae partim), Elateroidea, and Cantharoidea. As currently defined, Ptilodactylidae are paraphyletic. A monophylum comprising Eulichadidae and Ptilodactylidae (excluding Araeopidius and Cladotominae) is supported by the presence of a rigid, articulated mandibular process and paired lobes of segment X, which border the anus laterally. The monophyly of Elateroidea, Cantharoidea, and Dryopoidea (excluding Callirhipidae, Eulichadidae, and Ptilodactylidae part.) is suggested by apomorphic features of the tentorium and by the origin of the vertical maxillary muscles from the strongly modified posterior tentorial arm. The monophyly of Dryopoidea (excluding Callirhipidae, Eulichadidae, and Ptilodactylidae part.) remains open to question. A sister‐group relationship between the dryopoid families Limnichidae and Heteroceridae is indicated by a specialized vestiture of setae, a hyaline antennal appendage, and a sclerotized, cranial tentorial connecting bar. The monophyly of Araeopidius, Cladotominae, Chelonariidae, Psephenidae, Dryopidae, Lutrochidae, and Elmidae is suggested by the presence of a ventrally hinged operculum of segment IX. The presence of plumose setae on the mouthparts is a possible synapomorphy of Chelonariidae, Psephenidae, Lutrochidae, and Elmidae. The presence of three retractable anal gills is considered as a significant synapomorphy of the latter three families. The monophyly of Elateroidea + Cantharoidea is indicated by partial reduction and immobilization of the labrum, loss of labral muscles (Brachypsectra?), the presence of a strongly developed M. tentoriohypopharyngalis lateralis, and the presence of a setose pre‐oral filter (groundplan). Complete fusion of clypeus and labrum is considered as a possible synapomorphy of the elateroid families (excluding Artematopidae) on the one hand, and of Cantharoidea (excluding Brachypsectridae) on the other. Highly aberrant, plate‐like mandibles with restricted mobility and longitudinal sclerotizations of the prosternum are considered as synapomorphies of Cerophytidae, Throscidae, and Eucnemidae. An unusually s...

The First Complete 3D Reconstruction of a Spanish Fly Primary Larva (Lytta vesicatoria, Meloidae, Coleoptera)

“…The presence of a large U-shaped ventromedian emargination in primary larvae of Eletica [33] is possibly an autapomorphy of Eleticinae. This feature is obviously related with the formation of a maxillolabial complex resembling that of elateriform or cleroid larvae [10]; [39], another possible autapomorphy of Eleticinae.…”

Biodiversity of Coleoptera

“…This finding was contradicted by two molecular studies indicating that the Elateriformia are monophyletic, excluding the Scirtoidea , Hughes et al 2006, or more broadly paraphyletic (Hughes et al 2006). Beutel (1995) analyzed interfamily relationships of the Elateriformia (sensu Lawrence 1987), based on 27 larval characters. Membership of the Byrrhoidea was redefined to reflect a monophyletic group, based on a morphological analysis by Costa et al (1999).…”

Larval chaetotaxy of Coleoptera (Insecta) as a tool for evolutionary research and systematics: less confusion, more clarity

“…Crowson 1955; Lawrence and Newton 1982; Lawrence et al. 1995) and for various beetle subgroups (to mention just a few: Lawrence 1974, 1994; Beutel 1995; Marvaldi 1997; Beutel and Haas 1998; Thayer 2000; Bologna and Pinto 2001; Di Giulio et al. 2003; Grebennikov and Scholtz 2004; Balke et al.…”

“…But, starting with the early past century, the investigation of larval morphology, alone or in combination with the morphology of adults, led to the most significant phylogenetic hypotheses for beetles as a whole (e.g. Crowson 1955;Lawrence and Newton 1982;Lawrence et al 1995) and for various beetle subgroups (to mention just a few: Lawrence 1974Lawrence , 1994Beutel 1995;Marvaldi 1997;Beutel and Haas 1998;Thayer 2000;Bologna and Pinto 2001;Di Giulio et al 2003;Grebennikov and Scholtz 2004;Balke et al 2005;Grebennikov and Maddison 2005;Solodovnikov and Newton 2005). Now there are molecular data, which are rapidly becoming influential for beetle systematics (Caterino et al 2000;Vogler 2005), the most robust results though coming when molecular data are analysed together with adult and larval morphology (e.g.…”