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 (2020-07-31 15:01:18, last updated 2024-11-26 07:01:54)
scientific name	TESSARATOMIDAE Stål
status

Treatment

TESSARATOMIDAE Stål View in CoL View at ENA

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.

References

Kumar, R., 1969. Morphology and relationships of the Pentatomoidea (Heteroptera). IV. Oncomerinae (Tessaratomidae). Aust. J. Zool. 17, 553 - 606.

Leston, D., 1955. A key to the genera of Oncomerini Stal (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Tessaratominae) with the description of a new genus and species from Australia and new synonymy. Proc. R. Ent. Soc. London, series B, 24, 62 - 68.

Leston, D., 1956 b. Results from the Danish expedition to the French Cameroons 1949 - 50. IX. Hemiptera, Pentatomoidea. Bull. Inst. Fr. Afr. Noire (A) 18, 618 - 626.

Monteith, G., 2006. Maternal care in Australian oncomerine shield bugs (Insecta, Heteroptera, Tessaratomidae). In: Rabitsch, W. (Ed.), Hug the Bug-For Love of True Bugs. Festschrift zum 70 Geburtstag von Ernst Heiss., Denisia 19, 1135 - 1152.

Rolston, L. H., Aalbu, R. L., Murra, M. J., Rider, D. A., 1993. Catalog of the Tessaratomidae of the World. Papua New Guinea J. Agric. For. Fish. 36, 36 - 108.

Schuh, R. T., Slater, J. A., 1995. True Bugs of the World (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Classification and Natural History. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Sinclair, D. P., 1989. A Cladistic, Generic Revision of the Oncomeridae Stal n. stat. and Tessaratomidae Schilling n. stat. (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea). PhD dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Sinclair, D. P., 2000. Generic revision of the Oncomerinae (Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea: Tessaratomidae). Mem. Queensl. Mus. 46, 307.

Figures

Fig. 42. Strict consensus of 96 most parsimonious trees for full-taxon morphological data set, with unsupported nodes supressed. Length = 207; consistency index = 42; retention index = 86. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 43. Strict consensus of three trees derived from successive weighting of the results shown in Fig. 42. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 44. Strict consensus of 12 trees derived from implied weighting analysis of morphological data using PIWE. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Figs 45–48. 45. One of two trees derived from analysis of combined molecular data with 1: 1 indel ⁄transition–transversion cost ratio. 46. Single tree derived from analysis of combined molecular data with 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 47. Single tree derived from analysis of ~500 bp of 16S rRNA data using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 48. Single tree derived from analysis of ~1800 bp of 18S rRNA using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio.

Figs 49–52. 49. Single tree derived from analysis of ~470 bp of 28S rRNA using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 50. Single tree derived from analysis of ~1100 bp of COI mtDNA using 1: 1 indel ⁄transition–transversion cost ratio. 51. Total evidence analysis with POY of 52- taxon data set using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 52. Total evidence analysis with POY of 52-taxon data set using 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio.

Fig. 53. One of six trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 54. One of four trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 1: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 55. One of three trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 2: 2 indel ⁄transition–transversion cost ratio, which had the lowest MRI value. Bremer support values are shown.