The monophyly and relative rank of alticine and galerucine leaf beetles: A cladistic analysis using adult morphological characters (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Abstract

The first cladistic analysis to determine the monophyletic status of alticine and galerucine leaf beetles and their relationship to one another is provided. A classification based on their hypothesized relationships is proposed. Fifty morphological characters of adults were analyzed from twenty-nine taxa representing six traditionally recognized subfamilies (Orsodacninae, Aulacoscelidinae, Eumolpinae [including Synetini], Chrysomelinae, Galerucinae, and Alticinae), with an emphasis on thorough exemplar representation from galerucines and alticines. Cladistic analyses of these characters using the heuristic analysis of PAUP resulted in 444 equally most parsimonious cladograms, a consensus of which was mostly unresolved. Successive approximations weighting of these trees produced a nearly fully resolved hypothesis of relationships among the taxa. This hypothesis indicates the monophyly of chrysomelines + eumolpines + orsodacnines and monophyly of galerucines + alticines. Importantly, the alticines are a highly derived, strongly supported monophyletic group, nested within galerucines. Therefore, alticines must have a lower relative taxonomic rank (such as tribe) to Galerucinae in order to reflect this phylogenetic hypothesis.

Anti-predator defence drives parallel morphological evolution in flea beetles

“…These included genera characterized by either a well developed or a simple metafemoral spring, including Hespera, Laotzeus, Stenoluperus, Luperomorpha, Decaria, Nonarthra, Acrocrypta, Taiwanhespera and Sphaerometopa. Among these, Hespera, Luperomorpha and Nonarthra exhibit elytron-tobody meshing structures of the Galerucinae type, which rendered their position within the 'Galerucinae-Alticinae complex' unclear [23], while for Stenoluperus affinities to the galerucine subtribe Luperina had already been recognized in morphological cladistic analysis [29]. Luperomorpha and Nonartha show similarity with galerucines in genitalic characters [21], and the metafemoral springs of Acrocrypta and Sphaerometopa were reported to constitute unique morphogroups [20].…”

Comparative morphology of the type-species of Isotes and Synbrotica(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae), with a new synonymy of species

“…Structure situated between the tergite VIII and sternite VIII, above the opening of the gut. It is characterized by a small plate, usually little sclerotized (Lingafelter & Konstantinov, 1999). The tergite IX is present in all species, with little observed variation in conformation and the length/width ratio: 1) longer than wide, inner margin sub truncated in I. borrei and I. crucigera (Fig.…”

“…Crowson (1955), Jolivet (1957) and Suzuki (1969) did not mention the arculus to chrysomelids wings. Kukalová-Peck & Lawrence (1993), in turn, conducted a detailed study of the membranous wings of Coleoptera, being followed by the more recent works of Coleoptera (Kukalová-Peck & Lawrence, 2004;Lawrence et al, 2011) and Chrysomelidae (Lingafelter & Konstantinov, 1999;Cabrera & Cabrera Walsh, 2004a,b;2010 -Galerucinae;Chaboo, 2007 -Cassidinae;ChamorroLacayo & Konstantinov, 2011 -Lamprosomatinae). The scheme adopted by these authors agrees with the proposal that the Cubitus vein of Forbes (1922) is designed as Media.…”

“…Despite of the overall similarity they were treated as distinct species. The terminology follow Moura (1998bMoura ( , 2009), Konstantinov (1998), Lingafelter & Konstantinov (1999) and Cabrera & Durante (2003), except for numeration of mandibles' teeth that follow Savini & Joly (2006).…”

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. Além da hipótese de Alticinae incluída em Galerucinae, a classi cação adotada aqui para os níveis abaixo de subfamília segue o sistema de Seeno & Wilcox (1982).…”