PARASTRACHIINAE Schaefer, Dolling and Tachikawa

Grazia, Jocelia, Schuh, Randall T. & Wheeler, Ward C., 2008, Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera), Cladistics 24, pp. 932-976 : 965-966

publication ID 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00224.x


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

PARASTRACHIINAE Schaefer, Dolling and Tachikawa


PARASTRACHIINAE Schaefer, Dolling and Tachikawa

Historical: Schaefer et al. (1988) treated the Asian Parastrachia Distant as a subfamily within the Cydni-

dae. More recently, Sweet and Schaefer (2002) elevated Parastrachia to family status, arguing that it did not share diagnostic features with either the Cydnidae , or the Pentatomidae , where some authors had placed the group. The characters supporting Parastrachia as distinct from the Cydnidae are: venation of the fore wings (base of membrane with large basal cells formed by

cross veins), stridulatory apparatus differing from that of most Cydnidae and resembling that of the Amnestinae ( Cydnidae ), metathoracic scent gland area with a reduced spout above the ostiole, dorsum of the abdo-

men relatively desclerotized, epipleurites absent, and several unique features in the female and male genitalia ( Schaefer et al., 1988). Sweet and Schaefer (2002) placed the Parastrachiidae only within the ‘‘cydnoids or lower pentatomoids’’, arguing that inclusion of Parastrachia within the Cydnidae produces a grouping that cannot be diagnosed.

Analytical result: Our analyses suggest that Parastrachia Distant and Dismegistus Amyot & Serville form a monophyletic group, an issue that has not been addressed in most of the recent—and rather extensive—literature on Parastrachia . For the characters included in our morphological matrix, these two taxa receive the same coding, so this result represents a foregone conclusion. Nonetheless, molecular data—adduced here for both Dismegistus and Parastrachia —support this same conclusion, as do the total evidence analyses. We therefore broaden the concept of Sweet and Schaefer (2002) for the Parastrachiinae to include Dismegistus . Our morphological analyses ( Figs 42–44 View Fig View Fig View Fig ) always place Parastrachia + Dismegistus within a broadly conceived Cydnidae , in a sense similar to that used by Dolling (1981), on the basis of characters 160, 261, and 271. As noted above, the molecular data alone and combined analyses of 52 taxa usually group Parastrachia and Dismegistus with Allocoris ( Corimelaenidae ) and with equal consistency with one of the sequenced taxa we have treated as Cydninae . The combined analyses of 92 taxa places some additional cydnoid taxa with the Parastrachia clade, but notably—and consistently—exclude two cydnines and Thaumastella . Thus, we conclude that Parastrachia + Dismegistus is a monophyletic group, and that its inclusion in a broadly conceived Cydnidae may well render that group paraphyletic, a conclusion in concordance with the findings of Sweet and Schaefer (2002). That particular conclusion does not preclude our recommendation that the Parastrachiinae be treated as part of a more broadly conceived Corimelaenidae . Whether the Sehirinae should also be included as part of the grouping may be clarified through the inclusion of additional sequence data, not only for the Sehirinae , but also for the Corimelaeninae .












PARASTRACHIINAE Schaefer, Dolling and Tachikawa

Grazia, Jocelia, Schuh, Randall T. & Wheeler, Ward C. 2008


Distant 1883