Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:39:54.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogenetic relationships, larval morphology, and chaetotaxy of the subfamily Coptotominae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2013

Mariano C. Michat  and
Yves Alarie
Mariano C. Michat*
Affiliation:
CONICET, Laboratorio de Entomología, Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, C1428EHA, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Yves Alarie
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Laurentian University, Ransey Lake Road, P3E 2C6 Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: marianoide@gmail.com).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Larval morphology of the monogeneric subfamily Coptotominae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) is described and illustrated in detail, with particular emphasis on morphometry and chaetotaxy. Larvae of Coptotomus Say are unique within Dytiscidae in the presence of tracheal gills on the abdominal segments I–VI, a short bifid horn or nasale in instar I, long spinulae on the urogomphus in instar I, and rows of natatory setae on both the internal and external margins of the urogomphus in instars II and III. A cladistic analysis based on 125 larval characters sampled among representatives of other dytiscid subfamilies supports a sister-group relationship between Coptotominae and Laccophilinae based on the shared absence of setae LA10 and LA12 on the second labial palpomere and of pore ABc on the abdominal segment VIII. The clade Coptotominae + Laccophilinae resolved as sister to Lancetinae, all three subfamilies sharing the presence of an unusually low number of lamellae clypeales in the first instar (a condition called four-peg-pattern), postulated to have evolved secondarily within Dytiscidae.

Résumé

La morphologie larvaire de la sous-famille monogénérique Coptotominae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) est décrite et illustrée en détail, en portant une attention particulière à la morphométrie et la chétotaxie. Les larves de Coptotomus Say se distinguent de celles des autres Dytiscidae par la présence de branchies trachéales sur les segments abdominaux I-VI, d'une corne bifide ou nasale ainsi que de spinules allongées sur les urogomphes chez la larve de stade I, et par la présence de soies natatoires sur les marges internes et externes des urogomphes de la larve de stade II et III. Une analyse cladistique effectuée à partir de 125 caractères larvaires répertoriés parmi des représentants des autres sous-familles de Dytiscidae suggère une origine monophylétique des Coptotominae et des Laccophilinae en raison de l'absence chez les larves de ce groupe des soies LA10 et LA12 sur le deuxième article du palpe labial ainsi que du pore ABc sur le segment abdominal VIII. La sous-famille Lancetinae est suggérée à titre de groupe consoeur du groupe monophyletique Coptotominae + Laccophilinae en raison de la présence chez les larves de stade I de ce groupe d'un nombre anormalement faible de ‘lamellae clypeales’ (une condition appelée ‘four-peg-pattern’) ce qui paraît représenter une évolution secondaire chez les Dytiscidae.

Type
Systematics & Morphology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 145 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 247 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2013 

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

Alarie, Y. 1995. Primary setae and pores on the legs, the last abdominal segment, and the urogomphi of larvae of Nearctic Colymbetinae (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae) with an analysis of their phylogenetic relationships. The Canadian Entomologist, 127: 913–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Y. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of Nearctic Colymbetinae (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae) based on chaetotaxic and porotaxic analysis of head capsule and appendages of larvae. The Canadian Entomologist, 130: 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Y., Archangelsky, M., Nilsson, A.N., Watts, C.H.S. 2002. Larval morphology of the genus Lancetes (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae): the hypothesis of sister-group relationship with the subfamily Dytiscinae revisited. The Canadian Entomologist, 134: 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Y.Michat, M.C. 2007. Phylogenetic analysis of Hydroporinae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) based on larval morphology, with description of first instar of Laccornellus lugubris. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 100: 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Y., Michat, M.C., Miller, K.B. 2011. Notation of primary setae and pores on larvae of Dytiscinae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), with phylogenetic considerations. Zootaxa, 3087: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Y., Michat, M.C., Nilsson, A.N., Archangelsky, M., Hendrich, L. 2009. Larval morphology of Rhantus Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Colymbetinae): descriptions of 22 species and phylogenetic considerations. Zootaxa, 2317: 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Y., Nilsson, A.N., Hendrich, L., Watts, C.H.S., Balke, M. 2000. Larval morphology of four genera of Laccophilinae (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae) with an analysis of their phylogenetic relationships. Insect Systematics & Evolution, 31: 121–164.Google Scholar
Bacon, M.A., Barman, E.H., White, B.P. 2000. Biology of Coptotomus lenticus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Coptotominae) with a description of its mature larva. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 116: 75–81.Google Scholar
Barman, E.H. 2004. A description of the first instar larva of Coptotomus interrogatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Coptotominae) with an emphasis on cranial morphology and comments on the phylogeny of basal lineages of Dytiscidae. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 58: 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousquet, Y.Goulet, H. 1984. Notation of primary setae and pores on larvae of Carabidae (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62: 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinck, P. 1948. Coleoptera of Tristan da Cunha. In Results of the Norwegian scientific expedition to Tristan da Cunha 1937–1938, No. 17. Edited by A. W. Braggers. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, Oslo, Norway. Pp. 1–121.Google Scholar
Burmeister, E.-G. 1976. Der ovipositor der Hydradephaga (Coleoptera) und seine phylogenetische Bedeutung unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Dytiscidae. Zoomorphologie, 85: 165–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Marzo, L. 1976. Studi sulle larve dei coleotteri ditiscidi. VI. Studio per fini sistematici del comportamento dei caratteri delle mandibole nelle larve di alcune specie della subf. Colymbetinae. Entomologica, Bari, 12: 179–198.Google Scholar
De Marzo, L.Nilsson, A.N. 1986. Morphological variation and fine structure of some head structures in larvae of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). Entomologica Basiliensia, 11: 29–42.Google Scholar
Friis, H., Bauer, T., Betz, O. 2003. An insect larva with a ‘pig-snout’: structure and function of the nasale of Hyphydrus ovatus L. (1763) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Journal of Zoology, 261: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goloboff, P.A., Farris, J., Nixon, K. 2008. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics, 24: 774–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1980. Coptotomus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in eastern North America with descriptions of two new species. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 105: 461–471.Google Scholar
Kitching, I.J., Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., Williams, D.M. 1998. Cladistics, second edition. The theory and practice of parsimony analysis. Systematics Association publications, 11. Oxford University Press, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Larson, D.J., Alarie, Y., Roughley, R.E. 2000. Predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.F. 1991. Order Coleoptera. In Immature insects. Vol. 2. Edited by F.W. Stehr. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa, United States of America. Pp. 144–658.Google Scholar
Meier, R.Lim, G.S. 2009. Conflict, convergent evolution, and the relative importance of immature and adult characters in Endopterygote phylogenetics. Annual Review of Entomology, 54: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michat, M.C. 2005. Larval morphology and phylogenetic relationships of Bunites distigma (Brullé) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Colymbetinae: Colymbetini). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 59: 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michat, M.C.Alarie, Y. 2008. Morphology and chaetotaxy of larval Hypodessus cruciatus (Régimbart) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae), and analysis of the phylogenetic relationships of the Bidessini based on larval characters. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 43: 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michat, M.C.Alarie, Y. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships of Notaticus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) based on larval morphology. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 102: 797–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michat, M.C., Alarie, Y., Torres, P.L.M., Megna, Y.S. 2007. Larval morphology of the diving beetle Celina and the phylogeny of ancestral hydroporines (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae). Invertebrate Systematics, 21: 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michat, M.C.Archangelsky, M. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships of Leuronectes Sharp (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Agabinae) based on larval morphology and chaetotaxy. Insect Systematics & Evolution, 40: 207–226.Google Scholar
Michat, M.C., Archangelsky, M., Fernández, L.A. 2010. Larval description and chaetotaxic analysis of Gyrinus monrosi Mouchamps, 1957 (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau, 80: 1–14.Google Scholar
Michat, M.C., Archangelsky, M., Torres, P.L.M. 2005. Descriptions of the preimaginal stages of Lancetes marginatus (Steinheil) and L. biremis Ríha (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), and comparative notes with other Lancetes larvae. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 40: 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michat, M.C.Torres, P.L.M. 2005. Larval morphology of Macrovatellus haagi (Wehncke) and phylogeny of Hydroporinae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Insect Systematics & Evolution, 36: 199–217.Google Scholar
Michat, M.C.Torres, P.L.M. 2009. A preliminary study on the phylogenetic relationships of Copelatus Erichson (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Copelatinae) based on larval chaetotaxy and morphology. Hydrobiologia, 632: 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michat, M.C.Torres, P.L.M. 2011. Phylogenetic relationships of the tribe Vatellini based on larval morphology, with description of Derovatellus lentus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 104: 863–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K.B. 2001. On the phylogeny of the Dytiscidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) with emphasis on the morphology of the female reproductive system. Insect Systematics & Evolution, 32: 45–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 1988. A review of primary setae and pores on legs of larval Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 66: 2283–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 2001. World Catalogue of Insects, Vol. 3: Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark.Google Scholar
Ribera, I., Vogler, A.P., Balke, M. 2008. Phylogeny and diversification of diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Cladistics, 24: 563–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruhnau, S.Brancucci, M. 1984. Studies on the genus Lancetes. 2. Analysis of its phylogenetic position using preimaginal characters (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Entomologica Basiliensia, 9: 80–107.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Wilson, C.B. 1923. Water beetles in relation to pondfish culture, with life histories of those found in fishponds at Fairport, Iowa. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, 39: 232–345.Google Scholar