Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T00:33:19.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE NEW WORLD GENUS STENOMORPHUS DEJEAN (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE: HARPALINI): CLASSIFICATION, ALLOMETRY, AND EVOLUTIONARY CONSIDERATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

George E. Ball ,
Danny Shpeley  and
Douglas C. Currie
George E. Ball
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
Danny Shpeley
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
Douglas C. Currie
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analysis of structural features of adults (legs, proportions of prothorax, male genitalia, and ovipositor) establishes the hypothesis that Anisocnemus Chaudoir, Trichopselaphus Chaudoir, and Stenomorphus Dejean comprise a monophyletic assemblage, named the Stenomorphus genus-group, with Anisocnemus the adelphotaxon of Trichopselaphus + Stenomorphus. Analysis of form of median lobe, armature of the internal sac, allometric trends in proportions of the prothorax and hind tibia, and chorological considerations, provide the basis for recognition of six species of Stenomorphus and postulation of their phylogenetic relationships, as follows: S. convexior Notman {[S. penicillatus Darlington + S. sinaloae Darlington] + [S. cubanus Darlington + (S. angustatus Dejean + S. californicus Ménétries)]}. Three monophyletic species-groups are recognized: S. convexior, including S. convexior; S. sinaloae, including S. penicillatus and S. sinaloae; and S. angustatus, including S. cubanus, S. angustatus, and S. californicus. The names Stenomorphus dentifemoratus Chaudoir, 1844 and Stenomorphus alius Darlington, 1936 are synonymized, and S. dentifemoratus Darlington, 1936 (not Chaudoir) is renamed S. darlingtoni. Morphometric and chorological features provide evidence for subspecific recognition, each taxon representing a new combination: for S. angustatus, S. a. angustatus, S. a. braziliensis Darlington, and S. a. dentifemoratus Chaudoir; for S. californicus, S. c. californicus, S. c. rufipes LeConte, S. c. manni Darlington, and S. c. darlingtoni Ball and Shpeley. Evolutionary trends postulated include development of allometry with respect to form of the prothorax and hind tibiae, correlated with sexual dimorphism. Driving forces are postulated to be associated with sexual selection and burrowing. The geographical history of Stenomorphus is reconstructed as follows, using the reconstructed phylogeny and chorological affinities interpreted against a background of geological and climatic events in Middle America, during the Late Cretaceous, and Tertiary and Quaternary Epochs: isolation in Middle America from its South American adelphotaxon of the ancestral stock of Stenomorphus; specialization for life in drier tropical forests and savannas; isolation and differentiation of taxa in response to cyclical climatic changes and mountain building; and over-water dispersal to, and isolation and differentiation in, the Greater Antilles. A key, figures of diagnostic features, descriptions of structural features and of geographical ranges (supplemented with maps) provide means of recognition of taxa.

Résumé

L’analyse des caractéristiques structurales adultes (pattes, proportions du prothorax, pièces génitales mâles et oviscapte) a permis d’établir l’hypothèse qu’Anisocnemus Chaudoir, Trichopselaphus Chaudoir et Stenomorphus Dejean constituent un assemblage monophylétique, appelé ici groupe générique Stenomorphus, dans lequel Anisocnemus est l’adelphotaxon de Trichopselaphus + Stenomorphus. L’analyse de la forme du lobe médian et de l’armature de la poche interne, les tendances allométriques des proportions du prothorax et des tibias postérieurs de même que des considérations chorologiques établissent la diagnose de six espèces de Stenomorphus et permettent de poser des hypothèses quant à leurs relations phylogénétiques : S. convexior Notman{[S. penicillatus Darlington + S. sinaloae Darlington] + [S. cubanus Darlington + (S. angustatus Dejean + S. californicus Ménétries)]}. Trois groupes d’espèces monophylétiques sont reconnus : S. convexior, qui comprend S. Convexior; S. sinaloae, qui comprend S. penicillatus et S. sinaloae; et S. angustatus, qui comprend S. cubanus, S. angustatus et S. californicus. Les caractéristiques morphométriques et chorologiques mettent en lumière l’existence de sous-espèces et chacun des taxons suivants représente une nouvelle combinaison : chez l’espèce S. angustatus, S. a. angustatus, S. a. braziliensis Darlington et S. a. dentifemoratus Chaudoir; chez l’espèce S. californicus, S. c. californicus, S. c. rufipes LeConte, S. c. manni Darlington et S. c. darlingtoni Bail et Shpeley. Les tendances évolutives qui ressortent de l’analyse semblent avoir affecté surtout l’allométrie de la forme du prothorax et des tibias postérieurs de même que le dimorphisme sexuel; les forces motrices sous-jacentes à ces tendances semblent avoir été associées à la sélection sexuelle et aux moeurs fouisseuses. L’histoire géographique de Stenomorphus a été reconstituée comme suit après examen de la phylogénie proposée et des affinités chorologiques interprétées à la lumière des événements géologiques et climatiques qui ont eu lieu en Amérique moyenne au cours de la fin du Crétacé, du Tertiaire et du Quaternaire : isolement en Amérique moyenne de la souche ancestrale de Stenomorphus et séparation de son adelphotaxon sud-américain; spécialisation vers un mode de vie en forêts tropicales plus sèches et en savanes; isolement et différenciation des taxons en réaction à des changements climatiques cycliques et à l’apparition des montagnes; dispersion au-dessus de la mer vers les Grandes Antilles, puis isolement et différenciation. Une clé illustrée des caractéristiques diagnostiques de même que des descriptions des caractéristiques structurales et des répartitions géographiques (accompagnées de cartes) faciliteront l’identification des taxons.

[Traduit par la rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 123 , Issue 5 , October 1991 , pp. 933 - 988
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1991

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

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
Ax, P. 1987. The Phylogenetic System: The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of their Phylogenesis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New York, Brisbane, etc. xiii + 340 pp.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E. 1960. Carabidae, Fascicle 4. pp. 55–210 in Arnett, R.H. Jr, (Ed.), Beetles of the United States (a manual for identification). The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC. xi + 1112 pp.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E. 1966. A Revision of the North American Species of the Subgenus Cryobius Chaudoir (Pterostichus, Carabidae, Coleoptera). Opuscula Entomologica, Supplementum 28. Lund, Sweden. 166 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: 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: 447–489.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E. 1987. The Neotropical genus Trichopselaphus Chaudior (sic) (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini): New species and a review of taxonomic and evolutionary aspects. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 112: 249–287.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Anderson, J.N.. 1962. The taxonomy and speciation of Pseudophonus (a subgenus of Harpalus: Harpalini: Carabidae, known to occur in North America). Studies on speciation No. 1. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC. xii + 94 pp.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Erwin, T.L.. 1969. A taxonomic synopsis of the Tribe Loricerini (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Can. J. Zool. 47: 877–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Maddison, D.R.. 1987. Classification and evolutionary aspects of the New World genus Amblygnathus Dejean, with description of Platymetopsis, new genus, and notes about selected species of Seleno-phorus Dejean (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 113: 189–307.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and McCleve, S.. 1990. The Middle American genera of the tribe Ozaenini with notes about the species in southwestern United States and selected species in México. Quaest. Ent. 26: 30–116.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Negre, J.. 1972. The taxonomy of the Nearctic species of Calathus Bonelli (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Agonini). Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 98: 412–533.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Nimmo, A.P.. 1983. Synopsis of subgenus Progaleritina Jeannel, including reconstructed phylogeny and geographical history (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Galerita Fabricius). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 109: 295–356.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Roughley, R.E.. 1982. The Hypherpes-like taxa of southern Mexico: Classification and evolutionary considerations (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Pterostichus). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 108: 315–399.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Shpeley, D.. 1983. The species of eucheiloid Pericalina: Classification and evolutionary considerations (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Lebiini). Can. Ent. 115: 743–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, G.E., and Shpeley, D.. 1986. Reconstructed phylogeny… and geographical history. pp. 313–340 in Shpeley, D., Genera of the Subtribe Metallicina and Classification, Reconstructed Phylogeny and Geographical History of the species of Euproctinus Leng and Mutchler (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Lebiini). Quaest. Ent. 22: 261–349.Google Scholar
Bates, H.W. 1882. Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae. Vol. 1, part 1, pp. 40–152, plates iii–v in Goodman, F.D., and Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali-Americana. Coleoptera, 7 volumes in 17 parts. London.Google Scholar
Bils, W. 1976. Das Abdomenende weiblicher, terrestrich lebender Adephaga (Coleoptera) und seine Bedeutung für die Phylogenie. Zoomorphologie 84: 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. Natl. Mus. 185: 1–188.Google Scholar
Bradley, J.C. 1930. A manual of genera of beetles of America north of Mexico. Daw, Illston and Company, Ithaca, NY. vii + 360 pp.Google Scholar
Casey, T.L. 1914. A revision of the Nearctic Harpalinae. pp. 45–305 in Casey, T.L., Memoirs on the Coleoptera, Volume V. New Era Publishing Company, Lancaster, PA. 355 pp.Google Scholar
Casey, T.L. 1924. Additions to the known Coleoptera of North America. In Casey, T.L., Memoirs on the Coleoptera, Volume XI. Lancaster Press, Inc., Lancaster, PA. 347 pp.Google Scholar
Castelnau, M. le Comte de [de Laporte, F. L.]. 1840. Insectes. pp. 1–324 in Castelnau, and Brullé, A., Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Articulés… Tome II. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes Coléoptères. Tome premier. Paris, Duménil, M., Editeur, Rue des Beaux Arts, 10. cxxv + 324 pp., and 19 plates.Google Scholar
Chaudoir, M. de. 1844. Trois mémoires sur la famille des carabiques. Bull. Soc. Imperiale Naturalistes Moscou 17: 415–479.Google Scholar
Chenu, J.C. 1850–1851. Encyclopédie d'histoire naturelle ou traité complet de cette science d'après les travaux des naturalistes les plus éminents de tous les pays et de tous les époques. Coléoptères Cicindelites, Carabiques, etc. Paris. 1: 1–312 + (3), 12 + 28 plates.Google Scholar
Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1848. Stenomorphus. p. 12, in d'Orbigny, A., Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle, Vol 2. Paris. 796 pp.Google Scholar
Cock, A.G. 1966. Genetical aspects of metrical growth and form in animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 41: 131–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crowson, R.A. 1981. The Biology of the Coleoptera. Academic Press, London, New York, Sydney, San Francisco. xii + 802 pp.Google Scholar
Csiki, E. 1932. Carabidae: Harpalinae VI. Pars 121, pp. 1023–1278 (vol. III) in Junk, W., and Schenkling, S., Coleopterorum Catalogus. Berlin and s'Gravenhage. 170 parts, 30 volumes.Google Scholar
Darlington, P.J. Jr, 1934. New West Indian Carabidae, with a list of the Cuban species. Psyche 41: 66–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, P.J. Jr, 1936. The species of Stenomorphus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) with data on heterogony in S. californicus (Mén.). Pan-Pacif. Ent. 12: 33–44.Google Scholar
Darlington, P.J. Jr, 1937. West Indian Carabidae III: New species and records from Cuba, with a brief discussion of the mountain fauna. Memorias de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural “Felipe Poey” 11: 115–136.Google Scholar
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1828. Spécies Général des Coléoptères de la Collection de M. le Comte Dejean. Volume III. Méquignon-Marvis. 556 pp.Google Scholar
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1831. Ibid., Vol. V. Ibid. viii + 883 pp.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.G. 1979. The function of horns in Podischnus agenor (Dynastinae) and other beetles. pp. 231–258 in Blum, M.S., and Blum, N.A. (Eds.), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London. xi + 463 pp.Google Scholar
Erwin, T.L. 1970. A reclassification of bombardier beetles and a taxonomic revision of the North and Middle American species. Quaest. Ent. 6: 1–215.Google Scholar
Erwin, T.L. 1973. Studies of the subtribe Tachyina (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Bembidiini). Part I: A revision of the Neotropical genus Xystosomus Schaum. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 140. Washington, DC. 39 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. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 162. Washington, DC. iv + 96 pp.Google Scholar
Erwin, T.L. 1975. Studies of the subtribe Tachyina (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Bembidiini), Part III: Systematics, phylogeny and zoogeography of the genus Tachyta Kirby. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 208. Washington, DC. iii + 68 pp.Google Scholar
Erwin, T.L., and Pogue, M.G.. 1988. Agra, arboreal beetles of Neotropical forests: Biogeography and the forest refugium hypothesis (Carabidae). In Heyer, W.R., and Vanzolini, P.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of a Workshop on Neotropical Distribution Patterns. Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Erwin, T.L., and Sims, L.L.. 1984. Carabid beetles of the West Indies (Insects [sic]: Coleoptera): A synopsis of the genera and checklist of tribes of Caraboidea, and of the West Indian species. Quaest. Ent. 20: 350–446.Google Scholar
Erwin, T.L., Whitehead, D.R., and Ball, G.E.. 1977. Family 4. Carabidae. The ground beetles. pp. 4.1–4.68in Blackwelder, R.E., and Arnett, R.H. Jr, (Eds.), Checklist of the Beetles of Canada, United States, Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. World Digest Publications, Oxycopis Pond, Wallace Road, Kinderhook, NY 12106.Google Scholar
Farris, J.S. 1989. Hennig86: A PC-DOS program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 5: 163.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41: 587–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, G.H. 1881. On the genera of Carabidae with special reference to the fauna of boreal America. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 9: 91–196, plates 1–10.Google Scholar
Johnson, L.K. 1982. Sexual selection in a brentid weevil. Evolution 36: 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlmann, B., and Halffter, G.. 1990. Reconstruction of a specific example of insect invasion waves: The cladistic analysis of Canthon (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) and related genera in North America. Quaest. Ent. 26: 1–28.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. Cicindeletes-Palpicornes. Libraire encyclopedique de Roret, Paris. x + 486 pp.Google Scholar
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations Générales sur l'Ordre Naturel des Animaux Composant les Classes des Crustaces, des Arachnides, et des Insectes; avec un Tableau Methodique de leurs Genres Disposes en Familles. F. Schoell, Paris. 444 pp.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1853. Notes on the classification of the Carabidae of the United States. Trans. Am. philos. Soc. (2) 10: 363–403.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1858. Description of new species of Coleoptera, chiefly collected by the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission, under Major W.H. Emory, U.S.A. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1858(10): 59–89.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1860. Report upon insects collected on the Survey. In Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad Route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 9 (1): 1–72. Washington.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1861. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Part 1. Prepared for the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Misc. Publ. 3(136): 1–286.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L., and Horn, G.H.. 1883. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Prepared for the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 26(4) (No. 507): xxxvii + 567 pp.Google Scholar
Leng, C.W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, North of Mexico, Mt. Vernon, NY. x + 470 pp.Google Scholar
Liebherr, J.K. 1986. Cladistic analysis of North American Platynini and revision of the Agonum extensicolle group (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 106: X + 198 pp.Google Scholar
Mannerheim, C.G. 1845. Observations critiques sur quelques espèces des carabiques de Californie. Bull. Acad. Impériale Science St. Pétersbourg, Classe Physico-Mathematique, 4: 105–108.Google Scholar
Ménétries, E. 1843. Sur en envoi d'insectes de la cote N. O. d'Amerique. Ibid. 2: 49–64.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.R. 1973. The anisodactylines (Insecta: Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini): Classification, evolution and zoogeography. Quaest. Ent. 9: 266–480.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.R. 1976. Synopsis of the supra-specific taxa of the Tribe Harpalini (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaest. Ent. 12: 3–87.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.R. 1985 a. Classification and names of the Selenophori group (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini), and of nine genera and subgenera placed in incertae sedis within Harpalina. Milwaukee Public Museum Contrib. Biol. Geol. 64. 92 pp.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.R. 1985 b. Reconstructed phylogeny and zoogeography of the genera and subgenera of the Selenophori group (Insecta: Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini: Harpalina). Milwaukee Public Museum Contrib. Biol. Geol. 65. 33 pp.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.R. 1988. Biogeography of North American and Mexican insects, and a critique of vicariance biogeography. Syst. Zool. 37: 366–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Notman, H. 1922. New species of Carabidae, Staphylinidae, and Elateridae. Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 17: 99–108.Google Scholar
Otte, D., and Stayman, K.. 1979. Beetle horns: Some terms in functional morphology. pp. 259–292 in Blum, M.S., and Blum, N.A. (Eds.), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London. xi + 463 pp.Google Scholar
Reichardt, H. 1977. A synopsis of the genera of Neotropical Carabidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Quaest. Ent. 13: 347–485.Google Scholar
Rosen, D.E. 1978. Vicariant patterns and historical explanation in biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27: 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, J.M. 1982. The enigma of the Central American herpetofauna: Dispersals or vicariance? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gardens 69: 464–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaum, H.R. 1860. Das System der Carabicinen. Berliner Ent. Zeitschr. 4: 161–179.Google Scholar
Shpeley, D., and Ball, G.E.. 1978. Anisocnemus, a Neotropical genus: Classification and geographical distribution (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini). Coleopt. Bull. 32: 77–92.Google Scholar
Swofford, D.L. 1989. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony Version 3.0 Users Manual (Draft 4/16/89). 41 pp.Google Scholar
Tschitscherine, T.S. 1900. Memoire sur la Tribu des Harpalini. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae 34: 335–370.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, E.C. 1943. New species and subspecies of North American Carabidae. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 19: 17–30.Google Scholar
Van Emden, F.I. 1953. The Harpalini genus Anisotarsus Dejean (Col. Carab.). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 6: 512–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watrous, L.E., and Wheeler, Q.D.. 1981. The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 30: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, A.G. Jr, and Valley, K.. 1977. Entomological activities and publications of A.B. Champlain and H.B. Kirk. Melsheimer ent. Ser. 22: 12–16.Google Scholar
White, J.F., and Gould, S.J.. 1965. Interpretation of the coefficient in the allometric equation. Am. Nat. 99: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R.E. 1983. A Field Guide to the Beetles of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. xii + 368 pp.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D.R. 1972. Classification, phylogeny, and zoogeography of Schizogenius Putzeys (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Scaritini). Quaest. Ent. 8: 131–348.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D.R., and Ball, G.E.. 1975. Classification of the Middle American genus Cyrtolaus Bates (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Pterostichini). Quaest. Ent. 11: 591–619.Google Scholar