Spilopyrinae Chapuis: a new subfamily in the Chrysomelidae and its systematic placement (Coleoptera)

Abstract

The phylogeny of the Chrysomeloidea is re-assessed, with data from recently described larvae of three chrysomeloid taxa. Cladistic analyses were performed on 19 subfamilies and tribes with 56 informative characters. The tribe Megascelidini is shown to be correctly placed in Eumolpinae and the subfamily Aulacoscelidinae in Orsodacnidae, but Spilopyra and associated genera are the probable monophyletic sister-taxon of (Eumolpinae + (Lamprosomatinae + Cryptocephalinae)) and are therefore elevated to subfamily: Spilopyrinae Chapuis (= Stenomelini Chapuis, syn. nov. = Hornibiinae Crowson, syn. nov.). The genera included in Spilopyrinae are: Bohumiljania Monrós, Cheiloxena Baly, Hornius Fairmaire, Macrolema Baly, Richmondia Jacoby, Spilopyra Baly and Stenomela Blanchard. Adults and larvae of Spilopyrinae are described and a key given for the genera. The status of several genera formerly placed in association with members of the Spilopyrinae is reviewed. The subfamily Spilopyrinae has a southern trans-Pacific distribution, in Chile, New Caledonia, New Guinea and Australia, indicating an origin before the late Cretaceous break-up of Gondwana. The species feed on Sapindaceae (Spilopyra), Nothofagaceae (Hornius) and Myrtaceae (Cheiloxena, Stenomela). New keys are provided to the adults and larvae of the subfamilies of Chrysomeloidea.

<strong>Chrysomelid males with enlarged mandibles: three new species and a review of occurrence in the family (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)</strong>

“…The probable phylogeny of this group, (Spilopyrinae + (Eumolpinae + (Lamprosomatinae + Cryptocephalinae))) (Reid 2000), shows increasing compaction of body form. Notably, Lamprosomatinae and Cryptocephalinae have the relatively highest within-subfamily proportions of EMM, 1.7% and 4.2% respectively (Table 1).…”

“…Molecular and morphological evidence suggests that this is sister to the Eumolpinae (Reid 1995(Reid , 2000GomezZurita, Hunt & Vogler 2007), therefore we treat Synetini as a tribe of that subfamily ( Table 1). The chrysomelid subfamilies may be considered as three independent clades, as suggested by both morphological and molecular analyses (Reid 2000;Gomez-Zurita et al 2007 ).…”

“…Species of Megamerus Macleay, 1827, have enlarged mandibles, but this is an interspecific feature not sexual (Monrós 1960). Sexual behaviour has not been recorded but given the physical and phylogenetic similarity of Sagrinae to Criocerinae and Donaciinae (Reid 1995(Reid , 2000, is likely to be similar to these two subfamilies.…”

A new genus and species of Bruchinae, with a key to the genera from Australia (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

“…Buburra shows several plesiomorphic features for a bruchine, by comparison with the sister-group Sagrinae (Reid 1995(Reid , 2000, including: head not abruptly constricted behind vertex; frons without ridge; antennae not sexually dimorphic; prosternal process strongly arched between coxae and meeting hypomeral lobes behind coxae; smooth pronotum and elytra; scutellum triangular; broad mesepimera; relatively complete medial wing venation; 2 apical spurs on anterior and mid tibiae; tibiae without prominent lateral keels; penis strongly sclerotised at tip, without discrete apical sclerites ('valves': Nilsson & Johnson 1993, figure 117) ; endophallus without spines or large sclerites; tegmen without gemmae; ovipositor short, including wellsclerotised female sternite VIII, with short and broad apodeme; bursa copulatrix without spines. The lateral margination of the pronotum cannot be considered plesiomorphic as it shows multiple gains or losses in Chrysomelidae (Reid 1995).…”

Análise cladística da seção Diabroticites Chapuis, 1875 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Luperini)

“…São aceitas, atualmente, 11 subfamílias, a saber: Bruchinae, Chrysomelinae, Criocerinae, Cryptocephalinae (incluindo Clytrinae e Chlamisinae), Donaciinae, Eumolpinae (incluindo Megascelidinae e Synetinae), Galerucinae (incluindo Alticinae), Cassidinae (incluindo Hispinae), Lamprosomatinae (incluindo Sphaerocharitinae), Sagrinae (Borowiec 1995;Lawrence & Newton 1995;Reid 1995;Staines 2002) e Spylopirinae (Reid 2000;Gómez-Zurita et al 2008) da história evolutiva desses táxons está longe de ser trivial (Kim et al 2003). Apesar de existirem estudos que suportem o conceito de duas subfamílias reciprocamente mono léticas (ver, por exemplo, Farrell 1998;Farrell & Sequeira 2004;Gillespie et al 2004;Gómez-Zurita et al 2008), estudos com amostragem mais abrangente indicam que a hipótese mais prevalente seja a de Alticinae poli lética, composta de uma série de linhagens incluídas em diversos níveis em Galerucinae (Lingafelter & Konstantinov 1999;Kim et al 2003;Gillespie et al 2003;Duckett et al 2004;Bünnige et al 2008;Gillespie et al 2008;Ge et al 2011Ge et al , 2012.…”