Taxonomic review of the genus Xenolecanium Takahashi and description of the new genus Takahashilecanium Kondo (Hemiptera: Coccidae; Coccinae, Paralecaniini)

The genus Xenolecanium Takahashi is reviewed and transferred from the subfamily Myzolecaniinae to the Coccinae (tribe Paralecaniini). The type species Xenolecanium mangiferae Takahashi is redescribed, and Xenolecanium takahashii Kondo sp. nov. from Indonesia is described based on the adult female and first instar nymph. A taxonomic key is provided to separate adult females of the two species of Xenolecanium. Xenolecanium rotundum Takahashi is transferred to become the type species of a new monotypic genus, Takahashilecanium Kondo, which is also placed in the Paralecaniini. The morphological justification for placing Xenolecanium and Takahashilecanium in the Paralecaniini is discussed, and we provide a taxonomic key for separating both genera from all other members of the Paralecaniini.     

Comprehensive phylogeny of the Cleroidea (Coleoptera: Cucujiformia)

The first thorough molecular phylogeny of the superfamily Cleroidea, represented by 377 taxa, and the first with an emphasis on Trogossitidae, was undertaken. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses were performed on a four‐gene dataset (18S, 28S, cox1, cytb) of 395 taxa (along with 18 outgroups), including all 16 currently recognized families of Cleroidea and all current and formerly recognized tribes of Trogossitidae. The superfamily as a whole received strong support in Bayesian analyses. On the basis of phylogenetic results, 18 families in Cleroidea are recognized, including three taxa elevated to family for the first time and two reinstated families. The former tribe Rentoniini (Trogossitidae: Peltinae) was strongly supported as a monophyletic group apart from the remainder of Trogossitidae, and is herein elevated to family status, Rentoniidae stat.n. Protopeltis was also found to be an isolated lineage and becomes Protopeltidae stat.n. Peltini + Larinotini were recovered as a weakly supported sister grouping; Peltini (including only Peltis) becomes Peltidae stat.rest. The trogossitid subfamily Lophocaterinae, to the exclusion of Decamerini, formed a clade which is here designated Lophocateridae stat.rest. and sensu n. The Trogossitinae tribes Calityini, Egoliini (represented by Egolia) and Larinotini were recovered apart from core Trogossitidae but showed no strong affinities to other taxa or congruence between analyses; they are here conservatively retained in Trogossitidae as Calityinae stat.rest. , Egoliinae stat.rest. and Larinotinae stat.rest. The genus Thymalus of the peltine tribe Thymalini was indicated with moderate to strong support as the sister group of the Decamerini (Trogossitidae: Lophocaterinae); together these represent Thymalidae stat.n. and sensu n. with subfamilies Decamerinae stat.rest. ( new placement ) and Thymalinae stat.n. The remainder of Trogossitinae, the tribes Trogossitini and Gymnochilini, formed a well‐supported clade which comprises the Trogossitidae: Trogossitinae sensu n. The tribe Gymnochilini syn.n. is synonymized with Trogossitini. The monotypic family Phloiophilidae was recovered, contradicting a recent placement within Trogossitidae. The melyrid lineage was recovered with moderate (maximum likelihood) to strong (Bayesian analyses) support and includes the families Phycosecidae, Rhadalidae, Mauroniscidae, Prionoceridae and Melyridae (including Dasytidae and Malachiidae). The genus Dasyrhadus is tentatively transferred from Rhadalidae to Mauroniscidae. The genus Gietella, once proposed as a distinct family but recently placed within Dasytidae, was recovered as strongly sister to Rhadalidae sensu n. , and we transfer it to that family as Gietellinae new placement . Attalomiminae (formerly Attalomimidae) syn.n. is synonymized with Melyridae: Malachiinae: Lemphini sensu n. Melyridae sensu n. includes only Dasytinae, Malachiinae and Melyrinae. Metaxina is returned to the Chaetosomatidae sensu n. , of which Metaxinidae syn.n. becomes a junior synonym. Resolution within Cleridae was generally poor, but a broadly defined Korynetinae stat rest. + Epiclininae received high support (Bayesian analyses). Outside of Trogossitidae, the main focus of this study, major rearrangements of the classification of Cleroidea were not undertaken, despite evidence indicating such changes are needed.     

Phylogeny of the bee family Melittidae (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) based on combined molecular and morphological data

The bee family Melittidae comprises a small, but biologically fascinating, group of mostly oligolectic bees, some of which are oil collecting. Phylogenetic relationships within this family are poorly understood and some genera cannot be placed with confidence at the subfamily level. We analysed melittid phylogeny using a combined dataset of five nuclear genes [28S, elongation factor‐1α (EF‐1α, F2 copy), long‐wavelength rhodopsin, Na‐K ATPase and RNA polymerase II] spanning 4842 bp plus 68 adult morphological characters. Our study included 25% of the species‐level diversity and 81% of the generic‐level diversity and included all previously recognized tribes and subfamilies. We analysed the dataset using parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. All methods yielded congruent results. All topologies recovered the three previously recognized subfamilies (Dasypodainae, Melittinae, Meganomiinae), but two genera (Afrodasypoda and Promelitta) are transferred from Dasypodainae to Melittinae. On the basis of our tree topologies we identify four tribes (Dasypodaini comb.n. , Hesperapini stat.n. , Macropidini comb.n. and Melittini), only one of which (Melittini) matches a widely used classification. Lastly, we discuss the evolution of host‐plant association in the light of our new phylogenetic hypothesis. Our results strongly support multiple independent origins of oil‐collecting behaviour in the Melittinae.     

The Neotropical ‘polymorphic earless praying mantises’ – Part I: molecular phylogeny and revised higher‐level systematics (Insecta: Mantodea,Acanthopoidea)

We perform phylogenetic analyses of the ‘polymorphic earless praying mantises’, a heterogeneous assemblage comprising c. 55% of mantodean diversity in the Neotropics. Bayesian and maximum‐likelihood were implemented on a DNA dataset of 9949 aligned nucleic acid characters comprising ten mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Our analyses largely resolved congruent relationships with high levels of support for higher‐level taxonomic groups, but revealed extensive inconsistencies between the resolved topology and morphology‐based classification systems. The polymorphic earless praying mantises, now granted superfamily status as the Acanthopoidea stat. n., comprises 8 families, 15 subfamilies and 18 tribes. Our newly revised organization required the following taxonomic changes: (i) Thespidae sensu n., including subfamilies Pseudopogonogastrinae subfam. n., Pseudomiopteryginae sensu n., Bantiinae subfam. n., Miobantiinae sensu n. and Thespinae sensu n. (tribes Musoniellini trib. n. and Thespini sensu n. ); (ii) Angelidae stat. n. et sensu n. ; (iii) Coptopterygidae stat. n. ; (iv) Liturgusidae sensu n. ; (v) Photinaidae stat. n., including Macromantinae stat. n., Cardiopterinae stat. n., Photiomantinae subfam. n. and Photinainae sensu n. (tribes Microphotinini trib. n., Orthoderellini stat. n. and Photinaini sensu n. ); (vi) Stenophyllidae stat. n. ; (vii) Acontistidae stat. n. ; and (viii) Acanthopidae sensu n. Our new system also resulted in the reassignment of various genera to new and existing higher‐level taxa, the exclusion of old world genera otherwise traditionally classified among the Thespidae, Liturgusidae and Angelidae, the confirmation of Stenophylla Westwood as member of this clade, and the revalidation of Paradiabantia Piza stat. r. We provide diagnoses for all suprageneric taxa using external morphological characters and male genitalia. A key to higher‐level groups is provided. We incorporate egg case structural variation as a novel approach for taxon delineation. This published work has been registered in ZooBank, http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:29E37322‐30EB‐4F64‐80C9‐E2149B5B0195 .     

Phylogeny and evolution of Mesozoic and extant lineages of Histeridae (Coleoptera), with discovery of a new subfamily Antigracilinae from the Lower Cretaceous

In order to place a newly discovered species Antigracilus costatus gen. sp. n. from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation (China) and to assess previously unplaced fossil taxa, we investigated the relationships of extant and extinct lineages of Histeridae based on three data sets: (i) 69 morphological characters belonging to 48 taxa (representing all 11 subfamilies and 15 of 17 tribes of modern Histeridae); (ii) partitioned alignment of 6030 bp from downloaded nucleotide sequences (28S, CAD, COI, 18S) of 50 taxa (representing 10 subfamilies and 15 of 17 tribes of modern Histeridae); and (iii) a combined morphological and molecular dataset for 75 taxa. Phylogenetic analyses of the morphology and combined matrices recovered the new Lower Cretaceous taxon as a sister group to remaining Histeridae and it is placed in †Antigracilinae subfam. n. †Antigracilinae constitutes the earliest record of Histeridae from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation (∼125 Myr), backdating the minimum age of the family by 25 Myr from the earliest Cenomanian (~99 Myr) to the Barremian of the Cretaceous Period. Our molecular phylogeny supports Histeridae to be divided into seven different clades, with currently recognised subfamilies Abraeinae (sensu lato), Saprininae, Chlamydopsinae, and Histerinae (sensu lato) recovered as monophyletic, while Dendrophilinae, Onthophilinae, and Tribalinae are polyphyletic taxa. The Burmese amber species †Pantostictus burmanicus Poinar & Brown is placed as a sister group to the tribe Plegaderini (Abraeinae) and was assigned as a new tribe Pantostictini trib. n. Both molecular and combined phylogenies recovered the subfamilies Trypanaeinae and Trypeticinae deeply within the subfamily Abraeinae (sensu lato), and they are downgraded into Trypanaeini stat. n. and Trypeticini stat. n.     

Molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial and tribal classification and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)

We present a molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae based on thirty ingroup taxa representing eight of the ten currently recognized subfamilies. Approximately 10 K base pairs from seven loci (12S, 16S, 18S, 28S, COI, COII and H3) were used for the phylogenetic reconstruction. The phylogeny supports the following main conclusions: (i) Cybocephalidae are formally recognized as a distinct family not closely related to Nitidulidae and its constituent taxa are defined; (ii) Kateretidae are sister to Nitidulidae; (iii) Cryptarchinae are monophyletic and sister to the remaining nitidulid subfamilies; (iv) subfamily Prometopinae stat. res. is reinstated and defined, to accommodate taxa allied to Axyra Erichson, Prometopia Erichson and Megauchenia MacLeay; (v) Amphicrossinae, Carpophilinae and Epuraeinae are shown to be closely related taxa within a well‐supported monophyletic clade; (vi) tribal affinities and respective monophyly within Nitidulinae are poorly resolved by our data and must be more rigorously tested as there was little or no support for prior morphologically based tribes or genus‐level complexes; (vii) Nitidulinae are found to be paraphyletic with respect to Cillaeinae and Meligethinae, suggesting that they should either be subsumed as tribes, or Nitidulinae should be divided into several subfamilies to preserve the status of Cillaeinae and Meligethinae; (viii) Teichostethus Sharp stat. res. is not a synonym of Hebascus Erichson and the former is reinstated as a valid genus. These conclusions and emendations are discussed in detail and presented within a morphological framework.     

The phylogeny and revised classification of Machaerotidae,the tube‐making spittlebugs (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cercopoidea)

Machaerotidae (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cercopoidea) is a taxonomically small but morphologically diverse family of spittlebugs with approximately 115 described species in 31 genera and an exclusively Palaeotropical distribution. Results are presented of the first molecular phylogenetic investigation of Machaerotidae, examining relationships among the currently recognized subfamilies and tribes, as well as determining the phylogenetic placement of the genera Enderleinia Schmidt, Neuromachaerota Schmidt, Labramachaerota Bell & Cryan, and Kyphomachaerota Bell & Cryan. DNA nucleotide sequence data from eight loci (12s rDNA, 16s rDNA, 18S rDNA, 28S rDNA, histone 2A, histone 3, wingless and NADH Dehydrogenase subunit 4) were analysed to reconstruct the phylogeny. The evidence generated in this study supports the following systematic conclusions: (i) Machaerotidae is a monophyletic family; (ii) Machaerotini, Hindoloidini (with the new inclusion of Kyphomachaerota), and Enderleiniini (excluding Kyphomachaerota and Apomachaerota Schmidt) are monophyletic tribes; (iii) the genus Apomachaerota was recovered as the most anciently diverged lineage of extant Machaerotidae, and a new subfamily (Apomachaerotinae subfam.n. ), is proposed on the basis of its phylogenetic placement as sister lineage to all other extant Machaerotidae.     

Morphology-based phylogeny of the treehopper family Membracidae (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Membracoidea)

A parsimony‐based phylogenetic analysis of eighty‐three morphological characters of adults and immatures of seventy representatives of the tribes and subfamilies of Membracidae and two outgroup taxa was conducted to evaluate the status and relationships of these taxa. Centrotinae apparently gave rise to Nessorhinini and Oxyrhachini (both formerly treated as subfamilies, now syn.n. and syn.reinst., respectively, of Centrotinae). In contrast to previous analyses, a clade comprising Nicomiinae, Centronodinae, Centrodontinae, and the unplaced genera Holdgatiella Evans, Euwalkeria Goding and Antillotolania Ramos was recovered, but relationships within this clade were not well resolved. Nodonica bispinigera, gen.n. and sp.n., is described and placed in Centrodontini based on its sister‐group relationship to a clade comprising previously described genera of this tribe. Membracinae and Heteronotinae were consistently monophyletic. Neither Darninae nor Smiliinae, as previously defined, was monophyletic on the maximally parsimonious cladograms, but constraining both as monophyletic groups required only one additional step. The monophyly of Stegaspidinae, including Deiroderes Ramos (unplaced in Membracidae), was supported on some but not all equally parsimonious cladograms. More detailed analyses of individual subfamilies, as well as morphological data on the undescribed immatures of several membracid tribes and genera, will be needed to elucidate relationships among tribes and genera. A key to the subfamilies and tribes is provided.     

Phylogenetic classification of the Drosophilidae Rondani (Diptera): the role of morphology in the postgenomic era

Molecular sequences now overwhelm morphology in phylogenetic inference. Nonetheless, most molecular studies are conducted on a limited number of taxa, as DNA rarely can be analysed from old museum types or fossils. During the last 20 years, more than 150 molecular studies have challenged the current phylogenetic classification of the family Drosophilidae Rondani based on morphological characters. Most studies concerned a single genus, Drosophila Fallén, and included only few representative species from 17 out of the 78 genera of the family. Therefore, these molecular studies were unable to provide an alternative classification scheme. A supermatrix analysis of seven nuclear and one mitochondrial genes (8248 bp) for 33 genera was conducted using outgroups from one calyptrate and four ephydroid families. The Bayesian phylogeny was consistent with previous molecular studies including whole genome sequences and divided the Drosophilidae into four monophyletic clades. Morphological characters, mostly male genitalia, then were compared thoroughly between the four clades and homologous character states were identified. These states were then checked for 70 genera and a revised phylogenetic, family‐group classification for the Drosophilidae is proposed. Two genera –Cladochaeta Coquillett and Diathoneura Duda – of the tribe Cladochaetini Grimaldi are transferred to the family Ephydridae. The Drosophilidae is divided into two subfamilies: Steganinae Hendel (30 genera) and Drosophilinae Rondani (43 genera). A further two genera, Apacrochaeta Duda and Sphyrnoceps de Meijere, are incertae sedis, and Palmophila Grimaldi, is synonymized with Drosophila syn.n. The Drosophilinae is subdivided into two tribes: the re‐elevated Colocasiomyini Okada (nine genera) and Drosophilini Okada. The paraphyly of the genus Drosophila was not resolved to avoid affecting the binomina of important laboratory model species; however, its subgeneric classification was revised in light of molecular and morphological data. Three subgenera, namely Chusqueophila Brncic, Phloridosa Sturtevant and Psilodorha Okada, were synonymized with the subgenus Drosophila (Drosophila) Fallén syns.n. Among the 45 species groups and 5 species complexes of Drosophila (Drosophila), 22 groups and 1 complex were transferred to the subgenus Drosophila (Siphlodora) Patterson & Mainland and 6 groups, 2 species subgroups and 3 complexes are considered incertae sedis within the genus Drosophila. Different morphological characters provide different signals at different phylogenetic scales: thoracic characters (wing venation and presternal shape) discriminate families; grasping and erection‐related characters discriminate subfamilies to tribes; whereas phallic paraphyses, i.e. auxiliary intromittent organs, discriminate genera and Drosophila subgenera. The study shows the necessity of analysing morphological characters within a molecular phylogenetic framework to translate molecular phylogenies into taxonomically‐comprehensive classifications.     

Generic revision of Cypricercinae McKenzie, 1971 (Crustacea,Ostracoda), with the description of three new genera and one new species and a phylogenetic analysis of the subfamily

The Cypricercinae are one of the most speciose subfamilies of non-marine ostracods, with more than 170 described species, mostly from the tropics. Although the identity of the subfamily as such is clear, because of the presence of unifying characters such as the Triebel’s loop in the attachment of the caudal ramus, the supra-specific taxonomy of this group has long been confused because of lack of good generic and tribal characters. Here, the generic characters of the Cypricercinae are revised. Eleven genera are retained in this subfamily, including three new genera: Bradleytriebella n. gen., Nealecypris n. gen. and Pseudostrandesia n. gen. Tanycypris siamensis n. sp. is described from Thailand. In addition, five species [Bradleystrandesia fuscata (Jurine, 1820), Bradleytriebella tuberculata (Hartmann, 1964), Nealecypris obtusa (Klie, 1933), Pseudostrandesia striatoreticulata (Klie, 1932), Spirocypris horrida (Sars, 1926)] are redescribed. A key to the genera is given. We propose three tribes: the nominal tribe Cypricercini McKenzie, 1971, as well as two new tribes, Bradleystrandesiini n. trib. and Nealecypridini n. trib. To evaluate the systematic relationships within this subfamily, phylogenetic analyses, based on morphological characters of valves and soft parts, were conducted. The Neighbour Joining (NJ) tree strongly supports the classification into three independent tribes, whereas the Maximum Parsimony (MP) tree shows that Bradleystrandesiini n. trib is actually a subgroup of the Cypricercini. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Handling editor: Luigi Naselli-Flores     

Molecular phylogeny and systematics of the Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea): higher classification and biogeography

The systematic relationships of the butterfly family Pieridae are poorly understood. Much of our current understanding is based primarily on detailed morphological observations made 50–70 years ago. However, the family and its putative four subfamilies and two tribes, have rarely been subjected to rigorous phylogenetic analysis. Here we present results based on an analysis of molecular characters used to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Pieridae in order to infer higher‐level classification above the generic level and patterns of historical biogeography. Our sample contained 90 taxa representing 74 genera and six subgenera, or 89% of all genera recognized in the family. Three complementary approaches were employed: (1) a combined analysis of a 30 taxon subset for sequences from four gene regions, including elongation factor‐1 alpha (EF‐1α), wingless, cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI), and 28S (3675 bp, 1031 parsimony‐informative characters), mainly to establish higher‐level relationships, (2) a single‐gene analysis of the 90 taxon data set for sequences from EF‐1α (1066 bp, 364 parsimony‐informative characters), mainly to establish lower‐level relationships, and (3) an all available data analysis of the entire data set for sequences from the four genes, to recover both deep and shallow nodes. Analyses using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference provided similar results. All supported monophyly for the four subfamilies but not for the two tribes, with the Anthocharidini polyphyletic and the Pierini paraphyletic. The combined and all available data analyses support the following relationships among the subfamilies: ((Pseudopontiinae + Dismorphiinae) + (Coliadinae + Pierinae)), corroborating Ehrlich’s 1958 phenetic hypothesis. On the basis of these analyses, and additional morphological and life history evidence, we propose a reclassification of the subfamily Pierinae into two tribes (Anthocharidini s.s., Pierini s.s.) and two informal groups (Colotis group, Leptosia), with the tribe Pierini s.s. subdivided into three subtribes (Appiadina, Pierina, Aporiina) and three genera (Elodina, Dixeia, Belenois) of uncertain status (incertae sedis). The combined and all available data analyses support the following relationships among the Pierinae: (Colotis group + Anthocharidini s.s. + Leptosia + (Elodina + ((Dixeia + Belenois) + Appiadina + Pierina + Aporiina))). Application of a molecular clock calibrated using fossil evidence and semiparametric rate smoothing suggests that divergence between the Pierina and Aporiina occurred no later than the Palaeocene (> 60 Myr). The minimum estimate for the age of the crown‐group of the Pieridae was 112–82 Myr, with a mean of 95 Myr. A historical biogeographical hypothesis is proposed to explain the present‐day distribution of the clade Pseudopontiinae + Dismorphiinae, which argues for an origin of the two subfamilies in western Gondwana (Africa + South America) during the Late Cretaceous. © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 147 , 239–275.     

Combined molecular and morphological phylogeny of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), with focus on the subfamily Entedoninae

A new combined molecular and morphological phylogeny of the Eulophidae is presented with special reference to the subfamily Entedoninae. We examined 28S D2–D5 and CO1 gene regions with parsimony and partitioned Bayesian analyses, and examined the impact of a small set of historically recognized morphological characters on combined analyses. Eulophidae was strongly supported as monophyletic only after exclusion of the enigmatic genus Trisecodes. The subfamilies Eulophinae, Entiinae (=Euderinae) and Tetrastichinae were consistently supported as monophyletic, but Entedoninae was monophyletic only in combined analyses. Six contiguous bases in the 3e′ subregion of the 28S D2 rDNA contributed to placement of nominal subgenus of Closterocerus outside Entedoninae. In all cases, Euderomphalini was excluded from Entiinae, and we suggest that it be retained in Entedoninae. Opheliminae n. stat. is raised from tribe to subfamily status. Trisecodes is removed from Entedoninae but retained as incertae sedis in Eulophidae until its family placement can be determined new placement . The genera Neochrysocharis stat. rev. and Asecodes stat. rev. are removed from synonymy with Closterocerus because strong molecular differences corroborate their morphological differences. Closterocerus (Achrysocharis) germanicus is transferred to the genus Chrysonotomyia n. comb. based on molecular and morphological characters.     

Phylogeny of ensign scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Ortheziidae) based on the morphology of Recent and fossil females

The Ortheziidae (ensign scale insects) is a morphologically well‐defined family. The morphology and occurrence in the fossil record suggests a probable early origin of the family in scale insect evolution. The present phylogenetic analysis – based on 69 morphological characters of female ortheziids, using 39 exemplar Recent species – provides the first analytical assessment of relationships among living genera of the family, as well as the relationships of eight fossil species, based on complete, well‐preserved specimens in amber. Monophyly of the subfamilies Newsteadiinae, Ortheziinae and Ortheziolinae is supported, but Nipponortheziinae is found to be paraphyletic by inclusion of the Ortheziolinae. Thus, the subfamily Ortheziolinae is reduced in rank to tribe Ortheziolini stat.n. , which now includes Matileortheziola Kozár & Foldi, Ortheziolacoccus Kozár, Ortheziolamameti Kozár and Ortheziola?ulc. Consequently, the tribes Matileortheziolini, Ortheziolacoccini and Ortheziolamametini are synonymized ( syn.n. ) here under Ortheziolini. Five new species and one new genus of fossil ensign scales are described from three amber deposits: Burmorthezia gen.n. with type species Burmorthezia kotejai sp.n. and also B. insolita sp.n ., both in mid‐Cretaceous Burmese amber (98 Ma) and Arctorthezia baltica sp.n. in Eocene Baltic amber (c. 43 Ma) based on second‐instar nymphs; Mixorthezia kozari sp.n . and M. dominicana sp.n . in Miocene Dominican amber (c. 17 Ma) based on adult females. Fossil placements are unambiguous, with Burmorthezia forming a stem to crown‐group (Recent and Tertiary) Ortheziidae. A summary of described fossil ortheziids is provided.     

Phylogeny of the bee family Megachilidae (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) based on adult morphology

Phylogenetic relationships within the bee family Megachilidae are poorly understood. The monophyly of the subfamily Fideliinae is questionable, the relationships among the tribes and subtribes in the subfamily Megachilinae are unknown, and some extant genera cannot be placed with certainty at the tribal level. Using a cladistic analysis of adult external morphological characters, we explore the relationships of the eight tribes and two subtribes currently recognised in Megachilidae. Our dataset included 80% of the extant generic‐level diversity, representatives of all fossil taxa, and was analysed using parsimony. We employed 200 characters and selected 7 outgroups and 72 ingroup species of 60 genera, plus 7 species of 4 extinct genera from Baltic amber. Our analysis shows that Fideliinae and the tribes Anthidiini and Osmiini of Megachilinae are paraphyletic; it supports the monophyly of Megachilinae, including the extinct taxa, and the sister group relationship of Lithurgini to the remaining megachilines. The Sub‐Saharan genus Aspidosmia, a rare group with a mixture of osmiine and anthidiine features, is herein removed from Anthidiini and placed in its own tribe, Aspidosmiini, new tribe . Protolithurgini is the sister of Lithurgini, both placed herein in the subfamily Lithurginae; the other extinct taxa, Glyptapina and Ctenoplectrellina, are more basally related among Megachilinae than Osmiini, near Aspidosmia, and are herein treated at the tribal level. Noteriades, a genus presently in the Osmiini, is herein transferred to the Megachilini. Thus, we recognise four subfamilies (Fideliinae, Pararhophitinae, Lithurginae and Megachilinae) and nine tribes in Megachilidae. We briefly discuss the evolutionary history and biogeography of the family, present alternative classifications, and provide a revised key to the extant tribes of Megachilinae.     

Phylogeny and historical biogeography of leafhopper subfamily Iassinae (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) with a revised tribal classification based on morphological and molecular data

Phylogenetic relationships among major lineages of the leafhopper subfamily Iassinae were explored by analysing a dataset of 91 discrete morphological characters and DNA sequence data from nuclear 28S rDNA and histone H3 genes and mitochondrial 12S rDNA. Bayesian, maximum‐likelihood and maximum parsimony analyses yielded similar tree topologies that were well resolved with strong branch support except at the base of the tree, resulting in equivocal support for inclusion of Bythoniini as a tribe of Iassinae but strong support for the monophyly of Iassinae (excluding Bythoniini) and most previously recognized iassine tribes. Divergence times for recovered nodes were estimated using a Bayesian relaxed clock method with two fossil calibration points. The results suggest that the deepest divergences coincided with Gondwanan vicariant events but that more recent divergences resulted from long‐range dispersal and colonization. Biogeographical analyses suggest that the group most likely has a Neotropical origin. The following changes to the taxonomic classification are proposed: establishment of three new tribes, Batracomorphini trib.n. (based on type genus Batracomorphus Lewis), Hoplojassini trib.n. (based on type genus Hoplojassus Dietrich and including one other South American genus), Lipokrisnini trib.n. (based on type genus Lipokrisna Freytag and including two other endemic Caribbean genera); Krisnini is redefined to include only the Old World genera Krisna and Gessius; Iassini is redefined to include only the type genus and four endemic Afrotropical genera; Bascarrhinus Fowler and Platyhynna Berg, recently treated as genera incertae sedis, are placed in Hyalojassini; Thalattoscopus Kirkaldy is added to the previously monobasic tribe Trocnadini. Iassinae now includes 12 tribes, all of which appear to be monophyletic. Revised morphological diagnoses of the subfamily and each of the included tribes are provided and a key to tribes is also given. This published work has been registered in ZooBank, http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:41295B68‐2DAB‐4C4F‐B260‐F7C054922173 .     

Phylogeny and classification of Corylophidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) with descriptions of new genera and larvae

Abstract Phylogenetic relationships within the family Corylophidae were investigated. Twenty ingroup taxa and six outgroups were included in a cladistic analysis, based on 48 characters derived from adult and larval morphology. Phylogenetic analysis confirms that Corylophidae are monophyletic within the superfamily Cucujoidea and may be subdivided into two subfamilies: the Australian Periptycinae and the cosmopolitan Corylophinae containing 10 tribes: Foadiini trib.n. , Cleidostethini, Aenigmaticini, Parmulini, Sericoderini, Peltinodini, Orthoperini, Corylophini, Teplinini and Rypobiini. All currently recognized family‐group taxa are thoroughly diagnosed, and keys to their identification based on adults and larvae are provided. Two new genera and three species are described: Weirus gen.n ., containing only W. tozer sp . n . (Australia: Queensland), and Stanus gen.n. , with the two species S. bowesteadi sp.n . (New Zealand) and S. tasmanicus sp.n. (Tasmania). The larvae of Pakalukodes bimaculatus?lipiński et al. from Queensland and of Stanus bowesteadi sp.n. from New Zealand are described and illustrated for the first time.     

Molecular systematics of the Cactaceae

Bayesian, maximum‐likelihood, and maximum‐parsimony phylogenies, constructed using nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene region trnK‐matK, are employed to investigate relationships within the Cactaceae. These phylogenies sample 666 plants representing 532 of the 1438 species recognized in the family. All four subfamilies, all nine tribes, and 69% of currently recognized genera of Cactaceae are sampled. We found strong support for three of the four currently recognized subfamilies, although relationships between subfamilies were not well defined. Major clades recovered within the largest subfamilies, Opuntioideae and Cactoideae, are reviewed; only three of the nine currently accepted tribes delimited within these subfamilies, the Cacteae, Rhipsalideae, and Opuntieae, are monophyletic, although the Opuntieae were recovered in only the Bayesian and maximum‐likelihood analyses, not in the maximum‐parsimony analysis, and more data are needed to reveal the status of the Cylindropuntieae, which may yet be monophyletic. Of the 42 genera with more than one exemplar in our study, only 17 were monophyletic; 14 of these genera were from subfamily Cactoideae and three from subfamily Opuntioideae. We present a synopsis of the status of the currently recognized genera.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2011.