identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
25053808FF80FF8CB918FBC75E30F97B.text	25053808FF80FF8CB918FBC75E30F97B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bothriomirini	<div><p>Monophyly and phylogenetic position of  Bothriomirini</p><p>The monophyly of  Bothriomirini is not questioned (see node 5), which confirms the results of the study by Namyatova et al. (2019). Most of the apomorphies listed by Namyatova et al. (2019) and the present work are contradicted. However, we discovered that the microsculpture under the eye is present in different genera of this tribe and might be one of the main diagnostic characters for this group (Namyatova et al. 2019: fig. 5F). In the analysis by Wolski (2021),  Bothriomirini are a sister group to the clade comprising  Cylapini and  Vanniini . In the paper by Oh et al. (2023),  Bothriomirini form a clade with  Eccritotarsini, although with low support. Our analyses did not confirm those relationships, because  Bothriomirini form sister-group relationships with some representatives of  Cylapini (node 8; see discussion of  Cylapini). In the future, a comprehensive phylogenetic study of the tribe using molecular data is needed to test the position of the  Bothriomirini genera relative to each other. It is important to include  Afrobothriomiris Gorczyca, 2000, which is the only African representative of this tribe (Gorczyca 2000), in the subsequent analyses.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/25053808FF80FF8CB918FBC75E30F97B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Namyatova, Anna A.;Tyts, Veronica D.	Namyatova, Anna A., Tyts, Veronica D. (2025): Total-evidence phylogeny of the subfamily Cylapinae and the divergence dates for its subgroupings (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 203 (1): 1-34, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008
25053808FF80FF8CBAEEFDBB598CFB89.text	25053808FF80FF8CBAEEFDBB598CFB89.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cylapinae Kirkaldy 1903	<div><p>Monophyly of  Cylapinae and their relationships with  Psallopinae and  Isometopinae</p><p>In the previous studies, the monophyly of  Cylapinae was considered to be doubtful, because there were no apomorphies for this group (Namyatova and Cassis 2019a, b). Many representatives of this subfamily share a similar set of characters in the tarsus and pretarsus, i.e. slender tarsi, setiform and asymmetric parempodia, and three rows of tiles on the unguitractor, with those in the middle row acute. However, this set of characters is not unique for  Cylapinae, because  Psallopinae and  Isometopinae have similar structures (e.g. Schuh and Schwartz 1984, Namyatova and Cassis, 2016, 2019b, 2022, Namyatova et al. 2016). There was an argument that those subfamilies are related (e.g. Schuh and Schwartz 1984, Wolski and Henry 2015), and Wolski and Henry (2015) synonymized  Psallopinae with  Cylapinae, which was not supported by Namyatova and Cassis (2019b). In the previous molecular-based analyses, representatives of the different  Cylapinae groups did not form a monophyletic clade (Schuh et al. 2009, Namyatova and Cassis 2019 a, Oh et al. 2023). In the study by Schuh et al. (2009), only three species from three tribes were sampled ( Cylapini,  Fulviini, and  Vanniini). In the study by Namyatova and Cassis (2019), all tribes were included in the phylogeny; however, in that work only representatives of Psallop s ( Psallopinae) and  Myiomma (Isopmetopinae) were added as outgtoup taxa, and this was not sufficient to test the monophyly of  Cylapinae . The phylogenetic study of Oh et al. (2023) provided the most comprehensive analysis of the relationships within  Miridae based on the molecular data to date, and they included 11 genera from all  Cylapinae tribes, including nominotypical genera. However,  Psallops was not included in this analysis. The tribes of  Cylapinae in the study by Oh et al. (2023) did not form sister-group relationships with each other. Therefore, in our analysis we expected that some of the taxa placed into  Cylapinae might form clades with other mirids.</p><p>The results of the present analysis agree with the previous studies and suggest non-monophyly of  Cylapinae . In the total-evidence phylogeny,  Bothriomirini,  Cylapini, and  Vanniini form a clade with  Bryocorinae,  Isometopinae,  Mirinae,  Orthotylinae,  Phylinae, and  Deraeocoris ater ( Deraeocorinae) (PPTE = 98; see node 14). This clade does not appear in other phylogenies. In the morphology-based phylogeny a similar clade is present, but  Deraeocoris ater is not included there. In the tree resulting from the Bayesian analysis with 65 taxa,  Bothriomirini,  Cylapini, and  Vanniini form a clade with  Mirinae,  Orthotylinae,  Phylinae, and  Bryocorinae without  Nesidiocoris sp. However,  Psallops,  Rhinomiris,  Phyllofulvius,  Psallofulvius, and the undescribed  Fulviini genus from Australia are also included in this clade (PP65 = 90). Those clades do not correspond to the results of Oh et al. (2023).</p><p>The position of  Psallops remains uncertain. Gorczyca (2000) considered  Cylapinae,  Isometopinae, and  Psallopinae as closely related. Wolski and Henry (2015) reported that the last-instar nymphs of  Psallops are similar to those of  Fulvius . Additionally,  Psallofulvius and  Phyllofulvius have the labial segment IV subdivided, similar to  Psallops (Namyatova 2022, Namyatova and Cassis 2022). In our phylogeny,  Psallops never forms well-supported sister-group relationships with any representatives of  Cylapinae .</p><p>The position of  Isometopinae relative to cylapines is also uncertain. In the morphology-based phylogeny, this subfamily forms sister-group relationships with the clade comprising  Bothriomirini,  Carvalhoma parvum,  Dariella rubrocuneata,  Cylapinus minusculus, and  Schizopteromiris lordhowensis, although with low support. In the total-evidence phylogeny,  Isometopinae form a well-supported clade with Bothriomini,  Cylapini,  Vanniini, and  Eccritotarsus cf. nigrocruciatus (PPTE = 98; see node 11). A similar clade does not appear in the phylogenies based only on the molecular data; however, in most of those analyses  Isometopinae form sister-group relationships with  Ecrritotarsus cf. nigrocruciatus (see node 10). A close phylogenetic position of  Isometopinae and  Eccritotarsini has never been proposed before. It could also be a result of insufficient sampling of eccritotarsines, which is a highly diverse group (Konstantinov et al. 2018).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/25053808FF80FF8CBAEEFDBB598CFB89	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Namyatova, Anna A.;Tyts, Veronica D.	Namyatova, Anna A., Tyts, Veronica D. (2025): Total-evidence phylogeny of the subfamily Cylapinae and the divergence dates for its subgroupings (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 203 (1): 1-34, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008
25053808FF80FF8DB930F97C5B08FB2F.text	25053808FF80FF8DB930F97C5B08FB2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhinomirini (Gorczyca and Cherot 1998)	<div><p>Position of  Rhinomirini and their synapomorphies</p><p>Gorczyca placed the  Rhinomiris complex, the  Rhinocylapus complex, and  Rhinomiriella Gorczyca, 2001 (junior synonym of  Ceratofulvius Reuter, 1902) in  Rhinomirini (Gorczyca 2000, 2001). Gorczyca (2000) suggested that this is a sister group to  Cylapini . Superficially,  Rhinomirini are more similar to  Fulviini, because their representatives have a more or less prognathous head and long labium, and this tribe forms a clade with  Fulviini in the study by Wolski (2021). Namyatova and Cassis (2019a) showed that  Rhinomirini sensu Gorczyca (2000) are non-monophyletic based on molecular and morphological data. In that work, the  Rhinomiris complex did not form well-supported sister-group relationships with any other group. The  Rhinocylapus complex and  Ceratofulvius formed well-supported clades with representatives of  Fulviini . Therefore,  Rhinomirini were restricted to the  Rhinomiris complex, comprising only four genera:  Rhinomiris,  Rhinomiridius Poppius, 1909,  Lundbladiolla Carvalho, 1955, and  Pararhinomiris Gorczyca, 2003 (Namyatova and Cassis 2019 a, Tyts et al. 2022). Those results were confirmed in the present study. In the paper by Oh et al. (2023), only  Rhinomiris camelus Poppius, 1909 was included in the analysis, and it did not form well-supported sister-group relationships with other taxa.</p><p>In this analysis, we included the molecular data for  Rhinomiris only, and we also included morphological data for  Rhinomiridius dentatus . These two genera form a well-supported clade, and this confirms the previous results (Namyatova and Cassis 2019 a, Tyts et al. 2022). In most analyses,  Rhinomirini form poorly supported clades with other groups. The exception is the Bayesian analysis with 65 taxa, where this tribe is in the clade with  Bothriomirini,  Cylapini,  Vanniini,  Mirinae,  Orthotylinae,  Phylinae, and  Bryocorinae without  Nesidiocoris tenuis (PPTE = 90; see discussion of  Cylapinae). We did not have specimens of  Lundbladiolla and  Pararhinomiris for examination. The next step in studying  Rhinomirini sensu Namyatova and Cassis (2019a) should involve testing their monophyly with morphological and molecular data. The position of  Rhinomirini within  Miridae remains uncertain, and most probably, genomic data are needed to clarify it.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/25053808FF80FF8DB930F97C5B08FB2F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Namyatova, Anna A.;Tyts, Veronica D.	Namyatova, Anna A., Tyts, Veronica D. (2025): Total-evidence phylogeny of the subfamily Cylapinae and the divergence dates for its subgroupings (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 203 (1): 1-34, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008
25053808FF81FF8DBA9AFB215F5EFBE8.text	25053808FF81FF8DBA9AFB215F5EFBE8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cylapini	<div><p>Monophyly of  Cylapini and their position</p><p>In the previous work on the morphology-based phylogeny of  Cylapini, it was shown that this tribe is paraphyletic and includes Vannini (Wolski 2021). Our results show that  Cylapini are polyphyletic. The genera  Amapacylapus Carvalho &amp; Fontes, 1968,  Cylapinus Carvalho, 1986,  Cylapus,  Peltidocylapus, and  Valdasus form the first clade (node 1), which either includes  Vanniini or forms sister-group relationships with them (node 3). In the analysis by Oh et al. (2023), this clade was not recovered; however, only a single representative of  Vanniini,  Vanniopsis lordhowensis, was included in that study.  Carvalhoma Slater &amp; Gross, 1977,  Cylapoides Carvalho, 1952,  Dariella Namyatova &amp; Cassis, 2021,  Labriella Namyatova &amp; Cassis, 2021, and  Schizopteromiris form a clade with  Bothriomirini (node 8). The position of  Cylapomorpha spp. is uncertain. In most analyses, it does not form sister-group relationships with any taxa. However, in the Bayesian analysis with 78 taxa, it is a sister group to a clade that includes  Phyllofulvius spp.,  Psallofulvius spp., and the undescribed genus from Australia (PP78 = 99). In the total-evidence phylogeny, it forms a well-supported clade with  Cylapus complex and  Vanniini (node 4).</p><p>Wolski (2021) provided a diagnosis for the  Cylapus complex, in which he included four genera:  Amapacylapus,  Cylapus,  Peltidocylapus, and  Valdasus . In the work of Wolski (2021),  Cylapinus was not included in this complex; however, it possesses many salient features of this group, i.e. it has a punctate body (Wolski 2021: fig. 11A), its vertex has a distinctly depressed midline (Wolski 2021: fig. 8A), and the antennal fossa is situated well above the suture between mandibular and maxillary plates (Wolski 2021: figs 8A, 11A). According to Wolski (2021), the eyes are strongly pedunculated in the  Cylapus complex, whereas in  Cylapinus they are slightly pedunculated. However, the differences between those two states are unclear; for example, at least in  Peltidocylapus, the eyes are slightly raised above the vertex (Wolski 2021: fig. 8F, H). In our analyses,  Cylapinus minusculus forms a clade with representatives of the  Cylapus complex, and we include this species in this group.</p><p>The close relationships of  Schizopteromiris lordhowensis and  Labriella fusca with Bothrimirini are well supported in all analyses. We did not have molecular data for  Dariella rubrocuneata, but it is likely to be close to  Schizopteromiris (see Namyatova and Cassis 2021, 2022). The positions of  Carvalhoma parvum and  Cylapoides unicolor need further testing with molecular data, because they are not very similar morphologically to any other genera. Although  Cylapoides unicolor and  Labriella fusca form a clade in the present analysis and the study by Wolski (2021), they live on different continents, and the convergence of some characters is possible.</p><p>Although we included both types of data for  Cylapomorpha, its position remains uncertain, and it is likely that only genomic data will help us to understand the position of this genus within  Miridae . In the future, the position of  Cylapini genera not included in this analysis, i.e.  Corcovadocola Carvalho, 1948,  Mangalcoris Murphy &amp; Polhemus, 2012, and  Phyllocylapus Poppius, 1913, should be tested with both types of data.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/25053808FF81FF8DBA9AFB215F5EFBE8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Namyatova, Anna A.;Tyts, Veronica D.	Namyatova, Anna A., Tyts, Veronica D. (2025): Total-evidence phylogeny of the subfamily Cylapinae and the divergence dates for its subgroupings (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 203 (1): 1-34, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008
25053808FF81FF8AB9D5FBE75AF8FB4D.text	25053808FF81FF8AB9D5FBE75AF8FB4D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vanniini	<div><p>Monophyly of  Vanniini and their position</p><p>Vanniini are rendered as paraphyletic in the analyses based only on the molecular data, and the species from this tribe form a monophyletic group in the total-evidence analysis. The results of the molecular-only analyses are unexpected, because the monophyly of  Vanniini has never been questioned in morphological assessments (Gorczyca 1997, Cassis et al. 2003). The genera of this tribe did not form a clade in the study byNamyatova and Cassis (2019a); however, only two genera of  Vanniini and a single genus of  Cylapini were included there. This group is absent in the morphology-based analysis. We had only morphological data for  Palaucoris, and it forms sister-group relationships with the rest of  Vanniini in the total-evidence analysis (node 2), which also confirms the results provided by Wolski (2021). This clade is supported by a single contradicted apomorphy, which is the pretarsus with flattened parempodia, as opposed to all other  Cylapinae tribes, which have setiform parempodia (e.g. Cassis et al. 2003). The  Vanniini species with the pretarsus available for examination also have a rounded middle row of tiles on the unguitractor, whereas in other  Cylapinae it is acute. However, the middle row of tiles is absent in the examined  Palaucoris species. Further studies should be performed to test whether the structure of the unguitractor is uniform within  Vanniini .</p><p>Judging from previous studies, male genitalia are very different in  Vanniini, e.g. the vesica is strap-like in  Vannius (Gorczyca 1997), and it is more or less voluminous in other genera (Gorczyca and Konstantinov 2001, Cassis et al. 2003). However,  Palaucoris does not have vesica. This genus has other significant morphological differences, e.g. its scent gland metathoracic evaporative area is wide, the body is punctate, the suture between the meso- and metapleura does not extend behind metathoracic spiracle, and the tarsi are moderately widened (Namyatova et al. 2016). To answer the question on the monophyly of  Vanniini, both molecular and morphological data should be studied for all the genera of this tribe.</p><p>In the paper by Oh et al. (2023), the  Cylapus complex does not form well-supported sister-group relationships with other taxa, but Wolski (2021) suggested that there is a strong argument for synonymizing  Vanniini with  Cylapini . The results of our analyses support those of Wolski (2021); however, the Сylapini genera outside of the  Cylapus complex are not close to this group. Before suggesting any taxonomic changes regarding  Vanniini, we need to test the monophyly of this tribe, in addition to the position of the  Cylapini genera outside of the  Cylapus complex, using more molecular data. Moreover, we did not recover any apomorphies for the group comprising the  Cylapus complex and  Vanniini . In the study by Woski (2021), there are four strict apomorphies for this clade: their head in the anterior view is about twice higher than wide, the base of clypeus is distinctly below the ventral margin of eyes, the antennal fossa is strongly removed from the suture between the mandibular and maxillary plate in the dorsal direction, and the ventral margin of the eye is strongly removed from the ventral margin of the head. The shape of the head and the position of the clypeus base, antennal fossa, and eye vary strongly within this clade and other mirids. We did not include the characters on the head height-to-width ratio and the position of the ventral margin of the eye in relationship to the ventral margin of the head. Two other characters were coded differently, and their states do not appear as apomorphies for this group. However, we agree that the combination of characters in the head can be diagnostic for the  Vanniini +  Cylapus complex group.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/25053808FF81FF8AB9D5FBE75AF8FB4D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Namyatova, Anna A.;Tyts, Veronica D.	Namyatova, Anna A., Tyts, Veronica D. (2025): Total-evidence phylogeny of the subfamily Cylapinae and the divergence dates for its subgroupings (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 203 (1): 1-34, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008
25053808FF86FF8BBA89FA835A81FD47.text	25053808FF86FF8BBA89FA835A81FD47.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Fulviini	<div><p>Monophyly of  Fulviini and relationships of their subgroupings</p><p>In the previous works,  Fulviini were not monophyletic (Namyatova and Cassis 2019 a, Wolski 2021). In the total-evidence analysis by Namyatova and Cassis (2019a),  Fulviini were polyphyletic and  Phyllofulvius was not related to other members of this tribe. In the morphology-based phylogenies (Namyatova and Cassis 2019 a, Wolski 2021),  Fulviini are paraphyletic and include  Rhinomirini sensu Namyatova and Cassis (2019a) . Our analyses with molecular data never place  Rhinomirini within or close to any genera of  Fulviini .</p><p>Fulviini are the largest tribe within  Cylapinae, comprising 66 recent genera, and only 30 are included in this study. The results show that there are at least two clades in  Fulviini, which might not be closely related (see discussion for  Cylapinae). In the phylogenies based only on the molecular data, most  Fulviini genera form a clade with medium to high support (node 21), and a similar clade was found by Oh et al. (2023). The results of the total-evidence and morphology-based analyses neither contradict nor confirm this topology. This clade is likely to exist, and the morphology could not support it owing to the numerous cases of convergences and missing data, because many species were coded from a single specimen. In some cases, it is possible to assign a genus to this clade based solely on the morphological descriptions, even if molecular data are unknown for the taxon. For example, among the genera in our study,  Bironiella Poppius, 1909,  Callitropisca,  Cylapofulvius Poppius, 1909,  Fulvidius Poppius, 1909,  Schmitzofulvius Gorczyca, 1998, and  Sulawesifulvius Gorczyca et al., 2004 are most probably in this clade, because they form well-supported relationships with the genera from this group. Among the genera not included in our analysis,  Cassisotropis,  Carvalhofulvius Stonedahl &amp; Kovac, 1995,  Comefulvius,  Euchilofulviella Gorczyca, 1999,  Infernotropis Taszakowski, Masłowski, Wolski &amp; Gorczyca, 2022,  Henryfulvius Wolski, 2014,  Rewafulvius Carvalho, 1972, and  Xenocylapoides Carpintero &amp; Chérot, 2014 most probably also belong to clade 21.</p><p>The second  Fulviini clade includes  Phyllofulvius,  Psallofulvius, and the undescribed  Fulviini genus from Australia, which is recovered in all analyses with molecular data (node 26). Namyatova (2022) suggested that  Laetifulvius morganensis is also related to  Phyllofulvius and  Psallofulvius, and this is confirmed by the total-evidence and morphological phylogenies.  Fulviella Carvalho, 1991, which is not included in this analysis, most probably belongs to this group too, because it shows affinities to  Phyllofulvius (Namyatova and Cassis 2022) . Namyatova (2022) also hypothesized that  Psallops might be close to this group, and this is recovered in the morphology-based analysis, but the analyses with molecular data do not confirm this.</p><p>The monophyly of  Rhinocylapus complex (node 22) is confirmed again (Namyatova and Cassis 2019 a, Tyts et al. 2022); however, the morphology-based and total-evidence phylogenies show that it might include more genera, i.e.  Bironiella,  Cylapofulvius, and  Fulvidius . Additionally, it was hypothesized that  Teratofulvioides Carvalho &amp; Lorenzato, 1978 might be close to or even synonymous with  Punctifulvius (Namyatova and Cassis 2022) . The sister-group relationships of  Rhinocylapus complex with  Fulvius are confirmed in the Bayesian inference analyses, and the RAXML tree with 78 taxa does not contradict those relationships.  Fulvius sp. from Australia forms a clade with other  Fulvius species only in the Bayesian inference analysis with 78 taxa and in the total-evidence phylogeny. Australian species might represent another genus; however, an analysis with more specimens from Australia should be performed to confirm this idea.</p><p>Another well-supported clade includes Australian genera  Callitropisca,  Ceratofulvius,  Lygaeoscytus Reuter, 1893,  Micanitropis, and  Xenocylapidius, in addition to African  Schmitzofulvius bigibber and South American  Xenocylapus tenuis (node 20). Only morphological data were included for  Callitropisca florentine; however, this taxon is very similar to  Micanitropis and  Xenocylapidius morphologically (Namyatova and Cassis 2021), and their close relationships are very possible. We did not have molecular data for S chmitzofulvius  bigibber and  Xenocylapus tenuis, and their position within this clade should be tested in the future.</p><p>Euchilofulvius antennatus and  Peritropisca bituberculata form a clade together (node 15), and the similarity of those two genera has been mentioned before (Wolski and Gorczyca 2014b, Namyatova and Cassis 2022; Masłowski et al. 2023). These taxa might form a clade with  Peritropis and the genus near  Peritropella (node 17). Morphological data also suggest that  Peritropis forms a clade with  Sulawesifulvius cf. thailandicus . Gorczyca (1998, 1999), and Maslowski et al. (2023) hypothesized that Schmitzofuvius might be close to  Euchilofulvius and  Peritropisca; however, this is not supported by our results.</p><p>Future studies of  Fulviini should involve more genera included in this group. It is important to test using molecular data the position of the genera that cannot be assigned to any of the clades based on morphology. In our analysis, such genera are  Cylapocoris,  Howefulvius Schmitz &amp; Štys, 1973, and  Trynocoris Herring, 1976 . There are many  Fulviini genera not included in this analysis, and their relationships with other taxa are unclear, e.g.  Hemiophthalmocoris Poppius, 1912,  Gulacylapus Carvalho, 1986,  Rhinophrus Hsiao, 1944,  Rhyparochromomiris Henry &amp; Paula, 2004, and  Tucuruisca Carvalho, 1986 . Adding such genera into the phylogeny will help us to understand the borders of  Fulviini and the relationships of their subgroupings with other mirids.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/25053808FF86FF8BBA89FA835A81FD47	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Namyatova, Anna A.;Tyts, Veronica D.	Namyatova, Anna A., Tyts, Veronica D. (2025): Total-evidence phylogeny of the subfamily Cylapinae and the divergence dates for its subgroupings (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 203 (1): 1-34, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae008
