Systematics of Sitonini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae), with a hypothesis on the evolution of feeding habits

Abstract

A new classification of Sitonini Gistel into ten genera is proposed, derived from a phylogenetic analysis based on morphology. Two subgenera of Sitona, Charagmus and Coelositona, are promoted to genus level. Sitona is restricted to the former nominotypical subgenus and redefined using apomorphies, and several species previously included in it are transferred to the genus Coelositona González. The species composition of the genus Charagmus Schönherr is unchanged. Andriongen.n. is described (type species: Curculio regensteinensis Herbst, 1794). Catachaenus Schönherr, 1840 is synonymized with Eugnathus Schönherr, 1834 (syn.n.). Homalorhinus lutosus Hochhuth, 1847 is removed from Sitonini. The relationships represented by the new classification correspond with the evolution of Fabaceae (Leguminosae), mostly with the group of ‘temperate herbaceous tribes’ or Hologalegina. This group is divided into the sister clades, Loteae s.l. and IRLC (inverted repeat‐lacking clade) – a clade well defined by the loss of a structural mutation in the genome of the chloroplast. Andrion does not feed on Hologalegina. Charagmus and Coelositona feed on species of Loteae s.l., whereas members of the genus Sitona feed on species in IRLC. This ability to feed on IRLC plants seems to have been a key trait that enabled the radiation of Sitona into more than 100 species. A key to the genera of Sitonini and illustrations of important morphological features are provided. A new structure is described from the internal sac, the ‘hamuli’. The variability of hamuli between the species of Sitonini is an important new tool in the taxonomy of this tribe. New combinations: Eugnathus circulus (Eydoux & Souleyet, 1839), E. mangarinicus (Voss, 1925), E. scintillans (Pascoe, 1874), E. sulcifrons (Heller, 1934), Charagmus gressorius (Fabricius, 1792), Ch. intermedius Küster, 1847, Ch. griseus (Fabricius, 1775), Ch. cachectus Gyllenhal, 1834, Ch. stierliniReitter, 1903, Ch. variegatus (Fåhraeus, 1840), Coelositona ribesi (González, 1971), C. cambricus (Stephens, 1831), C. cinerascens (Fåhraeus, 1840), C. limosus (Rossi, 1792), C. ocellatus (Küster, 1849), C. latipennis (Gyllenhal, 1834), C. puberulus (Reitter, 1903), C. villosus (Allard, 1869), Andrion regensteinense (Herbst, 1794) and Anemeroides lutosus (Hochhuth, 1847).

Weevils as Targets for Biological Control, and the Importance of Taxonomy and Phylogeny for Efficacy and Biosafety

“…In all, 13 weevil species containing parasitoids consistent with M. aethiopoides were found by dissection: eight species of Sitona, Charagmus gressorius (Fabricius) and C. griseus (Fabricius) and three species of Hypera [51]. This study increased the known number of genera parasitised by M. aethiopoides by only the two species of Charagmus Schoenherr, but as Charagmus had been considered as a subgenus of Sitona until 2007 [52], in effect the natural host range had not been expanded at all by this study.…”

Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) assemblages in the fields of narrow-leafed lupin sown as pure stand and intercropped with spring triticale

“…Adults representing Sitona or Charagmus genus are known as the leaf weevils causing serious damage to different leguminous crops, while their larvae can harm the root system of the plants (Petrukha, 1970;Rotrekl, Cejtchaml, 2008;Toshova et al, 2009). Adults feed mainly on the same host plant as the larvae (Velasquez de Castro et al, 2007). Ferguson (1994) reported his on lupin plants in England.…”

Description and phylogeny of a new Neotropical genus of Acalyptini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Curculioninae) associated with the staminodes of Cyclanthaceae

“…The morphological terminology used herein follows Torre‐Bueno (Nichols, 1989) and the Handbook of Zoology (Lawrence et al ., 2010). In addition, specific structures such as the mouthparts, metendosternite, wings, and male and female terminalia are described using the terminology of Ting (1936), Thompson (1992), Howden (1995), Lyal (1995), Zherikhin & Gratshev (1995), Velázquez de Castro (1998), Kukalová‐Peck & Lawrence (2004), Velázquez de Castro, Alonso‐Zarazaga & Outerelo (2007), Wanat (2007), and Gaiger & Vanin (2008). The terms ‘apical’ and ‘basal’ are not used when referring to features of the terminalia, with the exception of the apodemes and aedeagus where their usage is not ambiguous (cf.…”