Phylogeny of the Saprininae reveals interesting ecological shifts in the history of the subfamily (Coleoptera: Histeridae)

Abstract

A morphological data set for the histerid beetle subfamily Saprininae comprising 95 adult morphological characters scored (multistate coding) from 72 terminal taxa and four outgroups was developed in order to analyse and determine the relationships amongst the genera and subgenera of the Saprininae subfamily. Cladograms were rooted with exemplars of Dendrophilinae (genus Dendrophilus), Bacaniini (genus Bacanius), Abraeinae (genus Chaetabraeus), and Anapleini (genus Anapleus). Parsimony-based phylogenetic analyses were performed based on the type species of each genus and subgenus of the Saprininae occurring around the world, with the exception of three taxa: Paramyrmetes foveipennis (type species of the genus Paramyrmetes), Satrapister nitens (type species of the genus Satrapister) and Xerosaprinus (Auchmosaprinus) laciniatus (type species of the subgenus Auchmosaprinus) that were not available. In addition, in order to test the monophyly of several questionable genera, multiple exemplars were added in a few cases. The analysis also included an exemplar of an apparently undescribed genus. The results of the analysis confirm the monophyly of the subfamily supported by two unique synapomorphies: (1) presence of sensory structures of the antenna; and (2) presence of the antennal cavity, as well as several other weaker synapomorphies. However, the phylogeny inferred here shows mostly low support for the deeper branches and consequently no major changes in the Saprininae classification are proposed. The presented cladogram is discussed together with its implications for the evolution of the subfamily. The most informative characters and their respective states are outlined. Multiple shifts in lifestyles have evolved during the evolutionary history of the group. Taxa found near the root of the cladogram are mostly nidicolous or myrmecophilous, and inquiliny is presumed to be the plesiomorphic lifestyle of the subfamily. The nidicolous lifestyle has undergone several transformations to other lifestyles and myrmecophily has evolved three times independently during the evolution of the subfamily. Termitoxeny has evolved two times independently in the group whereas ecological adaptation for life in caves has likewise evolved two times independently. The analyses yielded a large clade of predominantly psammophilous taxa; psammophily is thought to have evolved once and has been subsequently lost several times.

Satrapister nitens Bickhardt, 1912: redescription and tentative phylogenetic placement of a mysterious taxon (Coleoptera, Histeridae, Saprininae)

“…14A). The South American attaphilous genus Phoxonotus was recovered in my previous analysis (Lackner 2014d;see Fig. 14B of the present paper) as a member of a small monophyletic clade of mostly inquilinous, North American genera (with the exception of the Middle-Asian genus Turanostyphrus Tishechkin, 2005 whose type species is known only from a single specimen and whose mouthparts dissections were not possible to study and whose spiculum gastrale was not available for character coding).…”

“…Although the position of P. tuberculatus on the recent tree (Fig. 14A) is somewhat different from that of Lackner (2014d), it is newly recovered, together with Peruvian Satrapister nitens, Malagasy Malagasyprinus caeruleatus (Lewis, 1905) (unknown biology) as well as two Middle-Asian psammophilous taxa Axelinus ghilarovi Kryzhanovskij in Kryzhanovskij &Reichardt, 1976 andReichardtiolus duriculus (Reitter, 1904) in a grade basal to a large clade of mainly psammophilous taxa with largely unresolved inter-relationships. The support for the clade including P. tuberculatus of Lackner (2014d) is low and based only on several homoplastic characters.…”

“…The genus Satrapister was, due to its unavailability not included in my phylogeny of the subfamily, which was based on the morphological characters of the adults alone (Lackner 2014d). Using the analytical methods of my previous work (Lackner 2014d; see also above) I coded the characters of Satrapister as well as male genitalia of another South American genus Phoxonotus Marseul, 1862 that were not available previously and performed the heuristic search.…”

“…Using the analytical methods of my previous work (Lackner 2014d; see also above) I coded the characters of Satrapister as well as male genitalia of another South American genus Phoxonotus Marseul, 1862 that were not available previously and performed the heuristic search. The analysis yielded a tree topology, which is in deeper branches largely congruent with my previous results, with the exception of the newly included Satrapister, naturally (Fig.…”

“…Mazur in his catalogues (1984,1997,2011) placed Satrapister between the genera Myrmeosaprinus Mazur, 1975and Euspilotus Lewis, 1907(Mazur 1984; Saprinus and Euspilotus (1997: 232);andfinally, between Microsaprinus Kryzhanovskij, 1976 andEuspilotus (2011: 189). Satrapister, together with Auchmosaprinus Wenzel, 1962 andParamyrmetes Bruch, 1929 was one of the three Saprininae higher taxa that were not included in the phylogenetic treatment of the subfamily (Lackner 2014d) because of its unavailability. Recently I have had the opportunity to inspect Auchmosaprinus and Satrapister, so Paramyrmetes remains the last Saprininae genus or subgenus unknown to me.…”