TESSARATOMIDAE Stål, 1864

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 : 967-968

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00224.x

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4334472

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E187AB-6B76-FFF5-FC96-FA5E13564BA2

treatment provided by

Valdenar

scientific name

TESSARATOMIDAE Stål
status

 

TESSARATOMIDAE Stål

Historical: Sinclair (1989), in a generic revision and cladistic analysis of the exclusively Southern Hemisphere taxon Tessaratomidae , concluded that this group

is polyphyletic. He raised the Oncomerinae to family status. The Tessaratomidae under Sinclair̕s (1989) vision included two subfamilies, Tessaratominae and Natalicolinae, the latter with two tribes, Natalicolini and Prionogastrini, and the latter of those comprising two subtribes, Prionogastraria and Sepinaria. More recently, Sinclair (2000) restored Oncomerinae as a subfamily of Tessaratomidae . Rolston et al. (1993) summarized the current classification in their world

catalogue of the Tessaratomidae . Following Leston (1955), Leston (1956b) and Kumar (1969), they recognized the subfamilies Natalicolinae, Oncomerinae , and Tessaratominae, the last subdivided into three tribes:

Prionogastrini, Sepinini, and Tessaratomini. Schuh and Slater (1995) recognized the three subfamilies mentioned above, the Tessaratominae subdivided into five tribes (Eusthenini, Platytatini , Prionogastrini, Sepinini, and Tessaratomini), and the Oncomerinae into two tribes (Oncomerini and Piezosternini). Sinclair (2000) revised the Oncomerinae , including in this subfamily 15 genera, but did not recognize Leston̕s division of the subfamily into Oncomerini and Piezosternini. Monteith (2006) described maternal care of eggs and nymphs in five genera of Oncomerinae , three of them also showing nymphal phoresy where the nymphs are carried on the modified body of the female for a period after hatching.

Analytical result: Our unweighted parsimony analysis of morphological character data supports the monophyly of this group ( Figs 42 View Fig ), as does analysis under successive weighting ( Fig. 43 View Fig ), whereas analysis with PIWE under implied weights treats it as paraphyletic ( Fig. 44 View Fig ). In the combined molecular results and 52- taxon total evidence analyses under a 1: 1 cost ratio ( Figs 45 View Figs 45–48. 45 and 51 View Figs 49–52. 49 , respectively) the Tessaratomidae is always monophyletic and is the sister group of the Dinidoridae . The Tessaratomidae is paraphyletic via inclusion of the Dinidoridae in the 92-taxon combined analysis using a 1: 1 cost ratio ( Fig. 53 View Fig ), but is monophyletic using 1: 2 and 2: 2 cost ratios ( Figs 54 View Fig and 55 View Fig ). As with the Dinidoridae , a broader sample of sequence data would provide a more rigorous test of the monophyly and sister-group relationships of the Tessaratomidae and help to resolve the historical indecision as to the composition of the group.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Hemiptera

Family

Tessaratomidae