Phylogeny of the tachyporine group subfamilies and 'basal' lineages of the Aleocharinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) based on larval and adult characteristics

Abstract. This paper reports the conclusions of studies into the phylogeny of tachyporine group subfamilies and the ‘basal’ lineages of the subfamily Aleocharinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) based on both larval and adult morphological data (133 adult characters, twenty-seven larval characters). Representatives of forty species of the tachyporine group were used in the analysis, including representatives of the Aleocharinae, Trichophyinae, Habrocerinae, Phloeocharinae, Olisthaerinae, and Tachyporinae. The Aleocharinae included representatives of the tribes Gymnusini, Deinopsini, Mesoporini, the ‘subfamily’ Trichopseniinae, and representatives of nine major tribes in the ‘higher’ Aleocharinae (Athetini, Hoplandriini, Falagriini, Lomechisini, Oxypodini, Aleocharini, Myllaenini, Homalotini, and Hypocyphtini). Analyses were performed first with adult characters alone and then with both larval and adult characters in a simultaneous analysis. The analysis based on adult characters produced eighty-five equally parsimonious trees (length = 499, consistency index = 42; retention index = 69). In the consensus tree, the Tachyporinae are not monophyletic, and the sister-group relationship between the Trichophyinae + Habrocerinae and the Aleocharinae is not resolved. The Aleocharinae are monophyletic, but, among the ‘basal’ Aleocharinae, the relationships of Gymnusini + Deinopsini, the Mesoporini, and the Trichopseniinae are unresolved. The combined adult and larval data, using Tachinus as the outgroup, produced six equally parsimonious trees (tree length = 588; consistency index = 43; retention index = 69). The strict consensus tree of the combined larval and adult data supports the following conclusions: (1) larval characters substantially stabilize the tree; (2) the subfamily Tachyporinae is not supported to be monophyletic; (3) the subfamilies Trichophyinae and Habrocerinae are sister groups, and together they are sister to the Aleocharinae; (4) the ‘basal’ Aleocharinae are not a monophyletic group, but the ‘higher’ Aleocharinae are monophyletic; (5) the sister group of the remaining Aleocharinae is a lineage made up of genera currently in the tribes Gymnusini and Deinopsini; (6) within the Gymnusini–Deinopsini lineage, the monophyly of the Gymnusini is weakly supported, but the monophyly of the Deinopsini is strongly supported; (7) the subfamily Trichopseniinae is strongly supported to be a member of the ‘basal’ Aleocharinae; (8) the Myllaenini are resolved well within the ‘higher’ Aleocharinae; (9) strong support for the monophyly of some tribes of ‘higher’ Aleocharinae suggests that morphological characters provide substantial phylogenetic signal for analysis of higher-level phylogeny of the Aleocharinae in spite of the preliminary nature of the analysis at this taxonomic level.