Hemiptera: Heteroptera) Revealed by Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Nuclear Rdna Sequences 481-496 75 (3): 481– 496 20.12.2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Arthropod Systematics and Phylogeny Jahr/Year: 2017 Band/Volume: 75 Autor(en)/Author(s): Lis Jerzy A., Ziaja Dariusz J., Lis Barbara, Gradowska Paulina Artikel/Article: Non-monophyly of the “cydnoid” complex within Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) revealed by Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of nuclear rDNA sequences 481-496 75 (3): 481– 496 20.12.2017 © Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, 2017. Non-monophyly of the “cydnoid” complex within Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) revealed by Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of nuclear rDNA sequences Jerzy A. Lis *, Dariusz J. Ziaja, Barbara Lis & Paulina Gradowska Department of Biosystematics, Opole University, Oleska 22, 45-052 Opole, Poland; Jerzy A. Lis * [[email protected]]; Dariusz J. Ziaja [[email protected]]; Barbara Lis [[email protected]]; Paulina Gradowska [[email protected]] — * Corresponding author Accepted 02.x.2017. Published online at www.senckenberg.de/arthropod-systematics on 11.xii.2017. Editors in charge: Christiane Weirauch & Klaus-Dieter Klass Abstract The “cydnoid” complex of pentatomoid families, including Cydnidae, Parastrachiidae, Thaumastellidae, and Thyreocoridae, is morphologi- cally defined by the presence of an array of more or less flattened stout setae (called coxal combs), situated on the distal margin of coxae. These structures, suggested to prevent the coxal-trochanteral articulation from injuries caused by particles of soil, sand or dust, by their nature and function are unknown elsewhere in the Heteroptera. As such, coxal combs were regarded as a synapomorphy of this group of families, and enabled the definition of it as a monophylum. In this study, the monophyly of the “cydnoid” complex of families is tested for the first time, based on the combined analysis of nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences (28S rDNA D3 region, and 18S rDNA). Combined analyses of both genes are performed using Bayesian methods with the covarion option in MrBayes 3.2.0. Non-monophyly of the entire “cydnoid” complex of families, and independent origins of their coxal combs is suggested. The family Thaumastellidae is demonstrated not to be part of this complex as previously proposed. Challenging the existing classification system, the use of the name “cydnoid” complex is indicated as unwarranted, and therefore it should no longer be applied to this group of families. Key words Cydnidae sensu lato, Parastrachiidae, Thaumastellidae, Thyreocoridae, molecular phylogeny, ribosomal DNA, coxal combs, Bayesian estimation. 1. Introduction The Cydnidae (colloquially known as “burrower bugs” SCHWERTNER & NARDI 2015). However, some are caver- or “burrowing bugs”) is a family within the superfam- nicolous (LINNAVUORI 1993; Kłys & Lis 2013; Lis & Lis ily Pentatomoidea and comprises more than 750 species 2016), and several are associated with ants (FROESCHNER known from temperate, warm and tropical parts of the 1975; Lis 2015). world (LIS 1994, 1999, 2006, 2013; LIS et al. 2000; LIS Cydnidae have generally been considered of little eco- & LIS 2014, 2015; CASSIS & GROSS 2002; SCHWERTNER & nomic importance, but to date, almost 30 species have been NARDI 2015). They are mostly soil-diggers that feed on reported as pests, mainly in the Neotropics and Oriental plant roots, though some are above ground plant-feeders region (LIS et al. 2000; schwertner & nardi 2015). At and may also be mycetophagous or feed on seeds (for present, the family is divided into six subfamilies (PLUOT- review, see: SCHAEFER 1988; LIS 1994; LIS et al. 2000; sigwaLt & Lis 2008; Lis 2010a; schwertner & nardi ISSN 1863-7221 (print) | eISSN 1864-8312 (online) 481 Lis et al.: “Cydnoid” complex phylogeny based on nuclear rDNA Fig. 1. Representatives of the “cydnoid” complex. A – D: Cydnidae: (A) Cydnus aterrimus, (B) Macroscytus brunneus, (C) Tritomegas sexmaculatus, (D) Sehirus luctuosus; E – F: Thyreocoridae: (E) Thyreocorinae, Thyreocoris scarabaeoides; (F) Corimelaeninae, Galgupha vinculata; G – H: Parastrachiidae: (G) Parastrachia japonensis, (H) Dismegistus fimbriatus; I: Thaumastellidae: Thaumastella aradoides. Scale bar = 1 mm. 2015), i.e., Amnestinae, Amaurocorinae, Cephalocteinae Garsauriinae, and Sehirinae (with a single tribe Sehirini (with two tribes, Cephalocteini and Scaptocorini), Cydni- sensu lato). Since the family was never thoroughly phylo- nae (with two tribes, Cydnini and Geotomini sensu lato), genetically studied and, importantly, its monophyly was 482 ARTHROPOD SYSTEMATICS & PHYLOGENY — 75 (3) 2017 questioned, a more appropriate name “Cydnidae sensu Yao et al. (2012) included only four extant species, lato” was suggested for this family (GRAZIA et al. 2008; i.e. Thaumastella elizabethae Jacobs, 1989 (Thaumas- PLuot-sigwaLt & Lis 2008; Lis 2010a). tellidae), Thyreocoris scarabaeoides (Linnaeus, 1758) Apart from that, three other pentatomoid families, (Thyreocoridae: Thyreocorinae), Parastrachia japon i.e. Parastrachiidae, Thaumastellidae, and Thyreocoridae ensis (Scott, 1880) (Parastrachiidae), Sehirus cinctus (with two subfamilies, Thyreocorinae and Corimelae- (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805) (Cydnidae: Sehirinae), and a ninae) were often suggested to be closely allied to Cyd- single fossil Cilicydnus robustispinus Yao, Cai and Ren, nidae sensu lato, and were sometimes treated as its sub- 2007 (Cydnidae: Amnestinae). No species of the subfam- families in the past (e.g., doLLing 1981; schuh & sLater ily Corimelaeninae (Thyreocoridae), nor the subfamily 1995; schaefer et al. 1988). Cydninae (Cydnidae) were incorporated into the analy- Around thirty years ago, schaefer (1981, 1988) pro- ses. posed gathering the four aforementioned families into a Though the phylogenetic analyses in GRAZIA et al. group of “primitive” pentatomoids. Additionally, he sug- (2008) were based on molecular and morphological gested Megarididae, Canopidae, Cyrtocoridae, Plataspi- data, the “cydnoid” complex was represented by only a dae, and Lestoniidae to be included on the basis of sev- few sequences for a limited number of taxa, i.e. a sin- eral morphological characters, including a metathoracic gle unidentified species of Allocoris McAtee & Malloch wing stridulitrum, stout bristles and setae on tibiae, and (Thyreocoridae: Corimelaeninae), two species of Par- coxal combs (an array of more or less flattened stout se- astrachiidae, Parastrachia japonensis and Dismegistus tae, situated on the distal margin of coxae and adpressed sanguineus (DeGeer, 1778), two species of Thaumastel- to the surface of the trochanters, unknown elsewhere in lidae (Thaumastella elizabethae Jacobs and T. nama the Heteroptera). Because those families (Fig. 1) showed quensis Schaefer & Wilcox, 1971), and three unidentified cydnid affinities, this group was subsequently named the taxa of the subfamily Cydninae (Cydnidae). “cydnoid” complex (Lis 1994). Importantly, in a morphological sense, families of Nevertheless, two of those diagnostic characters, the “cydnoid” complex were always identified to form a i.e. a metathoracic wing stridulitrum and stout bristles monophylum (gaPud 1991; graZia et al. 2008; yao et al. on ti biae, were then regarded as improper to define this 2012), with only the coxal combs and spinose tibiae used group of families (e.g., SCHAEFER et al. 1988; Lis & as defining characters for such a clade. As mentioned heyna 2001; Lis & schaefer 2005; Lis 2010a), and, the above, spinose tibiae are found in many heteropteran presence of the coxal combs (Fig. 2) remained a single families in addition to those of the “cydnoid” complex, character that might be considered as its synapomorphy and therefore only the presence of coxal combs remains (e.g., GRAZIA et al. 2008; Lis 2010a). This crucial char- as a potential synapomorphic character for the “cydnoid” acter, however, can only support some families repre- complex of families (Lis 2010a). senting the original “cydnoid” complex, and therefore a The aim of our molecular study was to test the mono- definition of this group was subsequently more or less phyly of the “cydnoid” complex of families using more narrowed (Jacobs 1989; ahmad & mcPherson 1990; extensive material, and, for the first time, verify whether schaefer 1993; schuh & sLater 1995; PacKausKas & the presence of the coxal combs, considered the only syn- schaefer 1998; Lis 2010a; Lis & ZiaJa 2010). Thus, at apomorphy for this group, are really homologous in all present, the “cydnoid” complex includes only four fami- “cydnoid” families or may have evolved independently. lies, i.e. Cydnidae, Parastrachiidae, Thaumastellidae, and Thyreocoridae (GRAZIA et al. 2008; PLuot-sigwaLt & Lis 2008; Lis 2010a; yao et al. 2012). To date, no thorough phylogenetic analysis testing 2. Material and methods the monophyly of this complex has been conducted. However, its non-monophyletic origin has already been suggested by GRAZIA et al. (2008) during studies on the 2.1. Taxa phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentato- moidea based on molecular and morphological data, as In this study, a total of 46 terminal taxa were selected for well as by PLuot-sigwaLt & Lis (2008) during studies on analyses, with 40 taxa in the ingroup and 6 taxa in the morphology of the spermathecae in Cydnidae. outgroup. The ingroup contained 21 taxa representing the Unlike results of those two aforementioned studies, “cydnoid” complex with representatives of all its fami- yao et al. (2012), when analyzing