External egg structure of the Pentatomidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) and the search for characters with phylogenetic importance

Abstract

The chorionic structure of sixteen pentatomid species is described. Morphological patterns in different taxonomic levels are discussed. In addition, egg characters useful in cladistic analyses are listed, and some of those characters are tested for congruence with two cladistic analyses previously conducted within Pentatomidae. Descriptive studies were conducted with Banasa induta, Capivaccius bufo, Catulona pensa, Chinavia armigera, Chinavia aseada, Chinavia brasicola, Chinavia runaspis, Dichelops furcatus, Euschistus heros, Euschistus riograndensis, Euschistus paranticus, Mormidea cornicollis, Podisus distinctus, Podisus nigrispinus, Serdia apicicornis, and Thoreyella maracaja. The eggs were examined and photographed under light and scanning electron microscopy. Based on literature data, a list of 40 egg characters with potential phylogenetic importance has been compiled. Some of these characters were included in the cladistic analyses of the genus Nezara (six characters) and of the Chinavia obstinata group (five characters). Both analyses were performed in TNT with equal weighting of characters. The eggs of most of the Neotropical species studied were barrel-shaped, chorion translucent and spinose, with aero-micropylar processes that were short and clubbed. The patterns of egg morphology could be identified in Carpocorini, Procleticini, and in the genera Banasa, Chinavia, Euschistus, Mormidea, and Podisus. In the cladistic analyses, the inclusion of egg characters did not affect the topology of the trees shown in the original papers. For the analyses, the egg characters were somewhat informative. At present, a total of 286 Pentatomidae species have their egg stage described.

Comparative Morphology of Eggs of the Predators Brontocoris tabidus and Supputius cincticeps (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)

“…These morphometric data are higher than for other Pentato midae predators and can be used to distinguish these two species. The eggs of the predators P. distinctus show a height of 1.09 ± 0.03 mm and a diameter of 0.90 ± 0.04 mm (Sa et al 2013) and height of 1.02 ± 0.04 mm and a diameter of 1.0 ± 0.02 mm (Matesco et al 2014), whereas the eggs of P. serieventris show a height of 1.10 ± 0.006 mm and a diameter of 0.86 ± 0.004 mm (Coppel and Jones 1962). P. placidus has eggs with height of 1.04 mm and a diameter of 0.86 mm (Oetting and Yonke 1971) and P. modestus (Tostowaryk 1971).…”

“…P. placidus has eggs with height of 1.04 mm and a diameter of 0.86 mm (Oetting and Yonke 1971) and P. modestus (Tostowaryk 1971). P. maculiventris eggs show a height of 1.00 ± 0.005 mm and a diam eter of 0.88 ± 0.007 mm (Lambdin andLu 1984, Bundy andM cPherson 2000), and Podisus nigrispinus (Dallas) a height of 1.2 ± 0.06 and a diam eter of 1.0 ± 0.04 (Matesco et al 2014).…”

“…In the Pentatomomorpha, patterns of egg morphology have been identified at different levels (Southwood 1956;Javahery 1994;Matesco et al 2009Matesco et al , 2012Matesco et al , 2014). The egg morphology shows variation with the species and has been in cluded in the Pentatomidae taxonomy (Esselbaugh 1946;Javahery 1994;Wolf et al 2003;Candan et al 2005a,b;Candan and Suludere 2006;Matesco et al 2009;Lundgren 2011).…”

“…Eggs of the Pentatomidae can be easily recognized and bear important characters for the identification of species and genera, such as the color, shape, and size of the egg; the chorion sculpture; and the number, shape, and size of the aero-micropylar processes (Es-selbaugh 1946, Javahery 1994, Bundy and McPherson 2000, Candan et al 2001, Matesco et al 2014.…”

“…Studies on the Pentatomidae eggs and nymphs (Es selbaugh 1946, Southwood 1956, Javahery 1994, Bundy and McPherson 2000, Candan and Suludere 2006 include the Brazilian phytophagous (Matesco et al 2006(Matesco et al ,2009(Matesco et al ,2014 and predator species (Sa et al 2013). With the known morphology of the Asopinae eggs, the species can be identified at very early developmental stages (Javahery 1994, Matesco et al 2006, Lundgren 2011, Sa et al 2013).…”