Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera)
Author
Grazia, Jocelia
Department of Zoology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
jocelia@ufrgs.br
Author
Schuh, Randall T.
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA
Author
Wheeler, Ward C.
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA
text
Cladistics
2008
2008-11-21
24
932
976
journal article
10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00224.x
e89a8dfa-e923-4a01-97f4-4edd4a0b8db0
3968591
SCUTELLERIDAE Leach
Historical
: This widely distributed taxon was first recognized as a family group by
Leach (1815)
,
Fieber (1861)
, and Stål (1867).
Kirkaldy (1909)
maintained the
group as a subfamily of
Pentatomidae
with five tribes: Odontotarsini, Tetyrini, Scutellerini, Sphaerocorini, and Elvisurini.
Van Duzee (1917)
restored the group to family status.
McDonald
and Cassis (1984)
erected a new subfamily, the
Tectocorinae
, andaccepted the
Elvisurinae
asavalidsubfamily. Intheirmorerecentsummaries of the
literature,
Schuh and Slater (1995)
and
Rider (2006)
, following
Leston (1953a)
, recognized four subfamilies,
Eurygastrinae
,
Odontotarsinae
,
Pachycorinae
, and
Scutellerinae
, the latter author subdividing
Scutellerinae
into
three tribes: Elvisurini, Scutellerini, and Sphaerocorini.
Gapud (1991)
noted thatthe
Scutelleridaeischaracterized
by the completely fused 2nd valvifers. Our examination reveals that the gonocoxites 9 (= 2nd valvifers) are not completely fused, asstatedby Gapud, but joinedmedially with a distinct fusion line (except in the
Eurygastrinae
) (see explanation of characters; corrections to Gapud̕s
Fig. 12
).
Fischer (2001)
recognized the monophyly of
Pachycorinae
, Sphaerocorinae, and
Elvisurinae
, as well as a sister-group relationship between
Tectocoris
and
Odontotarsinae
; he further concluded that the
Scutellerinae
and
Odontotarsinae
are non-monophyletic groups.
Cassis and Vanags (2006)
monographed the Australian genera of
Scutelleridae
, updating
McDonald
and Cassis (1984)
and
Cassis and Gross (2002)
in relation to the homologies and terminology of morphological characters. They also discussed the current literature on the monophyly and supra-familial position of the
Scutelleridae
within the
Pentatomoidea
, as well as for the infrafamilial classification of the scutellerids, recognizing five subfamilies.
Analytical result
: Although the status of the
Scutelleridae
has been debated (
Lattin, 1964
;
Kumar, 1965
;
McDonald
and Cassis, 1984
;
Fischer, 2001
;
Cassis and Gross, 2002
;
Cassis and Vanags, 2006
), our analyses offer support for the concept of a monophyletic taxon, one that is reinforced by the morphological, molecular, and combined analyses. In addition to the morphological data, this conclusion is based on a reasonably good sample of previously unavailable DNA sequence data for one of the six recognized subfamilies. Morphological characters supporting scutellerid monophyly include one synapomorphic character: areas surrounding orificium receptaculi, in pars communis, with an elongate, grooved sclerite (
541
). The exact relationship of the
Scutelleridae
within the pentatomoid hierarchy is less clear, however.
Gapud (1991)
treated the
Scutelleridae
as the sister group of the
Canopidae
, the two groups having a central position in the cladogram (
Fig. 1f
). Our total evidence analyses are ambiguous as to the precise placement of the
Scutelleridae
, but always put the group distal to the
Plataspididae
and
Parastrachiidae
(
Figs 51– 55
) and in the analyses under 1: 1 cost ratios always basal to the
Acanthosomatidae
+
Pentatomidae
(
Figs 51
and
53
). An improved sample of DNA sequence data across the range of scutellerid subfamilies might help to resolve this ambiguity.