The limits of Quediini at last (Staphylinidae: Staphylininae): a rove beetle mega‐radiation resolved by comprehensive sampling and anchored phylogenomics

Abstract

Rove beetles of the tribe Quediini are abundant predators in humid microhabitats of forested, open, synanthropic or subterranean ecosystems, with just over 800 species distributed across the temperate and subtropical regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Previous molecular phylogenies included only a limited representation of this diversity but have already indicated that Quedius, containing the majority of Quediini species, is polyphyletic. Six genera, historically associated with Quediini but now Staphylininae incertae sedis, are known only from few pinned specimens and have never been sequenced. Recent synergy between target enrichment phylogenomics, low‐input sequencing of dry, pinned insect specimens and advances in alpha taxonomic knowledge have made comprehensive sampling of Quediini tractable. Here we developed a novel probe set specialized for anchored hybrid enrichment of 1229 single‐copy orthologous loci in Staphylinidae. In one of the largest target enrichment phylogenies of insects to‐date, we sequenced 201 ingroup taxa to clearly delimit monophyletic Quediini within Staphylininae and resolve relationships within this tribe, with 46% of sampled taxa derived from pinned specimens (0–45 years old). Maximum likelihood and coalescent phylogenetic analyses produced well‐resolved, congruent topologies that will serve as a framework for further exploration of this radiation and its necessary generic revision. The inclusion of nearly all remaining Staphylininae incertae sedis genera, all known only from pinned specimens, resulted in the creation of Quelaestrygonini Brunke, trib. n. and revised concepts for Cyrtoquediini and Indoquediini. Quediini was resolved as monophyletic with the transfer of Q. elevatus and Q. nigropolitus to other tribes but Quedius and its subgenera Microsaurus, Distichalius and Raphirus were shown to be para‐ or polyphyletic. Based on the results of our analyses, Velleiopsis Fairmaire, 1882 syn. n. and Megaquedius Casey, 1915 syn. n. are synonymized with Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 resulting in: Q. (Microsaurus) marginiventris (Fairmaire) comb. n., Q. (M.) varendorffi (Reitter) comb.n. Several species of Quedius were transferred from Microsaurus to Distichalius (Q. aethiops Smetana, Q. biann Smetana, Q. cingulatus Smetana and Q. taruni Smetana), Distichalius to Raphirus (Q. fagelianus Scheerpeltz) and Microsaurus to Raphirus (Q. mixtus Eppelsheim and Q. persicus Korge).

Anchored Phylogenomics, Evolution and Systematics of Elateridae: Are All Bioluminescent Elateroidea Derived Click Beetles?

“…Our novel, elateroid-focused AHE probe set successfully enriched as many as 1114 loci per specimen and recovered many well-supported Elateroidea clades. Gene recovery was successful from both ethanol preserved and dried specimens, as reported by Brunke et al [ 55 ] and Shin et al [ 24 ]. Between the two dried specimens, the lycid specimen had a lower number of genes recovered despite more recent collection into 95% ethanol, so that genes recovered reflect perhaps the relative affinity of the probes to the target taxon more than the preservation method of the specimens.…”

Figure 2 from: Chatzimanolis S (2021) Out of Xanthopygus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): escape from polyphyly. ZooKeys 1071: 83-107. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1071.75947

“…For example, several of the species of Xanthopygus sensu novo are only known from the type and/or few additional specimens. While modern techniques have enabled the use of museum specimens in molecular analyses of Staphylininae (e.g., Brunke et al 2021), using type materials for DNA analyses is still a sensitive subject with museum curators. Also, such techniques are expensive and thus may not be feasible for smaller standalone projects like this paper.…”

Out of Xanthopygus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): escape from polyphyly

“…For example, several of the species of Xanthopygus sensu novo are only known from the type and/or few additional specimens. While modern techniques have enabled the use of museum specimens in molecular analyses of Staphylininae (e.g., Brunke et al 2021 ), using type materials for DNA analyses is still a sensitive subject with museum curators. Also, such techniques are expensive and thus may not be feasible for smaller standalone projects like this paper.…”