Molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial and tribal classification and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)
Molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial and tribal classification and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/syen.12084
复制
发表时间：
2014-10-01
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Audisio, Paolo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cline, Andrew R.;Smith, Trevor R.;Audisio, Paolo
我们基于代表目前所确认的10个亚科中的8个的30个内群分类单元，提出了露尾甲科（Nitidulidae）的分子系统发育关系。来自7个基因座（12S、16S、18S、28S、COI、COII和H3）的大约10K个碱基对被用于系统发育重建。该系统发育关系支持以下主要结论：（i）小头甲科（Cybocephalidae）被正式确认为一个与露尾甲科没有密切关系的独特科，并且其组成分类单元被确定；（ii）小花甲科（Kateretidae）是露尾甲科的姐妹群；（iii）隐跗甲亚科（Cryptarchinae）是单系的，并且是其余露尾甲亚科的姐妹群；（iv）原顶甲亚科（Prometopinae）恢复原分类地位并被重新定义，以容纳与阿克西拉属（Axyra Erichson）、原顶甲属（Prometopia Erichson）和大奥切尼亚属（Megauchenia MacLeay）相关的分类单元；（v）双叉露尾甲亚科（Amphicrossinae）、嗜果甲亚科（Carpophilinae）和小露尾甲亚科（Epuraeinae）在一个得到充分支持的单系分支中被证明是密切相关的分类单元；（vi）我们的数据对露尾甲亚科（Nitidulinae）内的族亲缘关系和各自的单系性解析不佳，并且由于对先前基于形态学的族或属级复合群几乎没有或根本没有支持，必须进行更严格的检验；（vii）发现露尾甲亚科相对于毛跗甲亚科（Cillaeinae）和小花甲亚科（Meligethinae）是并系的，这表明它们要么应被归并为族，要么露尾甲亚科应被划分为几个亚科以保留毛跗甲亚科和小花甲亚科的分类地位；（viii）泰氏甲属（Teichostethus Sharp）恢复原分类地位，它不是赫巴斯库斯属（Hebascus Erichson）的同义词，前者被恢复为一个有效属。这些结论和修订在形态学框架内进行了详细讨论和阐述。
We present a molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae based on thirty ingroup taxa representing eight of the ten currently recognized subfamilies. Approximately 10K base pairs from seven loci (12S, 16S, 18S, 28S, COI, COII and H3) were used for the phylogenetic reconstruction. The phylogeny supports the following main conclusions: (i) Cybocephalidae are formally recognized as a distinct family not closely related to Nitidulidae and its constituent taxa are defined; (ii) Kateretidae are sister to Nitidulidae; (iii) Cryptarchinae are monophyletic and sister to the remaining nitidulid subfamilies; (iv) subfamily Prometopinae stat. res. is reinstated and defined, to accommodate taxa allied to AxyraErichson, PrometopiaErichson and MegaucheniaMacLeay; (v) Amphicrossinae, Carpophilinae and Epuraeinae are shown to be closely related taxa within a well-supported monophyletic clade; (vi) tribal affinities and respective monophyly within Nitidulinae are poorly resolved by our data and must be more rigorously tested as there was little or no support for prior morphologically based tribes or genus-level complexes; (vii) Nitidulinae are found to be paraphyletic with respect to Cillaeinae and Meligethinae, suggesting that they should either be subsumed as tribes, or Nitidulinae should be divided into several subfamilies to preserve the status of Cillaeinae and Meligethinae; (viii) TeichostethusSharp stat. res. is not a synonym of HebascusErichson and the former is reinstated as a valid genus. These conclusions and emendations are discussed in detail and presented within a morphological framework.