The Meloidae (Coleoptera) of Australasia: a generic review, descriptions of new taxa, and a challenge to the current definition of subfamilies posed by exceptional variation in male genitalia

Abstract

Abstract. The seven Australasian genera of blister beetles (Coleoptera : Meloidae : Nemognathinae) are reviewed. Included are a key to genera, generic synopses and descriptions of two new genera of Nemognathini, Australozonitis and Pulchrazonitis, as well as a new monotypic tribe Palaestrini, which features a bauplan of male genitalia unique not only to the subfamily Nemognathinae but to the entire family. The genus Palaestra is redefined to include several Australasian, Asian and African species previously assigned to Zonitis. Exceptional variation of male genitalia encountered in the Palaestrini challenges current subfamily definitions, which are partly based on male genitalic structure and correlated sexual behaviour. Generic synopses include synonyms, type species, number of species, geographic distribution, significant references on taxonomy, life history and morphology, and additional notes. Forty-six new combinations are proposed for species previously in Zonitis. Distribution and relationship of tribes within the Nemognathinae, as well as the biogeography of the Australasian Meloidae are outlined and discussed.

Longizonitis, a new nemognathine genus from the Himalayas (Coleoptera, Meloidae)

“…The tribe Nemognathini Laporte de Castelnau, 1840, with approximately 530 described species, belonging to 28 genera, is the second most speciose tribe of Meloidae Gyllenhal, 1810 behind the Mylabrini Rafinesque, 1815 has a cosmopolitan distribution (Pinto and Bologna 1999, Bologna and Pinto 2002, Bologna et al 2013). No comprehensive taxonomic revision or phylogenetic studies have been published on this tribe, but its monophyly was supported in recent papers (Bologna and Pinto 2001, Bologna et al 2008, Bologna et al 2013).…”

“…No comprehensive taxonomic revision or phylogenetic studies have been published on this tribe, but its monophyly was supported in recent papers (Bologna and Pinto 2001, Bologna et al 2008, Bologna et al 2013). The taxonomic validity of some genera was debated and possible new genera were highlighted by Bologna and Pinto (2002) and Bologna et al (2013).…”

“…No comprehensive taxonomic revision or phylogenetic studies have been published on this tribe, but its monophyly was supported in recent papers (Bologna and Pinto 2001, Bologna et al 2008, Bologna et al 2013). The taxonomic validity of some genera was debated and possible new genera were highlighted by Bologna and Pinto (2002) and Bologna et al (2013). In particular, the genus Zonitis Fabricius, 1775 seems to have been used as ‘dumping ground’ especially for Afrotropical, Oriental and Neotropical species (Bologna and Pinto 2002, Bologna et al 2013, Bologna unpublished).…”

“…The taxonomic validity of some genera was debated and possible new genera were highlighted by Bologna and Pinto (2002) and Bologna et al (2013). In particular, the genus Zonitis Fabricius, 1775 seems to have been used as ‘dumping ground’ especially for Afrotropical, Oriental and Neotropical species (Bologna and Pinto 2002, Bologna et al 2013, Bologna unpublished). Species of this genus have been reviewed for the Nearctic (Enns 1956) and partially for the western Palaearctic (Escherich 1897) regions, while most of the Afrotropical species referred to this genus by Kaszab (1954) actually belong to other genera such as Palaestra Laporte de Castelnau, 1840, Zoltanzonitis Bologna & Pinto (in press), Zonitodema Péringuey, 1909 and Zonitoschema Péringuey, 1909 (Bologna unpublished).…”

“…Species of this genus have been reviewed for the Nearctic (Enns 1956) and partially for the western Palaearctic (Escherich 1897) regions, while most of the Afrotropical species referred to this genus by Kaszab (1954) actually belong to other genera such as Palaestra Laporte de Castelnau, 1840, Zoltanzonitis Bologna & Pinto (in press), Zonitodema Péringuey, 1909 and Zonitoschema Péringuey, 1909 (Bologna unpublished). The Australasian species belong to several genera (see Bologna et al 2013). …”