CYDNIDAE Billberg, 1820

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 : 966

publication ID 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00224.x


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name




Historical: Of all pentatomoid family-group taxa, the composition of the Cydnidae has probably been the most controversial over time. The taxon Cydnidae was

first recognized by Billberg (1820). The modern concept of the group has been heavily influenced by the works of Froeschner (1960) and Dolling (1981). Both of these authors, and especially the latter, argued for an

inclusive approach to conceiving the family, even though such a grouping is structurally somewhat heterogeneous. Froeschner (1960) recognized five subfamilies for the Western Hemisphere: Amnestinae ,

Cydninae , Garsauriinae, Scaptocorinae , and Sehirinae . Dolling (1981) recognized eight subfamilies within the Cydnidae : Amnestinae , Corimelaeninae , Cydninae , Garsauriinae, Scaptocorinae , Sehirinae , Thaumastellinae (formerly in Lygaeoidea), and Thyreocorinae . Lis (1994, 1999a,b) recognized seven subfamilies with the following classification: Amnestinae , Cephalocteinae ( Cephalocteini , Scaptocorini ), Corimelaeninae , Cydninae ( Cydnini , Geotomini ), Garsauriinae, Parastrachiinae, and Sehirinae ( Amaurocorini , Sehirini ). In their interpretation of the literature, Schuh and Slater (1995) proposed an amalgam of existing classifications supporting the inclusion of the Thyreocorinae and Parastrachiinae, both at subfamily rank, and the exclusion of the Thaumastellidae (following Jacobs, 1989). Cassis and Gross (2002) summarized the suprageneric classifications of some earlier authors; and Rider (2006) recognized five subfamilies ( Amnestinae , Cydninae , Garsauriinae, Scaptocorinae , Sehirinae ), without tribal subdivisions.

Analytical result: Our morphological analyses for the Cydnidae produce the grouping proposed by Dolling (1981), on the basis of characters 160, 261, and 271, as mentioned above. All remaining analyses fail to recognize the Cydnidae sensu Dolling , but there is no strong signal as to how the constituent taxa should be grouped. We propose that there are probably two reasons for this inconsistency of grouping: first, our taxon sample for DNA sequences does not include several taxa that have been accorded subfamily rank by prior authors, and second, of all pentatomoid taxa, we had the greatest difficulty obtaining complete sequences for members of the subfamily Cydninae . We suggest that there may be good reason to question the monophyly of the Cydnidae sensu Dolling and recommend a more strongly analytical approach to determining its limits and composition. As part of this protocol, securing a sequence data set more representative of the recognized subgroups would seem to be the first priority (see also discussion under Corimelaenidae , Parastrachiinae, and Thaumastellidae ).