Pimachrysa(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Nothochrysinae): Larval Description and Support for Generic Relationships

Abstract

We describe the previously unknown larval characteristics of Pimachrysa (second and third instars), and we provide new comparative data on the Nothochrysa californica Banks larvae that were described earlier. The Pimachrysa larvae (identified as Pimachrysa fusca Adams) express the numerous features that characterize the chrysopid subfamily Nothochrysinae. They resemble Hypochrysa larvae in many respects, but several differences support retaining the two genera as separate. It now appears that the reputedly more archaic, small bodied, nothochrysine genera (e.g., Dictyochrysa, Hypochrysa, and Pimachrysa) have naked larvae that differ distinctly from the larvae of Nothochrysa species, all of which are debris-carriers. In addition, the pattern of variability in Nothochrysa larval features supports the proposal that this genus has a closer relationship with the other chrysopid subfamilies than do the small-bodied nothochrysine genera. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that larval nakedness (as opposed to debris-carrying) was the ancestral life style for the extant chrysopid clade.

Evolution of green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): a molecular supermatrix approach

“…excluding Nothochrysa from either Nothochrysinae or from Nothochrysinae + Chrysopinae) have low support for monophyly. Although, in general, larval morphology supports the monophyly of Nothochrysinae (Tauber, ), recent studies (Duelli et al ., ; Tauber & Faulkner, ) have indicated that smaller‐bodied nothochrysines [i.e. Hypochrysa (including Kimochrysa ), Pimachrysa, and Dictyochrysa ] are more similar to each other than to Nothochrysa , which is the same pattern of relationships within Nothochrysinae supported by our results.…”

“…All species are apparently found only within closed forested habitats and no fossil representatives of this subfamily are known (Winterton & Brooks, ). Nothochrysinae is another small subfamily, with just over 20 extant species in nine genera of temperate occurrence (Adams, ; Adams & Penny, ; Duelli et al ., ; Tauber & Faulkner, ). Although represented by relatively few living species, there are numerous fossil representatives of the subfamily known from Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic deposits (Adams, ; Nel et al ., ; Archibald et al ., ); it remains to be determined, though, whether inclusion of these fossil species is justified cladistically as the fossils could represent a grade, with their inclusion based solely on plesiomorphies and thus possibly rendering Nothochrysinae paraphyletic.…”

A soil-carrying lacewing larva in Early Cretaceous Lebanese amber

“…Lateral tubercles are better developed than laterodorsal ones, and the latter tend to be better developed than the submedial tubercles, when present. With the exception of some naked forms (e.g., Brinckochrysa , Hypochrysa , Pimachrysa ) where tubercles are absent or vestigial 26 , 27 , extant chrysopid larvae show distinct pairs of setose tubercles on the dorsum of the three thoracic segments and of a variable number of abdominal segments. In any case, setose tubercles as dramatically elongate (=tubular) as in the Cretaceous chrysopoids are absent from modern chrysopid larvae, as their degree of development only ranges from weakly-developed (“small”), to hemispherical, papilliform, spherical, cylindrical, and digitiform.…”

Low-Coverage Whole Genomes Reveal the Higher Phylogeny of Green Lacewings

“…They are divided into four tribes: Belonopterygini, Leucochrysini, Ankylopterygini and Chrysopini, of which Chrysopini are the most species-rich, followed by Belonpterygini (15 genera), Leucochrysini (7 genera), and Ankylopterygini (6 genera) [ 14 , 15 ]. Nothochrysinae contain nine extant genera with some plesiomorphic characteristics, such as the presence of a forewing jugal lobe [ 3 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Although there are few living species in this subfamily, their fossil records from Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic periods are abundant compared to other subfamilies [ 16 , 20 , 21 ].…”