Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:51:33.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SPECIES OF EUCHEILOID PERICALINA: CLASSIFICATION AND EVOLUTIONARY CONSIDERATIONS (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE: LEBIINI)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. E. Ball  and
D. Shpeley
G. E. Ball
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2E3
D. Shpeley
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2E3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The endemic New World eucheiloid complex is distinguished from the other complexes (thyreopteroid, eurycoleoid, somotrichoid, and pericaloid) of pericaline Lebiini by securiform labial palpomere 3, serrate-setose margins of the pronotum, and flattened stylomere 2 of the ovipositor. The geographical range of eucheiloids extends from northern Argentina to southernmost United States (Brownsville, Texas). All taxa are believed to be arboreal. A key distinguishes among the three genera and 16 species, and each taxon is characterized in terms of structural features, habitat, and geographical distribution. The genera are: Hansus, new genus (generitype—H. reichardti, new species); Inna Putzeys (generitype—Inna punctata Putzeys = Polystichus boyeri (Solier)); and Eucheila Dejean (generitype—Euchyla flavilabris (Dejean)). Seven new species and one new subspecies are described: Hansus reichardti (type locality—Guyana, EssequiboR.. Morrabali Ck.); Inna palpalis, I. atrata arbor, and I. inpa (type locality—Brazil, Amazonas, near Manaus); I. purpurea (type locality—Brazil, Amazonas, 60 km n. Manaus); I. splendens (type locality—Venezuela, Aragua, Rancho Grande); Eucheila adisi (type locality—Brazil, Amazonas, 60 km n. Manaus); and E. cordova (type locality—México, Veracruz, Cordova). The following new synonymies of specific names are proposed (valid names listed first): Inna costulata Chaudoir, 1872 = I. granulata Chaudoir, 1872; Inna boyeri (Solier, 1835) = I. punctata Putzeys, 1863, and I. texana Schaeffer, 1910. A reconstructed phylogeny of the eucheiloids, based on analysis of 60 character states included in 33 characters, shows that Hansus is sister group of the ancestral stock of Inna + Eucheila. Evolutionary modifications have affected principally body size, head and mouthparts (feeding and associated adaptations), reproductive structures, and features of the body surface thought to be associated with avoidance of predators (concealment and flash coloration). Diversification may also have involved differentiation by habitat (type of forest occupied). The principal theater of evolution has been tropical South America, with incursions both southward and northward. Middle America has been invaded by five lineages, probably during Cenozoic time, from Middle Tertiary to the Quaternary. Of these lineages, three are represented in Middle America by endemic species: E. cordova, I. planipennis Bates, and I. nevermanni Liebke. Two lineages are represented by species whose ranges extend northward from South America: I. costulata Chaudoir and I. boyeri (Solier).

Résumé

Le complexe eucheiloide endémique du nouveau monde se distingue des autres complexes (thyréoptéroide, eurycoleoide, somotrichoide et péricaloide) de Lebiini péricalines par le palpomère labial 3 sécuriforme, les marges du pronotum dentelées-sétacées, et le stylomère 2 aplati de l'oviscapte. L'aire de distribution des eucheiloides s'étend de l'Argentine septentrionale à l'extrême sud des Etats-Unis (Brownsville, Texas). Tous les taxons seraient arboricoles. Une clé permet la séparation des 3 genres et des 16 espèces, et chaque taxon est caractérisé par ses particularités morphologiques, son habitat, et sa distribution géographique. Les genres sont : Hansus, genre nouveau (type générique—H. reichardti, espèce nouvelle); Inna Putzeys (type générique—Inna punctata Putzeys = Polystichus boyeri (Solier)); et Eucheila Dejean (type générique—Euchyla flavilabris (Dejean)). Sept espèces nouvelles, et une sous-espèce nouvelle sont décrites : Hansus reichardti (localité du type—Guyane, Essiquibo R., Morrabali Ck.); Inna palpalis, I. atrata arbor, et I. inpa (localité du type—Brésil, Amazonas, près de Manaus); I. purpurea (localité du type—Brésil, Amazonas, 60 km de Manaus); I. splendens (localité du type—Vénézuela, Aragua, Rancho Grande); Eucheila adisi (localité du type—Brésil, Amazonas. 60 km de Manaus); et E. cordova (localité du type—Mexico, Veracruz, Cordova). Les nouvelles synonymies suivantes pour des noms spécifiques sont proposées (noms valides venant en premier) : Inna costulata Chaudoir, 1872 = I. granulata Chaudoir, 1872; Inna boyeri (Solier, 1835) = I. punctata Putzeys, 1863, et I. texana Schaeffer, 1910. Une phylogénie modifiée des eucheiloides basée sur l'analyse de 33 caractères comprenant en tout 60 états, montre que Hansus est un groupe de même niveau que le stock ancestral Inna + Eucheila. Les changements évolutifs ont touché principalement la taille, la tête et les pièces buccales (l'alimentation et les adaptations connexes), les structures reproductrices, et des caractères superficiels du corps estimés être liés à la protection contre les prédateurs (camouflage et coloration voyante). La diversification pourrait aussi avoir impliqué une différentiation par l'habitat (type de forêt occupée). Leur évolution s'est principalement déroulée en Amérique du Sud tropicale, avec des incursions à la fois vers le nord et vers le sud. L'Amérique Centrale a été envahie par 5 lignées, probablement durant le Cénozoïque, du tertiaire moyen au quaternaire. Parmi ces lignées, 3 sont représentées en Amérique Centrale par des espèces endémiques : E. cordova, I. planipennis Bates, et I. nevermanni Liebke. Deux lignées sont représentées par des espèces dont la distribution s'étend au nord à partir de l'Amérique du Sud : I. costulata Chaudoir, et I. boyeri (Solier).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 115 , Issue 7 , July 1983 , pp. 743 - 806
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agassiz, L. J. R. 1842–1846. Nomenclator Zoologicus. 2 parts. Soloduri.Google Scholar
Allen, R. T. and Ball, G. E.. 1980 (1979). Synopsis of Mexican taxa of the Loxandrus series (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Pterostichini). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 105: 481–576.Google Scholar
Ball, G. E. 1960. Carabidae, Fascicle 4. pp. 55–210 in Arnett, R. H.. (1960), The Beetles of the United States (A manual for Identification). The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. xi + 1112 pp.Google Scholar
Ball, G. E. 1975. Pericaline Lebiini: notes on classification, a synopsis of the New World genera, and a revision of the genus Phloeoxena Chaudoir (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaest. ent. 11(2): 143–242.Google Scholar
Ball, G. E. 1978. The species of the Neotropical genus Trichopselaphus Chaudoir (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini): classification, phylogeny and zoogeography. Quaest. ent. 14(4): 447–489.Google Scholar
Bates, H. W. 1883. Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae, Cicindelidae, supplement, Vol. 1, part 1. pp. 153–256, plates vi–xii in Godman, F. D. and Salvin, O. (1879–1911), Biologia Centrali-Americana. Coleoptera, 7 vols. in 17 parts. London.Google Scholar
Bates, H. W. 1891. Additions to the carabideous fauna of Mexico, with remarks on some of the species previously recorded. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 1891: 223–278, pls. 13, 14.Google Scholar
Bils., W. 1976. Das abdomenende weiblicher, terrestrich lebender Adephaga (Coleoptera) und seine Bedeutung für die Phylogenie. Zoomorphologie 84(2): 113–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwelder, R. E. 1944. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies and South America. Part 1. Bull. U.S. nam. Mus. 185. 188 pp.Google Scholar
Burns, J. M. 1975. BioGraffiti: A Natural Selection. Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., New York. xvi + 112 pp.Google Scholar
Castelnau, Comte de [F. L. de Laporte]. 1840. Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés. Vol. 1, Insectes et Coléoptères (Cicindélètes – Ptiniores), pp. 1–324, Taf. 1–18. P. Duméril, Paris.Google Scholar
Chaudoir, M. de. 1848. Mémoire sur la famille des carabiques. Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 21: 3–134 (1me partie).Google Scholar
Chaudoir, M. de. 1872. Descriptions d'espèces nouvelles de carabiques de la tribu des troncatipennes, et remarques synonymiques. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 23: 219–221, 241–244.Google Scholar
Chenu, J. C. 1851. Encyclopédie d'histoire naturelle.… Vol. 1, 312 pp., pls. 1–33. Paris.Google Scholar
Csiki, E. 1932. Carabidae: Harpalinae VII, pars 124. pp. 1279–1598 (Vol. III) in Junk, W. and Schenkling, S. (1909–1940), Coleopterorum Catalogus, 170 parts, 30 vols. Berlin and 's- Gravenhage.Google Scholar
Dejean, P. F. M. A. 1829. Spécies général des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Vol. 4. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. 520 pp.Google Scholar
Dejean, P. F. M. A. 1831. Spécies général des coléoptères de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Vol. 5. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. viii + 883 pp.Google Scholar
Ekis, G. 1977. Classification, phylogeny, and zoogeography of the genus Perilypus (Coleoptera: Cleridae). Smithson. Contr. Zool. No. 227. Washington, D.C. iv + 138 pp.Google Scholar
Erwin, T. L. 1974. Studies of the subtribe Tachyina (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Bembidiini). Part II: a revision of the New World-Australian genus Pericompsus LeConte. Smithson. Contr. Zool. No. 162, IV + 96 pp.Google Scholar
Erwin, T. L. 1977. Eucheilini. p. 451 in Reichardt, H. (1977), A synopsis of the genera of Neotropical Carabidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Quaest. ent. 13: (4): 347–485.Google Scholar
Erwin, T. L. 1978. Systematic, natural history, and zoogeographic notes on the genus Agra Fabricius, with a description of a new species from Panama. Coleopts Bull. 32(4): 261–268.Google Scholar
Erwin, T. L. 1979. Thoughts on the evolutionary history of ground beetles: hypotheses generated from comparative faunal analyses of lowland forest sites in temperate and tropical regions (Coleoptera: Carabidae). pp. 539–592 in Erwin, et al. (1979), Carabid Beetles. … Junk, The Hague. X + 644 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, T. L., Ball, G. E., Whitehead, D. R., and Halpern, A. L. (Eds.), 1979. Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History, and Classification. (Proceedings of the First International Symposium of Carabidology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., August, 21, 23, and 25, 1976.) Junk, The Hague. X + 644 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, T. L. and Erwin, L. J. M.. 1976. Relationships of predaceous beetles to tropical forest wood decay. The natural history of Neotropical Eurycoleus macularius Chevrolat (Carabidae: Lebiini) and its implications in the evolution of ectoparasitoidism. Biotropica 8(4): 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, T. L. and House, G. N.. 1978. A catalogue of the primary types of Carabidae (incl. Cicindelinae) in the collections of the United States National Museum of Natural History (USNM) (Coleoptera). Coleopts Bull. 32(3): 231–255.Google Scholar
Erwin, T. L., Whitehead, D. R., and Ball, G. E.. 1977. Family 4. Carabidae, The Ground Beetles. pp. 4.1–4.68 in Blackwelder, R. E. and Arnett, R. H. (1977), Checklist of the Beetles of Canada, United States, Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. World Digest Publ., Oxycopis Pond, Kinderhook, N.Y.Google Scholar
Gemminger, M. and von Harold, E.. 1856. Catalogus Coleopterorum. Vol. 1, Monachii. XXXVI + 424 pp., index.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, London. 263 pp.Google Scholar
Jeannel, R. 1955. L'édéage. Initiation aux recherches sur la systématique des Coléoptères. Publ. Mus. nat. Hist. nat., Paris 16. Éditions du Muséum, 36, Rue Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Paris (Ve). 155 pp.Google Scholar
Lacordaire, T. 1854. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléoptères ou exposé méthodique et critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu'ici dans cet ordre d'Insectes. Vol. 1. Cicindélètes- Palpicornes. Librairie encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. XX + 486 pp.Google Scholar
Leng, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America north of Mexico. John D. Sherman, Mount Vernon, New York. x + 470 pp.Google Scholar
Liebke, M. 1929. Laufkäfer Studien VI. Ent. Anz. 9: 245–265, 297–298.Google Scholar
Liebke, M. 1939. Neue Laufkaäfer. Festschrift zum 60. Geburstage von Professor Dr. Embrik Strand 5: 91–130.Google Scholar
Noonan, G. R. 1973. The ansiodactylines (Insecta: Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini): classification, evolution, and zoogeography. Quaest. ent. 9(4): 266–480.Google Scholar
Noonan, G. R. 1975. Bionomics, evolution, and zoogeography of members of the genus Dicheirus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pan-Pacif. Ent. 51(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Orbigny, C. D. d'. 1841–1849. Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle. 13 volumes + 3 vols. plates. Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prance, G. T. 1980. A terminologia dos tipos de florestas amazônicas sujeitas a inundaçāo. Acta Amazon. 10(3): 495–504.Google Scholar
Prance, G. T. (Editor). 1982. The Biological Model for Diversification in the Tropics. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Putzeys, J. A. A. H. 1863. Postscriptum ad clivinidarum monographiam atque de quibusdam aliis. Mém. Soc. r. Liège 18. 78 pp.Google Scholar
Reichardt, H. 1966. Revisionary notes on the genera of Eucheilini (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Psyche, Camb. 73(1): 8–16.Google Scholar
Reichardt, H. 1979. 2.32. The South American carabid fauna: endemic tribes and tribes with African relationships. pp. 319–325. in Erwin, T. L. et al. (1979), Carabid Beetles … Junk, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, D. E. 1975. A vicariance model of Caribbean biogeography. Syst. Zool. 24(4): 431–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, H. H. 1974. Biological systematics. Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Inc. Reading, Massachusetts, Menlo Park, California, London, Don Mills, Ontario. Preface, Acknowledgements, Contents, pp. 1–345.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, C. 1910. Additions to the Carabidae of North America with notes on species already known. Scient. Bull. Mus. Brooklyn Inst. Arts and Sci. 1(17): 391–405.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1935. Principles of Insect Morphology. McGraw-Hill, New York. viii + 667 pp.Google Scholar
Solier, A. J. J. 1835. Description de quelques espèces nouvelles de la famille des carabiques. Annls Soc. ent. Fr. 4: 111–121.Google Scholar
Tanner, V. M. 1927. A preliminary study of the genitalia of female Coleoptera. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 53: 5–50, 15 pls.Google Scholar
Watrous, L. E. and Wheeler, Q. E.. 1981. The out-group method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 30(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D. R. 1976. Classification and evolution of Rhinochenus Lucas (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Cryptorhynchinae), and Quaternary Middle American zoogeography. Quaest. ent. 12(2): 118–201.Google Scholar