ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

A large-scale phylogenetic study is presented for Cucujoidea (Coleoptera), a diverse superfamily of beetles that historically has been taxonomically difficult. This study is the most comprehensive analysis of cucujoid taxa to date, with DNA sequence data sampled from eight genes (four nuclear, four mitochondrial) for 384 coleopteran taxa, including exemplars of 35 (of 37) families and 289 genera of Cucujoidea. Maximum-likelihood analyses of these data present many significant relationships, some proposed previously and some novel. Tenebrionoidea and Lymexyloidea are recovered together and Cleroidea forms the sister group to this clade. Chrysomeloidea and Curculionoidea are recovered as sister taxa and this clade (Phytophaga) forms the sister group to the core Cucujoidea (Cucujoidea s.n.). The nitidulid series is recovered as the earliest-diverging core cucujoid lineage, although the earliest divergences among core Cucujoidea are only weakly supported. The cerylonid series (CS) is recovered as monophyletic and is supported as a major Cucujiform clade, sister group to the remaining superfamilies of Cucujiformia. Currently recognized taxa that were not recovered as monophyletic include Cucujoidea, Endomychidae, Cerylonidae and Bothrideridae. Biphyllidae and Byturidae were recovered in Cleroidea. The remaining Cucujoidea were recovered in two disparate major clades: one comprising the nitidulid series+erotylid series+Boganiidae and Hobartiidae+cucujid series, and the other comprising the cerylonid series. Propalticidae are recovered within Laemophloeidae. The cerylonid series includes two major clades, the bothriderid group and the coccinellid group. Akalyptoischiidae are recovered as a separate clade from Latridiidae. Eupsilobiinae are recovered as the sister taxon to Coccinellidae. In light of these findings, many formal changes to cucujiform beetle classification are proposed. Biphyllidae and Byturidae are transferred to Cleroidea. The cerylonid series is formally recognized as a new superfamily, Coccinelloidea stat.n. Current subfamilies elevated (or re-elevated) to family status include: Murmidiidae stat.n., Teredidae stat.n., Euxestidae stat.n., Anamorphidae stat.rev., Eupsilobiidae stat.n., and Mycetaeidae stat.n. The following taxa are redefined and characterized: Cleroidea s.n., Cucujoidea s.n., Cerylonidae s.n., Bothrideridae s.n., Endomychidae s.n. A new subfamily, Cyclotominae stat.n., is described. Stenotarsinae syn.n. is formally subsumed within a new concept of Endomychinae s.n.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Systematic Entomology (2015), 40, 745– 778 DOI: 10.1111/syen.12138
Phylogeny and classification of Cucujoidea and
the recognition of a new superfamily Coccinelloidea
(Coleoptera: Cucujiformia)
JAMES A. ROBERTSON
1,2,ADAM ´
SL I P I ´
NS K I3, MATTHEW
MOULTON
4, FLOYD W. SHOCKLEY
5, ADRIANO GIORGI
6,
NATHAN P. LORD
4, DUANE D. MCKENNA7, WIOLETTA
TOMASZEWSKA8, JUANITA FORRESTER
9, KELLY B. MILLER
10,
MICHAEL F. WHITING
4and JOSEPH V. MCHUGH
2
1Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A., 2Department of Entomology, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA, U.S.A., 3Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, 4Department of Biology and M. L. Bean
Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A., 5Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A., 6Faculdade de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Pará, Altamira,
Brasil, 7Department of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, U.S.A., 8Museum and Institute of Zoology,
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland, 9Chattahoochee Technical College, Canton, GA, U.S.A. and 10Department of
Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.
Abstract. A large-scale phylogenetic study is presented for Cucujoidea (Coleoptera),
a diverse superfamily of beetles that historically has been taxonomically difcult. This
study is the most comprehensive analysis of cucujoid taxa to date, with DNA sequence
data sampled from eight genes (four nuclear, four mitochondrial) for 384 coleopteran
taxa, including exemplars of 35 (of 37) families and 289 genera of Cucujoidea.
Maximum-likelihood analyses of these data present many signicant relationships,
some proposed previously and some novel. Tenebrionoidea and Lymexyloidea are
recovered together and Cleroidea forms the sister group to this clade. Chrysomeloidea
and Curculionoidea are recovered as sister taxa and this clade (Phytophaga) forms the
sister group to the core Cucujoidea (Cucujoidea s.n.). The nitidulid series is recovered
as the earliest-diverging core cucujoid lineage, although the earliest divergences among
core Cucujoidea are only weakly supported. The cerylonid series (CS) is recovered as
monophyletic and is supported as a major Cucujiform clade, sister group to the remain-
ing superfamilies of Cucujiformia. Currently recognized taxa that were not recovered
as monophyletic include Cucujoidea, Endomychidae, Cerylonidae and Bothrideridae.
Biphyllidae and Byturidae were recovered in Cleroidea. The remaining Cucujoidea were
recovered in two disparate major clades: one comprising the nitidulid series +erotylid
series +Boganiidae and Hobartiidae +cucujid series, and the other comprising the cery-
lonid series. Propalticidae are recovered within Laemophloeidae. The cerylonid series
includes two major clades, the bothriderid group and the coccinellid group. Akalyptois-
chiidae are recovered as a separate clade from Latridiidae. Eupsilobiinae are recovered
as the sister taxon to Coccinellidae. In light of these ndings, many formal changes
to cucujiform beetle classication are proposed. Biphyllidae and Byturidae are trans-
ferred to Cleroidea. The cerylonid series is formally recognized as a new superfamily,
Correspondence: James A. Robertson, Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, 410 Forbes Building, Tucson, AZ 85721-0036, U.S.A.
E-mail: erotylid@gmail.com
The authors declare no conict of interest.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society 745
746 J. A. Robertson et al.
Coccinelloidea stat.n. Current subfamilies elevated (or re-elevated) to family status
include: Murmidiidae stat.n., Teredidae stat.n., Euxestidae stat.n., Anamorphidae
stat.rev., Eupsilobiidae stat.n., and Mycetaeidae stat.n. The following taxa are
redened and characterized: Cleroidea s.n., Cucujoidea s.n., Cerylonidae s.n., Bothrid-
eridae s.n., Endomychidae s.n. A new subfamily, Cyclotominae stat.n., is described.
Stenotarsinae syn.n. is formally subsumed within a new concept of Endomychinae s.n.
Introduction
Cucujoidea
The beetle series Cucujiformia is a uniquely diverse lineage
of life on Earth, containing >173 000 species. The group
is currently divided into six superfamilies: Lymexyloidea
(ship-timber beetles; c. 50 species), Tenebrionoidea (darkling
beetles, blister beetles, tumbling ower beetles, etc.; >34 000
species), Cleroidea (checkered beetles, soft-winged ower
beetles, etc.; >10 200 species), Cucujoidea (at bark beetles,
pleasing fungus beetles, lady beetles, etc.; >19 000 species),
Chrysomeloidea (leaf beetles, longhorn beetles, etc.; >50 000
species) and Curculionoidea (weevils; >60 000 species) (Young,
2002; Hunt et al., 2007; Oberprieler et al., 2007; Gunter et al.,
2013, 2014). Of the six cucujiform superfamilies, Cucujoidea
is the most problematic with regard to classication and no
synapomorphies supporting its monophyly have been identied
(Leschen et al., 2005; Leschen & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2010). Cucujoidea
is a heterogeneous group of beetles which have a similar
appearance (e.g. small, drab colouration, clubbed antennae)
(Fig. 1) that could not be placed satisfactorily elsewhere. The
group was established for convenience and represents the
largest taxonomic dumping ground among the superfamilies of
Coleoptera. Cleroidea in particular shares many characters with
certain groups of Cucujoidea such that these two superfamilies
are difcult to separate (Crowson, 1955; Lawrence & Newton,
1982). As such, characterizing Cucujoidea is problematic. The
current classication recognizes 37 families of Cucujoidea
(Leschen et al., 2005; Leschen & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2010; Lord et al.,
2010; Cline et al., 2014). Cucujoids exhibit a broad range of
host utilization and typically have cryptic life histories in leaf
litter, dead wood or fungi (Fig. 2).
Cucujoidea is an extremely diverse and taxonomically difcult
superfamily. In Crowson’s (1955) classication of the families
of Coleoptera, he states ‘In the number of families included, the
Cucujoidea greatly exceed any other superfamily of Coleoptera,
and the diversity of structure and habit among them is corre-
spondingly great; the establishment of a rational order or natural
key to these families is a task beset with the most formidable dif-
culties’ (p. 87). The verity of Crowson’s assessment is reected
in the fact that more than half a century later, the current family
concepts and hypothesized relationships of higher cucujoid taxa
remain unstable.
In their review of the classication of Coleoptera, Lawrence &
Newton (1982) outlined three major advances in the taxonomy
and classication of Cucujoidea. The rst was the recognition
of several presumed ‘primitive’, primarily south temperate
groups such as Protocucujidae (Crowson, 1955), Boganiidae,
Hobartiidae, Phloeostichidae and Cavognathidae (Sen Gupta &
Crowson, 1966, 1969a; Crowson, 1973). Members of these fam-
ilies were either misplaced among existing taxa or previously
unknown. The second contribution was the transfer of several
taxa from Cryptophagidae to other families, primarily Languri-
idae (now Erotylidae) (Sen Gupta & Crowson, 1969b, 1971).
The third major advancement in cucujoid systematics was the
recognition of a group of beetles related to Cerylonidae, termed
the cerylonid group, or cerylonid series (CS) (Crowson, 1955).
More recently, Leschen et al. (2005) performed a formal
cladistic study of the ‘basal Cucujoidea,’ an informal group
comprising all non-CS cucujoid families. The objective of
their study was primarily to determine the relationships of
taxa allied to the family Phloeostichidae using adult and larval
morphology. Leschen et al. (2005) recognized ve new families
of Cucujoidea that were previously treated as subfamilies within
Phloeostichidae. Their study did not include any taxa belonging
to the CS.
Hunt et al. (2007) performed the rst large-scale molecular
study focused on reconstructing the higher-level relationships
within the entire order Coleoptera using 18S,16S and COI and
broad taxon sampling across all major beetle groups. The study
included 54 exemplars representing 24 families of Cucujoidea
in their 320 taxa dataset and their results recovered Cucujoidea
as grossly polyphyletic. Silvanidae and Phloeostichidae were
recovered sister to Curculionoidea; Byturidae and Biphyllidae
were placed within Cleroidea; the CS was recovered as the sister
group to Cleroidea; the family Sphindidae was supported as
the sister group to Tenebrionoidea (including Lymexyloidea);
the remaining cucujoid exemplars formed a large clade sister to
Chrysomeloidea.
Bocak et al. (2014) constructed and analysed a superma-
trix of all Coleoptera sequences available in GenBank com-
bined with a substantial number of sequences new to that study
for four markers: nuclear ribosomal 18S and 28S and mito-
chondrial rrnL and COI. Their supermatrix comprised over
8000 terminals (not all were different species). Cucujoidea
were recovered as polyphyletic with Byturidae +Biphyllidae
recovered sister to Cleroidea; Sphindidae +Cybocephalidae [=
Cybocephalinae (Nitidulidae) (Cline et al., 2014)] were sup-
ported as an isolated cucujiform lineage; most of the core cucu-
joids formed a clade sister to Phytophaga; Nitidulidae (most,
including Passandridae) +Kateretidae formed the sister group
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 747
Fig. 1. Habitus photographs of cucujoid (A –H), cleroid (I) and coccinelloid (J– L) taxa. Taxonomy follows proposed classication introduced in the
text. (A) Paracucujus rostratus (Boganiidae). (B) Megauchenia sp. (Nitidulidae). (C) Psammoecus sp. (Silvanidae). (D) Pharaxonotha sp. (Erotylidae).
(E) Ericmodes sylvaticus (Protocucujidae). (F) Cryptophagus sp. (Cryptophagidae). (G) Anthonaeus agavensis (Kateretidae). (H) Hobartius sp.
(Hobartiidae) (I) Diplocoelus sp. (Biphyllidae). (J) Teredolaemus sp. (Teredidae stat.n.). (K) Bystus sp. (Anamorphidae stat.n.). (L) Bicava sp.
(Latridiidae). Scale bars=1 mm. Photos by JAR.
to the weevils (Curculionoidea); and the CS were supported as
the sister group to the remaining cucujiform lineages.
Lawrence et al. (2011) conducted a monumental phylogenetic
study of Coleoptera based on 516 adult and larval morphological
characters, and 359 taxa representing 165 beetle families and
314 subfamilies. Their analysis recovered a grossly polyphyletic
Cucujoidea with taxa classied as Cucujoidea recovered in ve
different clades within Cucujiformia. Surprisingly, the CS was
also not recovered as monophyletic.
Cerylonid series
The cerylonid series is a cluster of presumably highly
derived families within Cucujoidea (Crowson, 1955) com-
prising Alexiidae, Bothrideridae, Cerylonidae, Coccinellidae,
Corylophidae, Discolomatidae, Endomychidae, Latridiidae and
most recently Akalyptoischiidae (Lord et al., 2010). Together,
the CS families comprise 32 subfamilies, 54 tribes (Bouchard
et al., 2011; Robertson et al., 2013), 660 genera and nearly
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
748 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 2. Photos of cucujoid taxa in their corresponding microhabitats. (A) Cucujus cinnaberinus (Cucujidae) (photograph by Siga, Wikimedia
Commons). (B) Stephostethus lardarius (Latridiidae) (photograph by Pavel Krásenský, used by permission). (C) Aethina tumida (Nitidulidae)
(photograph by Alex Wild, used by permission). (D) Philothermus sp. (Cerylonidae) (photograph by Alex Wild, used by permission). (E) Bothrideres
bipunctatus (Bothrideridae) (photograph by Walter Piegler, used by permission). (F) Cholovocera sp. (Endomychidae) (photograph by Luigi Lenzini,
used by permission).
10 000 species. It is one of the few hypothesized groupings
of Cucujoidea (Sen Gupta & Crowson, 1973; ´
Slipi´
nski, 1990;
´
Slipi´
nski & Pakaluk, 1991) that has been consistently shown to
form a clade (Hunt et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Bocak
et al., 2014).
Recently, several molecular phylogenetic studies covering
higher-level relationships of CS taxa have emerged: Hunt
et al. (2007), Robertson et al. (2008) and Bocak et al. (2014).
Hunt et al. (2007) included 21 CS exemplars in their sampling
of 320 beetle taxa and recovered the CS as monophyletic.
Whereas Hunt et al.’s (2007) study indicates that the CS fam-
ilies Endomychidae and Cerylonidae are not monophyletic,
most of the inter-familial and subfamilial clades of the series
were not resolved (see g. S2 therein). Noteworthy CS inter-
nal relationships that were recovered in their study include a
sister grouping of Corylophidae and the endomychid subfamily
Merophysiinae (as Holoparamecinae). Hunt et al. (2007) also
recovered a well-supported clade comprising Bothrideridae,
Cerylonidae and Discolomatidae (although Bothrideridae and
Cerylonidae were not recovered as monophyletic) that forms
the sister group to the remaining CS taxa.
The monophyly of the CS was also supported by Robertson
et al. (2008), the rst molecular phylogenetic analysis to focus
solely on CS relationships. Robertson et al. (2008) sampled two
nuclear genes, 18S and 28S for 61 CS taxa, representing seven
of the nine families and roughly half of the CS subfamilies.
This study also supported the monophyly of many CS families
and subfamilies, while revealing the paraphyletic nature of
some higher-level taxa, including Endomychidae, potentially
Latridiidae, and multiple subfamilies recognized at that time
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 749
(e.g. Corylophinae s.s., Chilocorinae, Scymninae). Nonetheless,
it should be noted that the analysis of Robertson et al. (2008)
lacked many key taxa, thus the monophyly and the internal
relationships of multiple CS taxa remain equivocal. Although
recovered as monophyletic, the tests of monophyly for the
families Cerylonidae, Bothrideridae and Corylophidae were
weak due to the small and unrepresentative taxon sampling
included for these taxa. Notable internal relationships recov-
ered by Robertson et al. (2008) include a sister grouping of
the endomychid subfamily Anamorphinae with Corylophidae,
and this clade forms a trichotomy with Coccinellidae and the
clade comprising the remaining Endomychidae. The results
of Robertson et al. (2008) also indicate a close afliation of
Bothrideridae, Cerylonidae and Discolomatidae.
Bocak et al. (2014) were the rst to sample all of the CS fami-
lies (with Akalyptoischion Andrews treated as Latridiidae). Key
results of Bocak et al. (2014) include several novel hypotheses
of relationships and monophyly for groups within the CS. For
example, Bocak et al. (2014) recovered all CS families as mono-
phyletic except for Bothrideridae, which were paraphyletic with
respect to Discolomatidae and Cerylonidae. Endomychidae
were supported as the sister group to Corylophidae, and
Alexiidae formed the sister group to Coccinellidae.
Taken together, the studies of Hunt et al. (2007), Robertson
et al. (2008) and Bocak et al. (2014) suggest a basal dichotomy
of two superfamilial CS clades: one clade comprising Both-
rideridae, Cerylonidae and Discolomatidae; a second clade
including Corylophidae, Coccinellidae Endomychidae and
usually Latridiidae. The analysis of Bocak et al. (2014) further
indicates that Alexiidae and Akalyptoischiidae are also included
in the second clade. Nonetheless, with roughly only half of the
CS subfamilies represented in the above molecular studies
(Hunt et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Bocak et al., 2014),
these hypotheses of CS phylogeny should be taken as prelimi-
nary. Indeed, the inclusion of all CS families, subfamilies, and
major or enigmatic tribes and genera is needed to clarify the his-
torically problematic relationships among this diverse lineage.
The morphological analysis of Lawrence et al. (2011) is
the only phylogenetic study to date to not recover a mono-
phyletic CS. Members of the CS family Bothrideridae were
recovered in two disparate regions of the topology: Xylar-
iophilus Pal and Lawrence (Xylariophilinae) and Teredolae-
mus Sharp (Teredinae) were placed among the main cluster of
non-CS cucujoids sister to Monotomidae; Bothrideres Dejean
(Bothriderinae) was recovered sister to Passandridae, form-
ing a clade that subtends Phytophaga. Hypodacnella ´
Slipi´
nski
(Cerylonidae) +Bystus Guérin-Méneville (Endomychidae) was
recovered as a sister grouping within a small, isolated cucujiform
clade including the cucujoid families Phalacridae, Cavognathi-
dae and Myraboliidae. The above placements of CS taxa are
unexpected, not consistent with traditional views and warrant
further investigation.
Here we present a large-scale molecular phylogeny of
Cucujoidea with an emphasis on the CS based on the most com-
prehensive dataset of Cucujoidea to date. We test the monophyly
of the superfamily Cucujoidea with respect to the remaining
cucujiform lineages. We also test the monophyly of the CS,
CS families, subfamilies and higher taxa. We investigate the
placement of the CS within Cucujoidea and attempt to clarify
family relationships within Cucujoidea. Using a denser taxo-
nomic sampling, we investigate the higher-level relationships
within the CS and each of the CS families. Finally, we use our
results to present a revised higher-level classication within
Cucujiformia.
Materials and methods
Taxon sampling
The terminal taxa used in this study are listed in Table S1. This
sampling includes 384 taxa representing all six superfamilies
of Cucujiformia, 35 of the 37 families of Cucujoidea (including
all nine CS families), 26 of the 32 CS subfamilies and nearly
300 genera. The two missing cucujoid families are Tasmos-
alpingidae (two species) and Lamingtoniidae (three species),
both of which are monotypic, rarely collected taxa restricted to
Tasmania and other select regions of Australia. Given the like-
lihood of Cucujoidea not being monophyletic (Leschen et al.,
2005; Hunt et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Lawrence et al.,
2011; Bocak et al., 2014), we attempted to include sufcient
representation of the remaining superfamilies of Cucujiformia
in order to provide a rigorous test of monophyly for this
superfamily. We sampled within Tenebrionoidea (15 exemplars
representing 12 families), Cleroidea (13 exemplars represent-
ing 6 families), Chrysomeloidea (8 exemplars representing
4 families), Curculionoidea (10 exemplars representing 7
families) and Lymexyloidea (1 exemplar). Seven beetle taxa out-
side Cucujiformia – representing Buprestoidea, Dascilloidea,
Derodontoidea, Elateroidea and two Caraboidea (Adephaga),
Calosoma Weber (Carabidae) and Macrogyrus Régimbart
(Gyrinidae) were included as distant outgroups. Our sampling
throughout the CS is particularly extensive, with 271 exemplars
including 27% of the known generic diversity (181 of 660 gen-
era represented). To the extent possible, sampling within each
CS family is commensurate with lineage and species diversity,
and is as follows. Akalyptoischiidae: three exemplars (mono-
generic, 100% generic representation); Alexiidae: two species
(monogeneric, 100% generic representation); Bothrideridae:
21 species, 12 of 38 genera included (32% generic represen-
tation); Cerylonidae: 28 species, 14 of 52 genera included
(27% generic representation); Coccinellidae: 87 species, 70
of 360 genera included (19% generic representation); Cory-
lophidae: 39 species, 16 of 27 genera included (59% generic
representation); Discolomatidae: seven exemplars, 4 of 16
genera included (25% generic representation); Endomychidae:
63 species, 41 of 135 genera included (30% generic represen-
tation); and Latridiidae: 23 species, 16 of 29 genera included
(55% generic representation). Five CS subfamilies are not
represented in the current analysis: Notiophyginae, Pondonati-
nae and Cephalophaninae (Discolomatidae), and Danascelinae
and Xenomycetinae (Endomychidae). Although these repre-
sent enigmatic taxa, particularly the endomychids, we were
unable to obtain molecular-grade specimens due to their rarity.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
750 J. A. Robertson et al.
Authorship and publication dates for most family group names
follow Bouchard et al. (2011) and Lawrence & Newton (1995).
Molecular sampling and techniques
Specimens used in this study were collected into 100% EtOH
and stored at 80C. Techniques and protocols associated with
specimen dissection and vouchering, follow that outlined in
Robertson et al. (2004, 2013). For each specimen the abdomen
was carefully disarticulated from the metathorax and the
remainder of the specimen (head and thorax intact) was used for
the clearing process during the genomic DNA extraction proce-
dure. Once cleared, the specimen was retained with the intact
abdomen in 100% EtOH. Genomic DNA was extracted using
the Qiagen DNeasy tissue kit (Valencia, CA). Voucher spec-
imens are deposited in: the University of Georgia Coleoptera
Tissue Collection (UGCA), Athens, GA, U.S.A. (most); the
Brigham Young University Insect Genomics Collection (BYU
IGC), Provo, UT, U.S.A.; the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History (SBMNH), Santa Barbara, CA, U.S.A. [CO477 Rev-
eliera californica Fall, CO488 Dienerella intermedia Belon,
CO902 Oxylaemus californicus Crotch, CO905 Deretaphrus
oregonensis Horn, CO931 Mychocerus discretus (Casey),
CO934 Aenigmaticum californicus Casey]; and the Australian
National Insect Collection (ANIC), CSIRO, Canberra, Australia
(ccoc_234 Boganium Sen Gupta and Crowson).
We sampled eight genes in this study: nuclear 18S
rRNA (18S), 28S rRNA (28S), histone subunit 3 (H3)and
carbamoyl-phosphate synthetase (CPS locus of CAD), and
mitochondrial 12S rRNA (12S), 16S rRNA (16S), cytochrome-c
oxidase subunit I (COI) and cytochrome-c oxidase subunit II
(COII). The nuclear gene Arginine kinase (ArgK)wasalso
initially sampled but was found to have paralogous copies
and was thus not included in the present analysis. Primers
and protocols for the amplication and sequencing of target
genes are outlined in Robertson et al. (2013). Product yield,
specicity, and potential contamination were monitored by
agarose gel electrophoresis. PCR products were puried using
MANU 96-well ltration plates, sequenced using BigDye
Terminator v3.1 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) on
an ABI 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster
City, CA). DNA fragments were sequenced in both directions
with sufcient overlap to ensure the accuracy of sequence
data. Assembly of sequence fragments and editing of contig
sequences was performed in Sequencher 4.2.2 (Gene Codes
Corp., Ann Arbor, MI). All resulting nucleotide and AA (pro-
tein encoding genes) sequences were BLASTed prior to use in
this study. Sequences generated in this study are deposited on
GenBank under the accession numbers KP828836-KP829929
and KR351312-KR351323. Gene coverage for the 384 terminal
taxa included herein is presented in Table S1 but summarized
as follows [gene: # of terminals for which gene is sampled]:
18S: 380; 28S: 380; H3: 247; CAD: 184; 12S: 338; 16S: 312;
COI: 356; COII: 313. In general, terminal taxa were included
in the analysis if three or more markers were available with
one of those being either 18S or 28S. The two exceptions to
this criterion are Periptyctus Blackburn (28S only) and Carin-
odulinka ´
Slipi´
nski & Tomaszewska (COI and COII only);
both represent important genera with phylogenetic placement
previously well established (´
Slipi´
nski et al., 2009; Seago et al.,
2011; Robertson et al., 2013).
Sequence alignment
The protein encoding genes H3 and COI were
length-invariant; thus alignment of these genes was trivial,
based on conservation of amino acid (AA) reading frame.
Both COII and CAD, however, contained a length-variable
region in the coding sequence. Using Mesquite 2.75 (Mad-
dison & Maddison, 2011), CAD and COII were translated
into AA sequence and aligned using MUSCLE (Edgar, 2004)
as implemented in Mesquite. The CAD and COII nucleotide
sequences were then aligned via Mesquite to match the
aligned AA sequences. Alignment of ribosomal genes was
achieved using the  6.5 webserver (Katoh & Toh, 2008)
(http://align.bmr.kyushu-u.ac.jp/mafft/online/server) using the
G-INS-i search strategy. Owing to their longer length, 18S and
28S were each spliced into three regions prior to alignment in
an effort to facilitate more efcient alignment, minimize com-
putational constraints and to accommodate gapped or otherwise
incomplete sequences. Resulting alignments were visually
inspected to check for ambiguously aligned regions and align-
ment artifacts. Four length-variable regions in 28S were found to
contain obvious alignment artifacts (most often caused by one to
several sequences containing a large expansion region) and were
each realigned using  as described above. In both the 18S
and 28S alignments multiple length-variable regions remained
ambiguously aligned and were removed from the alignment and
excluded from further analysis. In total, 308 and 1079 characters
were removed from the 18S and 28S alignments, respectively.
Phylogenetic inference
We used PartitionFinder 1.0.1 (Lanfear et al., 2012) to simul-
taneously select the best-t partitioning scheme and the corre-
sponding nucleotide substitution models for our data. The data
were initially partitioned with ribosomal markers partitioned
by gene- and protein-encoding genes partitioned by codon
position. The analysis was run using a greedy search scheme
(search =greedy), with all models considered (models =all)
using the Akaike information criteria (AIC). Alignments of the
individual markers were concatenated using Sequence Matrix
1.7.8 (Vaidya et al., 2011) and subsequent analyses were per-
formed using this combined dataset using maximum-likelihood
inference (ML). Heuristic ML searches were performed using
the program RAxML (Stamatakis et al., 2005) hosted on the
Cipres Science Gateway (Miller et al., 2010) (www.phylo.org/).
Initial RAxML analyses were executed for each gene to mon-
itor potential contamination and assess gene performance.
We performed RAxML rapid bootstrapping with a subse-
quent ML search (Stamatakis et al., 2006, 2008) executing 500
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 751
bootstrap inferences using a GTR model [as recommended
in Stamatakis et al. (2008; the RAxML 7.0.3 manual)]; we addi-
tionally implemented these analyses using a GTR +Γ+I model
(the best t model for the data). We performed the RAxML anal-
yses on the concatenated data both as unpartitioned (a single
subset and model) and as partitioned (using the data subsets and
models suggested by PartitionFinder). Four independent anal-
yses for each partition/model regime were performed on the
combined molecular dataset to ensure convergence.
Results
Sequence partitioning and models
PartitionFinder subdivided the data into four subsets as fol-
lows: (1) 18S and 28S combined; (2) 12S and 16S combined;
(3) CAD codon positions 1–3, H3 codon positions 1 3, COI
codon positions 1–2, COII codon positions 1 –2; (4) COI codon
position 3, COII codon position 3. Each of the four subsets of
data best tted the GTR +Γ+I model of evolution. Running
the analyses without the highly variable third codon position
of mitochondrial markers COI and COII (i.e. subset 4) resulted
in a very similar but overall better-supported topology (indicat-
ing that the third codon position of COI and COII was mostly
contributing noise), thus this subset was excluded from further
analysis. Concatenation of the three remaining subsets yielded a
matrix of 8260 nucleotides, 4714 of which were informative.
Phylogenetic results
The ML analyses implementing the varying model (GTR
vs GTR +Γ+I) and partitioning strategies (undivided vs.
divided into subsets/partitions) resulted in very similar topolo-
gies differing only in the resolution of a few clades (e.g.
Hobartiidae +Boganiidae relative to the Nitidulidae group
and/or the clade comprising Helotidae, Erotylidae and allies)
and placement of select taxa (e.g. Phloiophilidae placed sister
to Biphyllidae +Byturidae). The ML analyses using a par-
titioned dataset and GTR scheme produced a tree that
although very similar to the topologies resulting from the
remaining schemes, contained two aberrant placements of taxa:
the nitidulid series was recovered as the sister group of Phy-
tophaga, and Boganiidae and Hobartiidae were not recovered as
sister taxa.
In general, much of the tree is characterized by moderately
long terminal branches with relatively short internal branches
comprising the backbone of the tree. This general pattern is
consistent with other broad-scale, molecular phylogenetic stud-
ies of Coleoptera (McKenna & Farrell, 2009; McKenna, 2014;
McKenna et al., 2014). Not surprisingly, low branch support
often corresponds to several major divergences comprising short
branches along the backbone of the topology, whereas major
clades are in general strongly supported. When discussing sup-
port for clades of interest below, the relevant ML bootstrap value
is listed in parentheses.
Of the six superfamilies of Cucujiformia, only Curculionoidea
and Chrysomeloidea were recovered as monophyletic in the
present study. The monophyly of Lymexyloidea was not
tested in the present analysis because only one exemplar was
included. Tenebrionoidea were paraphyletic with respect to
Lymexyloidea; although the grouping of these two super-
families was well supported, the nesting of Lymexyloidea
within Tenebrionoidea was only weakly supported. Byturidae
and Biphyllidae were strongly supported as the sister group
of Cleroidea. The superfamily Cucujoidea was polyphyletic.
Chrysomeloidea and Curculionoidea were recovered as sister
taxa and this clade (Phytophaga) formed the sister group to
the non-CS cucujoids (core Cucujoidea). The nitidulid series
was recovered as the earliest-diverging core cucujoid lineage,
although the earliest divergences among core Cucujoidea were
only weakly supported.
The CS was recovered as monophyletic and was supported
as a major Cucujiform clade, sister group to the remaining
superfamilies of Cucujiformia. The CS families Discolo-
matidae, Corylophidae, Coccinellidae and Latridiidae were
recovered as monophyletic. Bothrideridae were paraphyletic
with respect to Cerylonidae and Discolomatidae; Cerylonidae
were paraphyletic with respect to Bothrideridae (Anommatinae,
Teredinae, Xylariophilinae) and Discolomatidae; the latter was
recovered as the sister group to Murmidius Leach. Endomychi-
dae were not recovered as monophyletic due to the placement of
Mycetaeinae and Eupsilobiinae closely allied to Coccinellidae,
and the recovery of Anamorphinae as sister to Corylophi-
dae. Akalyptoischiidae (Akalyptoischion) were not allied with
Latridiidae and were supported as a distinct family within the
CS. CS subfamilies not supported as monophyletic include
Teredinae (Bothrideridae), Endomychinae (Endomychidae) and
Stenotarsinae (Endomychidae).
Discussion
Major cucujiform lineages
Phylogenetic studies that specically address the major cucu-
jiform relationships are lacking (Leschen & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2010).
However, molecular studies treating the phylogenetic relation-
ships of specic subgroups of Cucujiformia (Robertson et al.,
2008; Marvaldi et al., 2009; McKenna et al., 2009; Kergoat
et al., 2014) or Coleoptera as a whole (Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak
et al., 2014) provide myriad hypotheses and arrangements of
cucujiform taxa. In fact, there is little consensus regarding the
major divergences within Cucujiformia between these studies.
Given the anatomical heterogeneity, varied taxonomic history
and recent phylogenetic analyses of Cucujoidea (Hunt et al.,
2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Marvaldi et al., 2009; McKenna
et al., 2009; Bocak et al., 2014; Kergoat et al., 2014), the failure
to recover this superfamily as monophyletic in the present study
is not surprising. Taxa currently classied as Cucujoidea were
recovered in three isolated, well-supported clades (Fig. 3): (i)
the CS was strongly supported as the sister group to the remain-
ing Cucujiformia, (ii) Byturidae and Biphyllidae were strongly
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
752 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 3. Maximum-likelihood tree illustrating the polyphyly of Cucujoidea. Cucujiform superfamilies are coloured following the inset. Byturidae and
Biphyllidae are recovered sister to Cleroidea, the core Cucujoidea forms the sister group to Phytophaga and the Cerylonid Series forms the sister group
to the remaining cucujiform lineages. Major Cerylonid Series lineages are labelled in grey.
supported as the sister group of Cleroidea, (iii) the remain-
ing ‘basal cucujoid’ families, or core Cucujoidea, formed a
clade sister to Phytophaga (Chrysomeloidea +Curculionoidea).
Leschen et al.’s (2005) designation of ‘basal Cucujoidea’ was
not meant as a hypothesis of monophyly but was more of an
informal grouping of convenience, thus it is interesting that
most of these families did in fact form a monophyletic group in
the present study.
The megadiverse Phytophaga were strongly supported as
the sister group to the core Cucujoidea (90). Among previous
large-scale molecular studies, this sister grouping was sup-
ported only in the study of Marvaldi et al. (2009), even though
Crowson (1960) implied a close relationship of these major
groups when he suggested that the chrysomeloid–curculionoid
stock might be an offshoot of the cucujoid stock. In all
our analyses, Tenebrionoidea (including Lymexyloidea) and
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 753
Cleroidea (including Byturidae and Biphyllidae) were recov-
ered as sister taxa; however, bootstrap support for this sister
grouping was consistently low (<50). A sister grouping of
Tenebrionoidea +Cleroidea represents a novel hypothesis for
cucujiform superfamilial relationships. The strongly supported
position of the CS forming the sister group to the remaining
Cucujiformia and therefore being distantly related to the remain-
ing core cucujoid taxa explains why Crowson (1955) considered
this clade ‘highly derived’ compared to the other cucujoid fam-
ilies. Interestingly, within Cucujoidea the CS is the only
subgroup that has been repeatedly hypothesized to form a clade,
when in fact the CS is not even part of Cucujoidea (see below).
Tenebrionoidea and Lymexyloidea
Our sampling within the diverse superfamily Tenebrionoidea
is not extensive, with only 11 of 28 families (Bouchard et al.,
2011) represented. Furthermore, topological support among
tenebrionoid lineages was generally low, as in other studies
to date (Haran et al., 2013; Gunter et al., 2014; Kergoat et al.,
2014). However a few noteworthy results recovered herein bear
upon tenebrionoid relationships and should be noted. Lymexy-
loidea were recovered as the sister group to Mordellidae, albeit
with weak support (<50) (Fig. 4). Although the placement
of Lymexyloidea nested within Tenebrionoidea was somewhat
unexpected, Hunt et al. (2007) also recovered this placement
for Lymexyloidea in their study. The clade comprising Lymexy-
loidea and Tenebrionoidea was well supported (93); thus, despite
the unconvincing nodal support for the nesting of Lymexyloidea
within Tenebrionoidea, our results suggest that these two super-
families at least form a clade together, possibly as sister taxa as
suggested by Bocak et al. (2014) and Gunter et al. (2014).
Cleroidea
The placement of Biphyllidae and Byturidae has challenged
coleopterists historically. These taxa have been considered
allied with Cucujoidea (Crowson, 1955; ´
Slipi´
nski & Pakaluk,
1991; Leschen et al., 2005), Tenebrionoidea (Crowson, 1960;
Lawrence, 1977) and Cleroidea (Lawrence & Newton, 1995;
Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al., 2014). Despite their current clas-
sication within Cucujoidea, the placement of Biphyllidae and
Byturidae within Cleroidea has been repeatedly demonstrated
in recent molecular phylogenetic studies (Hunt et al., 2007;
Bocak et al., 2014) and in the present one (Fig. 4). Furthermore,
this placement is supported by a number of morphological fea-
tures, the most characteristic being the nature of the aedeagus,
which in a number of cleroids as well as Biphyllidae and
Byturidae – includes a tegmen of the ‘double’ type (Crowson,
1964a) with paired tegminal struts in addition to the common
anterior strut. Given the overwhelmingly strong evidence for
Biphyllidae and Byturidae belonging to Cleroidea, we formally
transfer both families to Cleroidea s.n.
Our taxonomic sampling within Cleroidea was moderately
strong, with 6 of the 11 families represented. Phloiophilidae
were supported as an early diverging cleroid lineage (Fig. 4),
consistent with previous views (Crowson, 1960). Phloio-
philidae were alternatively recovered as the sister group to
Biphyllidae +Byturidae in the partitioned GTR +Γ+I analy-
sis. Crowson (1955) outlined the similarities of Biphyllidae and
Phloiophilus Stephens including the nature of the metendoster-
nite and a fungivorous life history, and suggested that Phloio-
philidae may in fact represent Cucujoidea rather than Cleroidea.
Interestingly, Xerasia Lewis (Byturidae) was included in the
family Phloiophilidae by Pic (1926) (see also Crowson, 1955).
Several larval features are unique to Biphyllidae, Byturidae
and Phloiophilidae including frontal arms lyriform (V- or
U-shaped in most remaining Cleroidea), maxillary articulating
area present (absent in most remaining Cleroidea), and having
the inner apical angle of mandible with one or more teeth
(character states from Lawrence & Leschen, 2010; Lawrence
et al., 2011). Trogossitidae is an enigmatic and morphologically
heterogeneous family with a convoluted taxonomic history rich
with rank changes depending on the author (see Kolibáˇ
c&
Leschen, 2010). Crowson (1964a) considered the family to have
diverged relatively early from the remaining cleroid lineages
and further (1964a, 1966, 1970) elevated the rank of several
subfamilies, leading to the recognition of three separate fami-
lies: Trogossitidae, Peltidae, Lophocateridae. Recent molecular
analyses also indicate that the family Trogossitidae as currently
circumscribed is not monophyletic (Hunt et al., 2007; Gunter
et al., 2013; Bocak et al., 2014). The results of the present study
corroborate the above hypotheses with Ostoma Laicharting,
Temnoscheila Westwood, Grynocharis Thomson and Larino-
tus Carter and Zeck scattered among the remaining sampled
cleroids (Fig. 4), indicating that this family is not monophyletic
and is in critical need of a thorough phylogenetic revision.
Other internal cleroid relationships recovered in the present
study, including Prionoceridae recovered as the sister group to
Melyridae (including Dasytes Paykull) and the melyrid lineage
closely allied to Cleridae, are consistent with the results of
Gunter et al. (2013).
Phytophaga
Consistent with previous studies (e.g. Farrell, 1998; Marvaldi
et al., 2009; McKenna et al., 2009) the phytophagan super-
families Chrysomeloidea (60) and Curculionoidea (60) were
recovered with only weak to moderate support in the present
study (Fig. 4). Our analysis also provided weak support for the
monophyly of Phytophaga (Chrysomeloidea +Curculionoidea)
(<50). Although the monophyly of Phytophaga is not ques-
tioned from a morphological and ecological standpoint, several
recent large-scale molecular analyses (e.g. Hunt et al., 2007;
Bocak et al., 2014) have surprisingly failed to recover Phy-
tophaga as monophyletic. The weak support for Phytophaga,
Chrysomeloidea and Curculionoidea in the present study, may
be attributed to the inadequacy of the suite of molecular loci
used herein for recovering these divergences, terminals jump-
ing around (potential rogue taxa), the relatively sparse taxon
sampling within these megadiverse taxa, and/or short internal
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
754 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 4. Maximum-likelihood tree (part 1 of 6). The full topology is shown to the left of the gure with the emboldened region enlarged and coloured
for discussion. Branches are coloured by superfamilial classication prior to this study following the legend. Select families are coloured as indicated
to the right of the corresponding terminals. Nomenclatural changes proposed in this study are denoted to the far right of the tree with grey bars. Nodes
supported by bootstrap support 90 are indicated by black circles, and nodes with support between 70 and 89 are indicated by grey circles.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 755
branches spanning the divergences of these major radiations
comprising relatively long terminals.
Early diverging core Cucujoidea
The early diverging lineages of core Cucujoidea recov-
ered in the present study include three major clades:
(i) Monotomidae +nitidulid series, (ii) erotylid series
(Helotidae-Protocucujidae-Protosphindus Sen Gupta &
Crowson-Erotylidae), (iii) Boganiidae +Hobartiidae (see
Fig. 5); all three lineages comprise taxa that have been con-
sidered as early diverging cucujoids and plesiomorphic from a
morphological perspective (Crowson, 1955, 1960, 1990). For
example, Crowson (1955) postulated that Nitidulidae, Smicrip-
idae and Monotomidae were closely related to Protocucujidae
and Sphindidae based on anatomical characters of the adult
form. He considered Protocucujidae to represent the most
plesiomorphic form of extant cucujoids. Crowson (1990) also
suggested a potential relationship between Boganiidae and
Chrysomeloidea. This hypothesis was based on both having
distinctive microsculpture on the hindwing of the adult and
an articulated mala in the larval form; the fossil Parandrexis
Martynov representing a putative intermediate form between
boganiids and chrysomeloids bolstered his suspicion. Whereas
the previous major clades comprise the early diverging core
cucujoid lineages in the present study, their relative position at
the base of core Cucujoidea was unstable across analyses as
reected in the weak nodal support spanning these three clades.
Based on the present analysis and patterns of support, any one
of the above three lineages (Monotomidae +nitidulid series,
erotylid series, Boganiidae +Hobartiidae) represents a viable
candidate for the earliest diverging lineage of core Cucujoidea.
At present, additional data are needed to identify the earliest
diverging core cucujoid lineage.
Nitidulid series and Monotomidae
Members of the Nitidulidae group (Leschen et al., 2005) – or
nitidulid series including Kateretidae, Smicripidae and
Nitidulidae, formed a monophyletic group, albeit with only
weak support (<50) (Fig. 5). Whereas morphology strongly
supports this grouping (Leschen et al., 2005; Jelínek et al.,
2010; Cline, 2010; but see also Lawrence et al., 2011 for an
exception), the present study is the rst phylogenetic analysis
based on molecular data to recover a monophyletic nitidulid
series; previous studies did not include sufcient representation
of the series, or did not recover it as monophyletic (Hunt et al.,
2007; Bocak et al., 2014). Hunt et al. (2007) only sampled
Nitidulidae in their three-gene analysis. Their taxon-heavy
analysis of 18S data alone also included several exemplars of
Kateretidae, but these were not recovered as a monophylum
with Nitidulidae; rather, Kateretidae was placed within Phy-
tophaga, allied with Cerambycidae and Silvanidae (Hunt et al.,
2007). Bocak et al.’s (2014) analysis recovered a sister grouping
of Kateretidae and Nitidulidae, but the family Passandridae was
nested within the latter, rendering Nitidulidae paraphyletic.
The study of Cline et al. (2014) focused on the higher-level
relationships within Nitidulidae and recovered a well-supported
clade comprising Kateretidae +Nitidulidae. The enigmatic
and monotypic family Smicripidae was not represented in
Hunt et al. (2007), Bocak et al. (2014) nor Cline et al. (2014).
Lawrence et al. (2011), based on morphological data, did
recover a sister grouping of Kateretidae +Nitidulidae, but Smi-
crips LeConte was far removed, recovered as the sister group
to Rentonellum Crowson (Cleroidea: Trogossitidae) which, in
turn, was sister to Laemophloeidae +Propalticidae. Although
Smicrips is an enigmatic taxon, this poorly supported grouping
with Rentonellum and others is not consistent with traditional
views (Cline, 2010).
Nitidulidae is among the more ecologically diverse and
species-rich families of Cucujoidea with c. 4500 species clas-
sied in c. 351 genera (Jelínek et al., 2010). In contrast,
Kateretidae and Smicripidae exhibit meagre to poor species
diversity with c. 95 and six species, respectively (Cline, 2010;
Jelínek & Cline, 2010). Historically there has been much debate
regarding the internal relationships both among, and within, the
families of the nitidulid series, with considerable taxonomic
instability among taxa variously classied within these families.
As reviewed by Cline (2010), major suites of characters support
all three possible sister-group relationships between Nitidulidae,
Smicripidae and Kateretidae. Our results support a sister group-
ing of Nitidulidae and Kateretidae (78) with Smicrips subtending
this clade.
Monotomidae was weakly supported (<50) as the sister taxon
to the nitidulid series (Fig. 5), another relationship formally
recovered for the rst time in the present study yet consis-
tent with previous views (e.g. Crowson, 1955). Monotomidae
are an enigmatic group with dubious phylogenetic afnity
within Cucujoidea. Crowson (1955) noted the similarity of
Monotomidae and the nitidulid group based on shared adult
anatomical features including aedeagus uninverted and of the
cucujoid type, elytra truncate, and procoxae transverse with the
trochantin exposed. The phylogenetic position of Monotomidae
remained dubious in the analysis of Leschen et al. (2005) based
on adult and larval characters. In both Hunt et al. (2007) and
Bocak et al. (2014) Monotomidae are allied with Protocucujidae
and Helotidae, the former representing another family cited
by Crowson (1955) as potentially allied with Monotomidae
based on the form of the metendosternite and male tarsi (5-5-4).
The well-supported yet aberrant placement of Monotomidae
in Lawrence et al. (2011) as the sister group to teredine and
xylariophiline Bothrideridae is likely a result of convergent
general similarity in body shape and form (JAR, NPL, personal
observation). It should be noted that only two exemplars of
Monotomidae, Lenax Sharp and Bactridium Kunze (Monotom-
inae), were sampled in the present study. A sister grouping of
Monotomidae +the nitidulid series is supported by multiple
character states including abdominal tergite VII exposed in
dorsal view and tergite VIII in the male with sides curved ven-
trally forming a genital capsule (Leschen et al., 2005; Jelínek
et al., 2010). Given the lack of support and consensus with the
current suite of morphological and molecular data, it is clear
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
756 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 5. Maximum-likelihood tree (part 2 of 6). The full topology is shown to the left of the gure with the emboldened region enlarged and coloured
for discussion. Branches are coloured red for Cucujoidea following the legend in the previous gures. Families are coloured as indicated to the right of
the corresponding terminals. Nomenclatural changes proposed in this study are denoted to the far right of the tree with grey bars. Nodes supported by
bootstrap support 90 are indicated by black circles, and nodes with support between 70 and 89 are indicated by grey circles.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 757
that more work is needed to clarify the phylogenetic position of
Monotomidae.
Erotylid series: Helotidae, Protocucujidae, Sphindidae
and Erotylidae
The sister grouping of Ericmodes Reitter (Protocucujidae)
and Protosphindus (Sphindidae) is strongly supported in the
present study (97) (Fig. 5). A close relationship of these taxa
has long been recognized (Crowson, 1955; Thomas, 1984b)
and is well supported by morphological data (McHugh, 1993;
Leschen et al., 2005). Along with Ericmodes and Protosphin-
dus, Helota Maclay has been considered to be a relatively early
diverging cucujoid. Helotidae in particular is an enigmatic
taxon. The family exhibits several anatomical features that are
considered to be plesiomorphic for Cucujiformia. They are
the only cucujoids with a complete discrimen and transverse
suture (katepisternal suture) on the metaventrite. The family
also possess excavate metacoxae that extend laterally to the
elytral epipleura in adults and a divided mala in the larval form.
Previous authors suspected a close relationship with Nitidul-
idae, owing to similarities of the aedeagus (Sharp & Muir,
1912) and labrum-epipharynx (Kirejtshuk, 2000). However,
to date no formal phylogenetic analysis has supported a sister
grouping or close relationship of Helotidae and Nitidulidae;
rather, most have recovered Helotidae sister to Protocucujidae
and relatively close to Monotomidae and Erotylidae (Leschen
et al., 2005; Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al., 2014). In the present
study, we consistently recovered Helota sister to the clade
Ericmodes +Protosphindus with low to moderate support (67),
with Erotylidae forming the sister group to this clade. A sig-
nicant portion of what is now considered Erotylidae was until
recently scattered in other families, primarily Languriidae and
Cryptophagidae. Accordingly, most of the historical hypotheses
for the sister group of Erotylidae included one of these two
families. With Languriidae now subsumed within Erotylidae in
its entirety (W
¸
egrzynowicz, 2002; Leschen, 2003; Robertson
et al., 2004) including the former cryptophagids that linked
Erotylidae to Cryptophagidae, few sister-group hypotheses for
Erotylidae have been proposed recently. Previous molecular
data point to Erotylidae being closely related to Protocucujidae,
Helotidae and Monotomidae (Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al.,
2014); surprisingly, Bocak et al. (2014) recovered Boganiidae
well nested within Erotylidae, a hypothesis neither consistent
with traditional views nor the present study.
Boganiidae +Hobartiidae
Boganiidae and Hobartiidae were originally classied together
in a broader family concept of Boganiidae (Sen Gupta &
Crowson, 1966, 1969a). Lawrence (1991) formally recognized
the family Hobartiidae presumably based on the larval form
described therein. As reviewed by Tomaszewska & ´
Slipi´
nski
(2010), Hobartiidae and Boganiidae share very few anatomical
features and those that are in common are widespread in other
cucujoids and presumed to be plesiomorphic. In Leschen et al.
(2005) Paracucujus Sen Gupta & Crowson and Hobartius Sen
Gupta & Crowson were far removed from each other. The
present study is the rst molecular phylogenetic analysis to
include members of both Boganiidae and Hobartiidae. The
recovery of these taxa forming a sister group (Fig. 5) is therefore
intriguing, yet this relationship is only weakly supported (<50)
and warrants further investigation.
Cucujid series
We recovered a strongly supported clade (95) comprising
Cryptophagidae and the remaining core cucujoid families
(Fig. 5). In terms of the families included, this clade is nearly
consistent with the cucujid series of Hunt et al. (2007) and Bocak
et al. (2014), although the series is not consistent between those
two studies: Hunt et al. (2007) does not include Silvanidae in the
cucujid series, whereas Bocak et al. (2014) does not include Pas-
sandridae. Our results strongly supported both Silvanidae and
Passandridae included within the cucujid series clade as well as
a south temperate clade (see below) comprising Phloeostichidae
and allies; these results are consistent with the ndings of McEl-
rath et al. (2015). The internal relationships within the cucujid
series clade recovered in the present study and that published
previously (Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al., 2014; McElrath
et al., 2015) are only partially concordant. In all four analyses
Laemophloeidae and Propalticidae form a clade and Phalacridae
subtends this group. The placement and monophyly of the fam-
ilies Cryptophagidae, Cucujidae, Silvanidae, Passandridae and
Phloeostichidae and allies vary between studies (see below).
Phloeostichid group
Until recently, the family Phloeostichidae comprised a
heterogeneous assortment of Notogean taxa that had been
placed previously in a wide variety of families and superfam-
ilies (see Lawrence & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2010). Leschen et al. (2005)
demonstrated that this family circumscription did not reect
a monophyletic group and recognized several new, mostly
monogeneric, families accordingly, including Agapythidae,
Priasilphidae, Tasmosalpingidae and Myraboliidae, leaving four
genera in a redened Phloeostichidae. This study represents the
rst molecular analysis to include exemplars of these enigmatic,
species-poor families. We recovered a weakly supported clade
comprising south temperate taxa including Agapytho Broun
(Agapythidae), Priasilpha Broun (Priasilphidae), Taphropiestes
Reitter (=Cavognatha Crowson) (Cavognathidae) and Hymaea
Pascoe (Phloeostichidae) (Fig. 5). Within this clade Agapytho
formed the sister group to Priasilpha obscura Broun (97); the
remaining nodes were only weakly supported. The position
of Taphropiestes in the present study was unstable. Although
Taphropiestes was recovered as the sister group of Hymaea
(<50), it often placed within the clade comprising Myrabolia
Reitter and Cyclaxyra Broun in preliminary analyses. The
alternative support for this placement is evident in the poor
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
758 J. A. Robertson et al.
branch support along the backbone divergences spanning these
alternate placements. Multiple larval features of Taphropiestes
point to an afliation with Myrabolia and Cyclaxyra (see
below). The phylogenetic position of Cavognathidae within
Cucujoidea has been elusive. When Cavognatha was originally
described it was attributed to Cucujoidea but was not classied
at the family level (Crowson, 1964b), owing to it belonging
to an undescribed family. Sen Gupta & Crowson (1966) later
described the family Boganiidae and treated Cavognathidae
as a subfamily within the newly erected family. Sen Gupta &
Crowson (1969a) elevated Cavognathidae to family level and
pointed out features suggesting an afliation with the family
Cryptophagidae. Whereas our results do not support an aflia-
tion with Crytophagidae, this study does support the recognition
of Cavognathidae at the family level.
Cucujidae +Silvanidae
Our analyses consistently recovered a sister grouping of
Cucujidae +Silvanidae (Fig. 5) with moderate support (78).
Both families were at one time classied together with Lae-
mophloeidae and Passandridae in a broadly dened Cucujidae
(Cucujidae s.l.). Crowson (1955) recognized at the familial level
both Passandridae (with reservation) and Silvanidae, thereby
removing them from Cucujidae s.l. The laemophloeids were
retained in Cucujidae s.l. for some time later until Thomas
(1984a,b, 1993) demonstrated that they were more closely
related to passandrids and phalacrids than Cucujidae (Thomas,
1993). To date, no phylogenetic study has supported the mono-
phyly of Cucujidae s.l. (see McElrath et al., 2015). However,
multiple studies have shown that Cucujidae and Silvanidae are
likely sister taxa (Leschen et al., 2005; McElrath et al., 2015)
or otherwise treated them as such (Thomas & Nearns, 2008).
Several anatomical features support Cucujidae and Silvanidae
as sister taxa (see Leschen et al., 2005). Surprisingly, few
molecular studies have supported this sister grouping.
Cucujidae is a relatively small family with 48 species (Thomas
& Leschen, 2010a) classied in four genera: Cucujus Fabricius,
Pediacus Shuckard, Palaestes Perty and Platisus Erichson. An
unanticipated result in Bocak et al. (2014) was the paraphyly
of Cucujidae: Cucujus was recovered sister to Silvanidae but
Pediacus was supported as the sister group to Cyclaxyra in that
study. It should be noted that only one of four molecular markers
was available for the exemplars of Pediacus in that analysis,
thus it is possible that the signicant amount of missing data
may have contributed to this surprising result. Even so, the
monophyly of Cucujidae has never been the subject of rigorous
phylogenetic investigation.
In contrast to Cucujidae, Silvanidae is more species-rich
with nearly 500 species placed among 58 genera (Thomas
& Leschen, 2010b). The internal classication of Silvanidae
currently includes two subfamilies, Silvaninae and Brontinae,
with two brontine tribes – Brontini and Telephanini (Thomas,
2003; Thomas & Nearns, 2008). Our results strongly supported
the monophyly of Silvaninae (100). This clade was characterized
by some of the longest branches in our phylogeny. We did not
recover Brontinae or the tribe Brontini as monophyletic either
due to the placement of Uleiota Latreille (Brontini) sister to
Silvaninae. Branch support for this relationship as well as that
for Macrohyliota Thomas (Brontini) sister to Telephanini was
weak (57, 53, respectively), thus these relationships are only
tentative. In a study that focused entirely on the relationships
among and within the families formerly included in Cucujidae
s.l. (McElrath et al., 2015), support for the monophyly of
Brontinae and Brontini between analyses was inconsistent; the
ML results of McElrath et al. (2015) did not support either
Brontinae or Brontini whereas the Bayesian results did recover
these higher taxa as monophyletic, albeit with weak support.
Thomas & Nearns (2008) conducted a cladistic analysis of the
family Silvanidae based on 15 characters of the adult and larval
form. Most of their resulting clades were consistent with the
existing classication; the monophyly of Brontini, however, was
in question. Clearly, additional work is needed to clarify the
relationships and limits of higher taxa within Brontinae and
rene the classication if necessary.
Cyclaxyra and Myrabolia
The monogeneric family Cyclaxyridae, comprising two
species restricted to New Zealand, was until recently (Lawrence
et al., 1999) classied within the family Phalacridae, with earlier
ties to the families Sphindidae (Crowson, 1955) and Nitiduli-
dae (see Leschen et al., 2010). Cyclaxyra was placed sister to
Tasmosalpingidae (not sampled here) in Leschen et al. (2005),
a monotypic family with two Tasmanian species. Despite its
previous classication in the family Phalacridae, beyond super-
cial resemblance including a convex body form, there have
been no convincing synapomorphies uniting Cyclaxyra and
Phalacridae. In the recent cladistic analysis of Phalacridae by
Gimmel (2013), Cyclaxyra was recovered as the sister group to
phalacrids based on several anatomical characters; however, it
should be noted that the outgroup sampling in Gimmel (2013)
was not extensive because the scope of that study was to infer the
internal relationships of Phalacridae. In Lawrence et al. (2011)
Cyclaxyra was recovered as the sister group to Lamingtoniidae
(not sampled here), whereas Phalacridae was surprisingly
found as the sister to Hypodacnella (Cerylonidae) +Bystus
(Endomychidae). The spurious afliation of Phalacridae, Hypo-
dacnella and Bystus in Lawrence et al. (2011) is not consistent
with previous views (Leschen et al., 2005; Hunt et al., 2007),
nor is it consistent with the present study. In our analyses
Cyclaxyra was consistently recovered as the sister group to
Myrabolia Reitter (Myraboliidae) (Fig. 5) with weak support
(50), a grouping that has never been suggested previously; this
study is the rst molecular analysis to include exemplars of
either family. Myraboliidae represents another species-poor,
monogeneric family with 13 species restricted to Australia. The
inclusion of Myrabolia in multiple cucujoid families historically
(e.g. Cucujidae, Silvanidae and Phloeostichidae; see ´
Slipi´
nski
et al., 2010a) reects the unclear phylogenetic position of this
enigmatic genus. In Leschen et al. (2005) Myrabolia formed
the sister group to a large clade comprising several cucujoid
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 759
families, whereas in Lawrence et al. (2011) it was recovered
sister to Taphropiestes (=Cavognatha). The clade comprising
Myrabolia and Cyclaxyra represents a second Notogean cucu-
joid lineage supported by the present study (see phloeostichid
group above). Interestingly, the clade Myrabolia +Cyclaxyra
forms the sister group to the laemophloeid group. Several larval
features corroborate this clade and suggest that Taphropiestes
may also be afliated with this superfamilial grouping. The
larval form of Myrabolia,Cyclaxyra,Taphropiestes and the
laemophloeid group have the mesal surface of the mandible
without a mola, the maxillary articulating area absent, and the
hypopharyngeal sclerome absent (from Lawrence et al., 2011).
Although these larval states represent losses of features, our
phylogenetic results suggest that they are likely homologous.
Laemophloeid group
Thomas (1984a) suggested that Laemophloeidae, Propalti-
cidae, Phalacridae and Passandridae form a natural lineage
based on a number of morphological features including unequal
protibial spurs, structural similarities of the male genitalia,
and the presence of pronotal lines and elytral cells. Our results
support this grouping (hereafter referred to as the laemophloeid
group) (Fig. 5) as the above four families form a clade with
moderately high branch support (89). Interestingly, previous
molecular (Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al., 2014; McElrath
et al., 2015) and morphological phylogenetic studies (Leschen
et al., 2005; Lawrence et al., 2011) have not recovered the lae-
mophloeid group as monophyletic; the present study represents
the rst instance in which this clade has been supported in
a formal phylogenetic analysis. In most cases, the failure to
recover the laemophloeid group in the above studies is due to the
placement of the enigmatic family Passandridae elsewhere [e.g.
sister to Cucujidae (Hunt et al., 2007), sister to Bothriderinae
(Lawrence et al., 2011), nested within Nitidulidae (Bocak et al.,
2014)]. The study of McElrath et al. (2015), which focuses
on the relationships of Laemophloeidae and allied families,
recovered a clade nearly concordant with the laemophloeid
group, with Passandridae supported as more closely related
to Cyclaxyridae and Myraboliidae than to the remaining lae-
mophloeid group taxa. Laemophloeidae and Propalticidae have
been considered to be sister taxa (e.g. Lawrence & Newton,
1995; Leschen et al., 2005; Hunt et al., 2007; Lawrence et al.,
2011). Interestingly, our results recovered Propalticus Sharp
nested within Laemophloeidae (Fig. 5). These results concur
with recent ndings by Bocak et al. (2014) and McElrath et al.
(2015), and support the proposal by McElrath et al. (2015) to
subsume Propalticidae within Laemophloeidae.
Cerylonid series
The strongly supported position of the CS forming the sister
group to the remaining Cucujiformia and therefore not allied
with any of the existing superfamilies of Cucujiformia, including
the remaining Cucujoidea, was one of the most signicant
results of the present study. The support for the CS clade
was high (97), as was the support for Cucujiformia (98) and
the clade comprising the remaining cucujiform lineages (83)
(Fig. 5). Although the exact placement of the CS in Hunt
et al. (2007) and Bocak et al. (2014) is not concordant with our
results, both studies independently demonstrated the isolated
position of the CS clade relative to the remaining cucujiform
lineages. Given our resulting topology and previously published
results (Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al., 2014), there seems no
reasonable way to treat the CS except to recognize it as a new
superfamily of Cucujiformia. Of the CS family group taxa,
Coccinellidae Latreille has priority (Latreille, 1807). Thus we
formally recognize the cucujiform superfamily Coccinelloidea
stat.n., which in terms of taxonomic constitution is synonymous
with the current concept of the cerylonid series.
Internal relationships of Coccinelloidea
Our results corroborated previous molecular results (Hunt
et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Bocak et al., 2014) in
recovering a basal dichotomy of two well-supported superfa-
milial coccinelloid clades: one clade comprising Bothrideridae,
Cerylonidae and Discolomatidae (hereafter referred to as the
bothriderid group) (100); the second clade including Alexiidae,
Akalyptoischiidae, Corylophidae, Coccinellidae, Latridiidae
and multiple endomychid lineages (hereafter referred to as the
coccinellid group) (87).
Bothriderid group (Bothrideridae, Cerylonidae,
Discolomatidae)
The grouping of the families Bothrideridae, Cerylonidae and
Discolomatidae (Fig. 6) has been suspected by previous authors
(´
Slipi´
nski, 1990; Lawrence, 1991; ´
Slipi´
nski & Pakaluk, 1991)
and is consistent with recent molecular phylogenetic studies
(Hunt et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Bocak et al., 2014).
The bothriderid group exhibits a broad range of phenotypic vari-
ation and comprises c. 1250 species. Members of the bothriderid
group are typically subcortical with either a mycophagous, myx-
ophagous, predaceous or parasitoid life history. Some of these
beetles are also known to inhabit leaf litter, fungi and similar
microhabitats. Despite the varied biology, members of all three
families are known to produce silken cocoons to house the pupal
stage (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990; Lord & McHugh, 2013; JAR, personal
observation e.g. Bothrideres, Cassidoloma Kolbe), a charac-
teristic rare among beetles and not known in any of the other
coccinelloid or cucujoid families. Even so, not all taxa within
the bothriderid group have been observed to produce silken
cocoons [e.g. Teredolaemus leai (Grouvelle)] (´
Slipi´
nski et al.,
2010b). To date, no anatomical synapomorphies have been
identied uniting members of all three families. With a single
exception [Sosylopsis Grouvelle (Bothrideridae)] adult bothrid-
erids, cerylonids and discolomatids have the procoxal cavities
internally open (Robertson, 2010). Little is known about the
internal phylogenetic relationships within the bothriderid group.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
760 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 6. Maximum-likelihood tree (part 3 of 6). The full topology is shown to the left of the gure with the emboldened region enlarged and coloured
for discussion. Branches are coloured by family and terminals by subfamily as indicated to the right of the corresponding terminals. Nomenclatural
changes proposed in this study are denoted to the far right of the tree with grey bars. Nodes supported by bootstrap support 90 are indicated by black
circles, and nodes with support between 70 and 89 are indicated by grey circles.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 761
The monophyly of the families Bothrideridae and Cerylonidae
has been questioned by several authors (Pal & Lawrence,
1986; ´
Slipi´
nski, 1990; ´
Slipi´
nski & Pakaluk, 1991; ´
Slipi´
nski &
Lawrence, 2010). Most of these assertions concern the difculty
of distinguishing Euxestinae (Cerylonidae) from free-living
Bothrideridae (i.e. Teredinae, Xylariophilinae, Anommatinae)
based on morphology. The enigmatic Metacerylonini (Euxesti-
nae) in particular bear many anatomical and life history similar-
ities to the above bothriderid taxa and were considered by Dajoz
(1980) to be subordinate to Bothrideridae. This study represents
the rst analysis with adequate taxon sampling to formally
address the phylogenetic relationships of the bothriderid group.
Our results indicate that within the bothriderid group the
ectoparasitoidal subfamily Bothriderinae (Bothrideridae) is
sister to the remaining taxa (Fig. 6). The monophyly of
Bothriderinae was well supported (99). The enigmatic genus
Deretaphrus Newman, comprising 25 species (Lord & McHugh,
2013), formed the sister group to the remaining bothriderines.
Deretaphrus is unique among the entire Coccinelloidea for
having the hindwing with a closed radial cell and four anal
veins in the medial eld. Lord & McHugh (2013) list addi-
tional anatomical features of the adult form that potentially set
Deretaphrus apart from the remaining bothriderines including
the unique form of the submentum and the male genitalia. The
current tribal classication of Bothriderinae places Deretaphrus
and Sosylus Erichson in Deretaphrini, a group based on having
the anterior coxae contiguous or nearly so (widely separated in
Bothriderini), a broadly rounded intercoxal process of abdom-
inal ventrite 1 (truncated apically in Bothriderini) and having
the rst tarsal segment distinctly longer than the second one
(typically subequal in length in Bothriderini) (´
Slipi´
nski & Pal,
1985). Members of Deretaphrini are typically elongate and
subcylindrical, typical of beetles inhabiting wood galleries.
Surprisingly, the present analysis did not support the bothrider-
ine tribal classication, due to the placement of Sosylus deeply
nested within Bothriderini. Interestingly, species of Sosylus
employ a slightly different parasitic strategy than nearly all
other bothriderines, which have a broader host range (´
Slipi´
nski
et al., 2010b). By contrast, the species-rich Sosylus specializes
on ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Platypodinae) (Roberts,
1980). Based on our phylogenetic ndings, the anatomical sim-
ilarity of Deretaphrus and Sosylus (e.g. elongate subcylindrical
body form, closely situated fore coxae, rounded and relatively
narrowed intercoxal process of abdominal ventrite 1, tarsomere
I distinctly longer than tarsomere II) is likely to be the result
of morphological convergence associated with occupying the
galleries of their wood-boring hosts.
The genus Bothrideres was strongly supported (100, 97) as the
second earliest diverging bothriderine lineage of those sampled
in the present study. Beyond these well-supported early diver-
gences, the internal relationships within this subfamily were
only weakly supported. One moderately well supported result
that warrants further investigation was the polyphyly of Pseu-
dobothrideres Grouvelle; the two Pseudobothrideres exemplars
sampled from Zambia and Papua New Guinea did not form a
clade. Much taxonomic and phylogenetic work remains to be
done within this fascinating lineage (Lord & McHugh, 2013).
Within the remaining bothriderid group we recovered
four well-supported, major lineages: (i) Murmidiinae (Cery-
lonidae) +Discolomatidae, (ii) a clade comprising all free-living
bothriderids (Teredinae, Xylariophilinae, Anommatinae), (iii)
Euxestinae (Cerylonidae), and (iv) Ostomopsinae (Cery-
lonidae) +Ceryloninae. The relationships between these four
clades, however, were only weakly supported (Fig. 6). Murmidi-
inae comprised three genera Murmidius Leach, Mychocerinus
´
Slipi´
nski and Botrodus Casey. The subfamily is unique among
Coccinelloidea for having a median endocarina in the larval
form (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990). However, it should be noted that the
larval stage is only known for the genus Murmidius. The place-
ment of Murmidius as the sister group to Discolomatidae was
moderately supported in the present study (69). The family Dis-
colomatidae has a convoluted taxonomic history with previous
ties to the families Coccinellidae, Endomychidae, Corylophi-
dae, Latridiidae, Colydiidae, Nitidulidae, Cerylonidae and
Trogossitidae (see Cline & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2010). van Emden (1932,
1938) was the rst to suggest a relationship between Murmidius
and Discolomatidae and this hypothesis has been echoed by sub-
sequent authors (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990; Lawrence, 1991; ´
Slipi´
nski &
Pakaluk, 1991). In fact, ´
Slipi´
nski (1990) suspected that discolo-
matids should be subsumed within Cerylonidae due to the many
anatomical features uniting them with Murmidiinae, including
adults with the spiculum gastrale absent and ovipositor reduced,
without styli, and larvae onisciform (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990; ´
Slipi´
nski
& Pakaluk, 1991). Many of the above features were consid-
ered putative synapomorphies for Murmidiinae relative to the
remaining cerylonid subfamilies, but our results indicated that
they are synapomorphies for Murmidiinae +Discolomatidae. It
is interesting to note that in the study of Lawrence et al. (2011)
Murmidius formed the sister group to the clade Ostomopsis
Scott +Discolomatidae. The larval form of Murmidius and
Discolomatidae in particular share many apomorphic character
states, yet the larval stage is not yet known for Ostomopsis. Thus
the absence of this informative suite of data for Ostomopsis
likely inuenced the separation of Murmidius and Discolo-
matidae by Ostomopsis. In terms of coccinelloid subfamilial
diversity, the family Discolomatidae was poorly represented
in the present analysis, with only two of the ve discolomatid
subfamilies sampled. The monophyly of the family Discolo-
matidae is not in question, being supported by several unique
apomorphies including adults with glandular openings lining
the lateral pronotal and elytral margins and the meso- and meta-
coxae long and transverse but nearly concealed by meso- and
metaventral plates. By contrast, the internal relationships and
validation of the currently recognized higher taxa are entirely
untested. Despite the relatively weak subfamilial representation,
our analysis indicated that the subfamily Aphanocephalinae is
monophyletic. Interestingly, an undescribed genus resembling
Parafallia Arrow (Aphanocephalinae) was strongly supported
as more closely related to Cassidoloma (Discolomatinae).
Much more work is needed to clarify the internal relationships
of Discolomatidae.
The ‘free-living’ bothriderids (Anommatinae, Teredinae
and Xylariophilinae) (´
Slipi´
nski et al., 2010b) formed a
well-supported clade (96) subtending the remaining cerylonid
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
762 J. A. Robertson et al.
taxa (Fig. 6). The internal relationships recovered within this
clade were consistently strongly supported. Anommatinae were
strongly supported as sister to Oxylaemus Erichson (Teredi-
nae) (96). Teredolaemus (Teredinae) formed the sister group
to Xylariophilus (Xylariophilinae) (100), thereby rendering
Teredinae paraphyletic. These internal relationships, although
inconsistent with the current classication, are consistent from
an anatomical perspective (Robertson, 2010). Several enigmatic
genera currently classied as Teredinae were not included in
the present study, including Rustleria Stephan, known from
only a single specimen from SW Arizona, and the anatomically
odd genera Sosylopsis (endemic to Madagascar) and Sysolus
Grouvelle (Indo-Malaysia and Central America). Much work is
needed to clarify the internal relationships of this lineage, but
based on our results, it is clear that the free-living taxa do not
form a monophyletic group with the parasitoidal bothriderids
and should be treated as their own family.
The monophyly of the cerylonid subfamily Euxestinae was
strongly supported (100) in our analyses (Fig. 6). Among cery-
lonids, this subfamily has been the most difcult to place among
the remaining subfamilies, mostly due to shared anatomical
features with free-living bothriderids. Unlike the remaining
cerylonid groups, Euxestinae have seven pairs of functional
abdominal spiracles, subantennal grooves well developed,
lacinia with apical uncus and hindwing with anal lobe present
(´
Slipi´
nski, 1990). ´
Slipi´
nski (1990) suggested that Euxestinae
should be recognized as its own family or be transferred to
Bothrideridae, but felt formal action prior to a comprehen-
sive phylogenetic study of the entire CS would be imprudent.
Indeed, our results support the recognition of Euxestinae at
the family level. Note that whereas the subfamily Euxestinae
is recovered sister to other cerylonid groups (e.g. Ostomopsi-
nae +Ceryloninae), the support for this sister grouping is
negligible (40) and in preliminary analyses Euxestinae were
often recovered sister to the free-living bothriderids.
The generic diversity of Euxestinae was fairly well represented
in our analyses, with over half (6 of 11) of the genera sam-
pled. The enigmatic Metacerylon, which especially bears many
anatomical and life history traits common with free-living both-
riderids, was supported as the earliest diverging euxestine lin-
eage. Euxestoxenus Arrow and Cycloxenus Arrow were strongly
supported (100) as sister taxa; the former is a known myrme-
cophile and both are known termitophiles. Hypodacne punctata
LeConte is also suspected to be myrmecophilous given previous
natural history observations (Stephan, 1968), but very little is
known regarding the nature of this association (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990).
The monogeneric Ostomopsinae comprising only a few
species was originally classied as a tribe in Murmidiinae
by Sen Gupta & Crowson (1973) and elevated to subfamily
level by Lawrence & Stephan (1975). The genus Ostomopsis
is unique among cerylonids for having a peculiar antennal club
that is emarginated laterally and bears specialized sensilla, the
peculiar form of maxillary palps exclusive for the genus, the
pronotal edges serrulate and the apical ange of elytra widened
apically with the elytra longitudinally striate (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990).
The phylogenetic position of Ostomopsis among the remaining
cerylonid lineages has been unclear (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990). ´
Slipi´
nski
(1990) postulated a close relationship between Ostomopsinae
and either Murmidiinae or Ceryloninae based on different sets
of features. In Lawrence et al. (2011) Ostomopsis was recovered
as the sister group to Discolomatidae (see above). In the present
study Ostomopsis was strongly supported (95) as forming the
sister group to the species-diverse Ceryloninae (Fig. 6). This was
the rst molecular phylogenetic analysis to sample the enigmatic
Ostomopsinae. Anatomical features common to both Ostomop-
sis and Ceryloninae include adults with hindwing lacking
medial eck, procoxal cavities internally widely open with the
intercoxal process narrow and parallel-sided, spiculum gastrale
present, ovipositor with well-developed styli and dorsum setose
(´
Slipi´
nski, 1990). The larval form of Ostomopsis is unknown.
The discovery of the larval form of Ostomopsis may illuminate
larval features uniting Ostomopsinae and Ceryloninae.
Ceryloninae is the largest and best-dened cerylonid subfam-
ily. The group was well supported in our analyses (100) as well
as by morphology (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990). ´
Slipi´
nski (1990) postulated
a sister relationship between Ceryloninae and the monotypic
Loeblioryloninae (not sampled here) based on both possessing
aciculate palps and lacking the frontoclypeal suture. Cery-
lonines are further characterized by having the last abdominal
ventrite crenulate in adults and the mandibles stylet-like and
either endognathous (e.g. Cerylon Latreille) or enclosed within
a tubular beak (e.g. Philothermus Aubé, Mychocerus Erichson)
in larvae. Note that whereas both Murmidiinae and Ostomopsi-
nae also have a crenulate last abdominal ventrite, the homology
of the elytral locking mechanisms exhibited in these three sub-
families (Ceryloninae, Mumidiinae, Ostomopsinae) is dubious
because different structures are involved ( ´
Slipi´
nski, 1990).
Given the strong support for the polyphyly of Bothrideridae
and Cerylonidae here and in previous studies (Hunt et al., 2007;
Bocak et al., 2014), we formally recognize a new familial clas-
sication for members of the bothriderid group. We recognize
a new concept of Bothrideridae s.n. to include only the para-
sitoidal subfamily Bothriderinae.
We further recognize the family Teredidae stat.n., to accom-
modate the free-living bothriderids: Anommatinae, Teredinae
and Xylariophilinae. Murmidiinae is elevated to family status as
Murmidiidae stat.n. Euxestine cerylonids are elevated to family
status as Euxestidae stat.n. Finally, we retain Ostomopsinae,
Ceryloninae and Loeblioryloninae in a new concept of the
family Cerylonidae s.n.
Coccinellid group
Latridiidae and Akalyptoischiidae
Latridiidae comprise a cosmopolitan family with over 1000
described species classied in 28 genera (Hartley & McHugh,
2010). Latridiids are the quintessential LBJs (‘little brown
jobs’) and until recently have received little higher-level sys-
tematic attention. Historically, many taxa were classied in this
family on account of being minute, having 3-3-3 tarsi and a
similar habitus [e.g. Anommatus (Bothrideridae), Dasycerus
Brongniart (Staphylinidae), Merophysiinae (Endomychidae)].
Using molecular data, Lord et al. (2010) conducted the rst
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 763
phylogenetic investigation of the family and found the enig-
matic Akalyptoischion to be more closely related to other CS
taxa than the remaining Latridiidae. Akalyptoischion includes
24 described species restricted to western North America
(Hartley et al., 2008). Based on their results and accompanying
morphological justication, Lord et al. (2010) recognized a new
family, Akalyptoischiidae, to accommodate Akalyptoischion.
Latridiidae are recovered here with strong support (100) as the
earliest diverging lineage in the coccinellid group (Fig. 7). This
placement is in agreement with the results of Bocak et al. (2014),
but differs from other molecular studies which place Latridiidae
as sister group to all remaining coccinelloid families including
the bothriderid group (Lord et al., 2010), or weakly supported
as the sister group to a clade comprising a grade of leiestine and
merophysiine endomychids +Corylophidae (Hunt et al., 2007).
The internal relationships of Latridiidae recovered herein only
partially overlap with those of Lord et al. (2010). In both studies,
the two subfamilies, Latridiinae and Corticariinae are strongly
supported as monophyletic, but the internal relationships within
these groups, particularly Corticariinae, are not concordant.
We recovered Akalyptoischion as the second earliest diverging
lineage within the coccinellid group, corroborating the recogni-
tion of this lineage at the family level (Akalyptoischiidae). It
should be noted however that the topological support separat-
ing Akalyptoischiidae and Latridiidae (i.e. the clade compris-
ing Akalyptoischiidae and the remaining coccinellid group taxa)
was rather weak (60). Akalyptoischiidae are far removed from
Latridiidae in the Bocak et al. (2014) study, but recovered sister
to the main cluster of Endomychidae.
Alexiidae
The monotypic Alexiidae comprise c. 50 species distributed
in the Mediterranean region (´
Slipi´
nski & Tomaszewska,
2010). The family was traditionally included as a subfamily
(Sphaerosomatinae) within Endomychidae, but Sen Gupta &
Crowson (1973) recognized the distinctiveness of Sphaero-
soma Samouelle and elevated the subfamily to family status,
as Sphaerosomatidae. Recent molecular phylogenetic anal-
yses support the distinctiveness of Alexiidae. In Hunt et al.
(2007) Alexiidae are weakly supported as the sister group to
anamorphine endomychids, whereas in Bocak et al. (2014) the
family forms the sister group to Coccinellidae. In the present
study, Alexiidae was recovered as sister to the clade comprising
Corylophidae, Coccinellidae and multiple endomychid lineages
(Fig. 7). This large clade is generally characterized by somewhat
convex beetles with elytral puncturation irregularly aligned, not
forming rows, and pseudotrimerous tarsi (Robertson, 2010).
Support for this sister grouping (60) and that of the clade
comprising Corylophidae, Coccinellidae and the endomychid
taxa (71) is moderate.
Anamorphinae
Corroborating the results of Robertson et al. (2008, 2013), our
study supports a moderately strong sister grouping of Anamor-
phinae (Endomychidae) and Corylophidae (86) (Fig. 7), indi-
cating that Anamorphinae should be elevated to family status.
In fact, all molecular analyses including anamorphines have
failed to recover them with the core Endomychidae. Hunt et al.
(2007) recovered Anamorphinae sister to Alexiidae, whereas in
Bocak et al. (2014) Anamorphinae is nested within Corylophi-
dae. Morphological character states uniting Corylophidae and
Anamorphinae include adults with the penis being broad and
stout with endophallic sclerites, and larvae with the antennal
socket located far from the mandibular articulation (Robertson
et al., 2013). The relationship of anamorphines to the remaining
endomychid taxa has been questioned historically. Sasaji (1978)
established the subfamily Anamorphinae (=Mychotheninae)
for several genera (e.g. Mychothenus Strohecker, Bystodes
Strohecker, Bystus, Dialexia Gorham,etc.) that were previously
included in a broadly dened Mycetaeinae by Strohecker (1953)
and did so based on anatomical features unique for Endomy-
chidae including adults with the anterior arms of the tentorium
separate throughout their length and mesocoxal cavities closed
by ventrites. Sasaji (1987, 1990) later elevated the subfamily to
family status, but this action did not receive much attention or
subsequent following. The cladistic analyses of Tomaszewska
(2000, 2005) did recover Anamorphinae within Endomychidae,
but because the scope of these studies focused on the internal
relationships of the family neither analysis implemented a broad
sampling of outgroup taxa thus the test of monophyly for the
family was relatively weak. From an ecological perspective
anamorphines differ from most of the remaining endomychids
by their apparent obligate sporophagy (spore specialists) as
both adults and larvae (Pakaluk, 1986). This niche is reected
in the highly specialized mandibles in both active life stages
of anamorphines, with a well-developed mandibular mola that
works like a spore mill, a brush-like prostheca and a bid apical
incisor; the larvae have the incisor lobe highly reduced or absent
(Tomaszewska, 2000, 2005, 2010). Morphological features that
separate Anamorphinae from core Endomychidae include adults
with anterior arms of tentorium separate (fused in core Endomy-
chidae, except one species of Merophysiinae), mesocoxal
cavities widely closed by the meso- and metaventrite (open to
mesepimeron in core endomychids, except Merophysiinae and
Pleganophorinae, which are narrowly closed), pretarsal claws
modied, penis broad, stout, weakly curved with endophallic
sclerites (penis variable in core Endomychidae). Given the
strong evidence for the phylogenetic distinction of Anamorphi-
nae from the core Endomychidae, we formally recognize a new
family, Anamorphidae stat rev., for all taxa previously assigned
to Anamorphinae. Within the clade comprising anamorphids
(Fig. 7), we recovered the Holarctic genus Symbiotes Redten-
bacher as the earliest diverging taxon. A primarily Old World
clade comprising the genera Papuella Strohecker, Clemmus
[C. minor (Crotch) is the only Nearctic sp.] and Mychothenus,
was also strongly supported as an early diverging lineage. This
study did not include the enigmatic genus Erotendomychus Lea,
another viable candidate for the earliest diverging anamorphid.
Erotendomychus includes 15 species restricted to eastern Aus-
tralia and is anatomically odd with respect to the remaining
anamorphids in having the anterior arms of the tentorium
broadly fused medially, intercoxal process of mesoventrite
rounded and prominent anteriorly (truncate, not produced
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
764 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 7. Maximum-likelihood tree (part 4 of 6). The full topology is shown to the left of the gure with the emboldened region enlarged and coloured
for discussion. Branches are coloured by family and terminals by subfamily as indicated to the right of the corresponding terminals. Nomenclatural
changes proposed in this study are denoted to the far right of the tree with grey bars. Nodes supported by bootstrap support 90 are indicated by black
circles, and nodes with support between 70 and 89 are indicated by grey circles.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 765
anteriorly in remaining anamorphids), the metacoxae widely
separated, more than 1.5×the coxal width (between 1
3and 1×
the coxal width in remaining anamorphines) and the trochantero-
femoral attachment strongly heteromeroid (Tomaszewska,
2004; Robertson, 2010; J.A. Robertson, personal observation).
Interestingly, several of the above character states are consistent
with early diverging lineages of Corylophidae (Robertson et al.,
2013), such as widely separated metacoxae and the strongly het-
eromeroid trochanterofemoral attachment. Indeed, Erotendomy-
chus is in some regards an anatomical intermediate between
anamorphids and corylophids, but the form of the antennae
of Erotendomychus is not characteristic of either group. It
may also be noteworthy that the earliest diverging corylophid
lineage, Periptyctinae (comprising three species-poor genera),
is also endemic to Australia ( ´
Slipi´
nski et al., 2009). Futhermore,
Periptyctus Blackburn (Periptyctinae), was classied within
Endomychidae and only recently transferred to Corylophidae
(´
Slipi´
nski et al., 2001). The larval form of Erotendomychus
is not known. Including this enigmatic taxon represents an
important and exciting potential element for future studies.
Corylophidae
The internal relationships and patterns of support within
Corylophidae (Fig. 7) are entirely concordant with those in
Robertson et al. (2013). This is not surprising because the
corylophid taxa and molecular data sampled in the present
study overlaps entirely with that of Robertson et al. (2013).
Periptyctus is recovered as the earliest diverging corylophid
lineage. Holopsis Broun & Foadiini are also supported as early
diverging lineages and the remaining corylophid lineages form
a strongly supported clade (100).
Endomychidae
The family Endomychidae is a heterogeneous group comprising
c. 1800 species classied in 135 genera (Shockley et al., 2009a).
Endomychidae have a convoluted taxonomic history, rich with
rank changes and movement of higher taxa among endomychid
subfamilies and coccinelloid families. Tomaszewska (2000)
conducted the rst cladistic analysis of the family using adult
morphology and rened the subfamilial classication. Adding
larval data and an expanded taxon sampling within the diverse
Lycoperdininae, Tomaszewska (2005) provided resolution
between the endomychid subfamilies and lycoperdinine species
groups. Most taxa currently classied as Endomychidae formed
a well-supported clade (100) in the present analyses (Fig. 8).
The subfamilies Anamorphinae, Mycetaeinae and Eupsilobi-
inae, however, were not recovered with the core Endomychidae.
In general, branch support within the core Endomychidae was
consistently high. Within the clustering of core endomychids,
there were two strongly supported, major lineages. The rst
clade (hereafter referred to as the merophysiine complex) (100)
comprised the subfamilies Pleganophorinae (100), Leiestinae
(100) and Merophysiinae (100). The merophysiine complex
is not consistent with the cladistic analyses of Tomaszewska
(2000, 2005), nor has it been suggested previously. However,
there are several anatomical and ecological features that bolster
these relationships. Members of the merophysiine complex
have the mesotrochantin concealed (exposed in remaining core
Endomychidae), have tarsi simple (pseudotrimerous in remain-
ing core Endomychidae) and exhibit modied and sexually
dimorphic antennae in adults whereas their larvae have the
frontal arms lyriform (Tomaszewska, 2005). Species of Mero-
physiinae and Pleganophorinae are known to be inquilines,
living in direct association with termites and ants (Shockley
et al., 2009b). Given what is known of feeding habits of the
family, in these cases it seems likely that the beetles are feeding
on some type of fungus that occurs with the associated organ-
ism. In addition, both Merophysiinae and Pleganophorinae have
the mesocoxal cavities closed (Tomaszewska, 2010), whereas
in the remaining core endomychids these cavities are open. The
subfamily Leiestinae was strongly supported as the sister group
to Merophysiinae (100). Both Leiestinae and Merophysiinae
have the metendosternite with two vertical admedian processes
from which the tendons arise (Robertson, 2010; J.A. Robertson,
A. ´
Slipi´
nski, J.V. McHugh, personal observation) and their
larvae are relatively cylindrical in form without processes
or tubercles, with simple vestiture and mandibles without
prostheca (Burakowski & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2000).
The second major clade of core Endomychidae (hereafter
referred to as the endomychine complex) (100) corresponds to
Tomaszewska’s (2005) ‘higher Endomychidae’ and includes
taxa classied as Endomychinae, Stenotarsinae, Epipocinae and
Lycoperdininae (Fig. 8). These taxa were supported as a clade
in Tomaszewska’s (2005) cladistic analysis by having adults
with pseudotrimerous tarsi and larvae with well developed V- or
U- shaped fontal arms and four pairs of stemmata. Our analyses
indicated that neither Endomychinae nor Stenotarsinae are
monophyletic. Endomychinae currently includes ve genera:
Endomychus Panzer, Cyclotoma Mulsant, Meilichius Ger-
staecker, Bolbomorphus Gorham and Eucteanus Gerstaecker
(Shockley et al., 2009a); only the rst three were sampled
here. Cyclotoma and Meilichius (Endomychinae) formed a
well-supported clade (100) that subtends the remaining endomy-
chine complex. Endomychus, however, was nested within
Stenotarsinae, sister group to the clade comprising Saula and
the paraphyletic genus Danae Reiche. Whereas the placement of
Cyclotoma +Meilichius relative to the remaining endomychines
and stenotarsines was equivocal, it is clear that this clade does
not form a monophyletic group with Endomychus.Relative
to the nominate genus, Endomychus, the remaining taxa cur-
rently assigned to Endomychinae are unique. For example, all
Endomychinae except Endomychus have the labial prementum
in the adult form entirely sclerotized without a distinct ligula (the
ligula is distinct and partially membranous in all other Endomy-
chidae including Endomychus) and the penis in the adult male is
curled along the proximal 1
3of its length (smooth in remaining
Endomychidae including Endomychus) (Tomaszewska, 2005).
Given the strong support for the polyphyly of Endomychinae
and paraphyly of Stenotarsinae, we formally recognize the
subfamily, Cyclotominae stat.n., to accommodate the gen-
era Cyclotoma,Meilichius, Bolbomorphus and Eucteanus.
Although the genera Bolbomorphus and Eucteanus were not
sampled here, we tentatively include them in Cyclotominae
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
766 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 8. Maximum-likelihood tree (part 5 of 6). The full topology is shown to the left of the gure with the emboldened region enlarged and coloured
for discussion. Branches are coloured by family and terminals by subfamily as indicated to the right of the corresponding terminals. Nomenclatural
changes proposed in this study are denoted to the far right of the tree with grey bars. Nodes supported by bootstrap support 90 are indicated by black
circles, and nodes with support between 70 and 89 are indicated by grey circles.
stat.n. because these genera share the anatomical features
outlined above. We further formally subsume Stenotarsinae
within a new concept of Endomychinae s.n., which includes
Endomychus and all taxa previously classied as Stenotarsinae.
The subfamilies Epipocinae and Lycoperdininae were strongly
recovered as sister taxa (100); both are well dened from an
anatomical standpoint (Tomaszewska, 2000, 2005). Lycoper-
dininae is not only the largest endomychid subfamily, with
43 genera and over 700 species (Tomaszewska, 2012), but
also includes some of the most striking species with apose-
matic colouration and ornamentation (Tomaszewska, 2005).
Tomaszewska (2005) investigated the internal relationships of
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 767
Lycoperdininae and recognized ve species groups based on
cladistic analysis of adult and larval data. In the present study,
the major divergences within Lycoperdininae were generally not
strongly supported. However, several clusters of genera recov-
ered in our analyses overlap in part with Tomaszewska’s (2005)
lycoperdinine species groups. For example, the clade (100)
comprising Encymon Gerstaecker, Eumorphus Weber, Indal-
mus Gerstaecker and Ancylopus Costa is part of Tomaszewska’s
(2005) Eumorphus group; Acinaces Gerstaecker, Beccariola
Arrow and Corynomalus Chevrolat (=Amphix Laporte) belong
to the Corynomalus group. However, our results were not
entirely consistent with any of the proposed lycoperdinine
groups.
The present analysis placed the subfamilies Mycetaeinae and
Eupsilobiinae as more closely allied to the family Coccinellidae
than the main cluster of endomychid taxa (Fig. 9). Although
Mycetaeinae and Eupsilobiinae were not supported as sister
taxa, both exhibit a unique rigid tooth-like prostheca in the
larval form (Tomaszewska, 2005). Mycetaeinae includes two
genera, Agaricophilus Motschulsky and Mycetaea Stephens,
with two and ve species, respectively (Shockley et al., 2009a).
The monophyly of Mycetaeinae may be in question as the two
constituent genera are quite different anatomically in both the
adult and larval forms. Nothing is known about the natural
history of Agaricophilus.OnlyMycetaea was sampled in the
present study, thus the monophyly of this small enigmatic taxon
remains uncertain. Eupsilobiinae includes seven genera and 16
species, with most distributed in small endemic areas of Central
and South America, and South Africa; Eidoreus Sharp is widely
distributed. The group is generally accepted as monophyletic
(Pakaluk & ´
Slipi´
nski, 1990; Tomaszewska, 2005). Eupsilobiinae
are unique among endomychids in having short subantennal
grooves [long or absent (most) in remaining endomychids],
anterior arms of tentorium widely divergent, narrowly fused
medially [only slightly divergent and broadly fused forming a
laminatentorium in remaining endomychids, or entirely separate
(Anamorphidae)] and the form of the mesoventrite, abdominal
ventrite 1 and male genitalia (see below).
Eupsilobiinae +Coccinellidae
The sister group to the species-rich and economically impor-
tant Coccinellidae has been of great interest yet elusive. His-
torically, Endomychidae has been considered the sister group
to Coccinellidae, primarily based on both having members with
pseudotrimerous tarsi.
Formal phylogenetic studies have recovered myriad
hypotheses for the sister group of Coccinellidae including
Alexiidae +Anamorphinae (Hunt et al., 2007), Endomychidae
(Robertson et al., 2008; Giorgi et al., 2009; Seago et al., 2011),
Corylophidae (Robertson et al., 2008, 2013; Lawrence et al.,
2011) and Alexiidae (Bocak et al., 2014). Recent molecular
phylogenetic studies focusing on Coccinellidae (Giorgi et al.,
2009; Seago et al., 2011) relied on exemplars of Endomychidae
and Corylophidae as outgroup taxa, assuming a sister group
with one of these families. Our analyses consistently recovered
Eupsilobiinae (Endomychidae) as the sister group to Coccinell-
idae (Fig. 9). Eupsilobiines have previously never been sampled
in a molecular phylogenetic analysis. Interestingly, Crowson
(1981) postulated a close relationship between Eidoreus (Eup-
silobiinae) and Coccinellidae; others also have noted anatomical
similarities between the two (e.g. Pakaluk & ´
Slipi´
nski, 1990;
Tomaszewska, 2010). In the cladistic analysis of Tomaszewska,
Eupsilobiinae was deeply nested among the remaining mono-
phyletic endomychid taxa. Tomaszewska (2010) later reviewed
the distinctiveness of Eupsilobiinae with respect to the remain-
ing endomychids but conceded that its phylogenetic position
was unclear. Even so, eupsilobiines share several compelling
anatomical character states with Coccinellidae. Both groups
have the anterior edge of the mesoventrite on a different plane
than the metaventrite [independently occurs in Holopsis and
Orthoperus Stephens (Corylophidae)] (J.A. Robertson, A.
´
Slipi´
nski, J.V. McHugh, personal observation). Eupsilobiines
and coccinellids have abdominal ventrite 1 with postcoxal lines;
all other taxa currently classied as Endomychidae lack abdom-
inal postcoxal lines (with two exceptions: Xenomycetes Horn,
but these are different in form, and Cholovocerida Belon). In
addition, most eupsilobiines and Coccinellidae have postcoxal
lines on the metaventrite. One of the strongest dening char-
acter states for the family Coccinellidae is the unique form of
the aedeagus, comprising a well-developed, ring-like tegminal
phallobase that projects forward forming a penis guide, an
articulated anterior tegminal strut (trabes), a pair of parameres,
and an elongate, slender and curved penis (sipho) with a prox-
imal T-shaped capsule. It is signicant that Eupsilobiinae have
essentially the same aedeagal components in similar form as
coccinellids, including the characteristic penis, being elongate,
slender and curved with the base sclerotized and T-shaped. The
recovery of Eupsilobiinae +Coccinellidae is one of the more
signicant results of the present study. Given the support here
for the separation of both Mycetaeinae and Eupsilobiinae from
the core Endomychidae, we formally recognize both at the
family level – Mycetaeidae stat.n. and Eupsilobiidae stat.n.
Coccinellidae
The monophyly of Coccinellidae is strongly supported in the
present analyses (100) (Fig. 9) and is well supported from a mor-
phological standpoint (see ´
Slipi´
nski, 2007; Seago et al., 2011).
With over 6000 species, Coccinellidae is by far the largest of
the coccinelloid families. Despite the economic importance of
Coccinellidae, little is known regarding the higher-level relation-
ships of the family. The rst attempt to address the phylogenetic
relationships of Coccinellidae was Sasaji (1968), who, using
narrative justication based on adult and larval characters, pro-
posed six subfamilies and several constituent tribes. Treating a
broader diversity for the family, Kováˇ
r (1996) proposed a similar
arrangement of taxa but recognized a seventh subfamily, Ortali-
inae, and 38 tribes. Later authors (Vandenberg, 2002; ´
Slipi´
nski,
2007; Vandenberg & Perez-Gelabert, 2007) recognized the arti-
cial nature of several subfamilies and higher taxa. Accordingly,
´
Slipi´
nski (2007) proposed a classication that placed several
anatomically distinct sticholotidine taxa together in the sub-
family Microweiseinae and all other coccinellid species into an
expanded concept of Coccinellinae. Only recently have rigorous,
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
768 J. A. Robertson et al.
Fig. 9. Maximum-likelihood tree (part 6 of 6). The
full topology is shown to the left of the gure with the
emboldened region enlarged and coloured for discus-
sion. Branches are coloured by family and terminals
by subfamily as indicated to the right of the corre-
sponding terminals. Nomenclatural changes proposed
in this study are denoted to the far right of the tree with
grey bars. Nodes supported by bootstrap support 90
are indicated by black circles, and nodes with support
between 70 and 89 are indicated by grey circles.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 769
molecular phylogenetic hypotheses emerged for Coccinellidae
(e.g. Giorgi et al., 2009; Magro et al., 2010; Seago et al., 2011),
all of which have demonstrated the nonmonophyly of the tradi-
tional subfamilies of Sasaji (1968) and Kováˇ
r (1996). One aspect
of coccinellid evolutionary history that is borne out in previous
molecular studies (e.g. Giorgi et al., 2009; Seago et al., 2011)
and corroborated here is the tempo and pattern of coccinellid
diversication. The coccinellid topology is characterized by
moderately long terminal branches with very short internal
branches spanning the backbone and major divergences of the
tree (Fig. 9): the hallmark of a rapid radiation. Indeed, based on
this characteristic branching pattern produced by three indepen-
dent sets of molecular data, it is clear that inferring the evolution-
ary history of Coccinellidae, particularly recovering the major
divergences of the coccinelline tribes, presents a signicant chal-
lenge. Even so, in the present study we recovered a well-resolved
topology with several strongly supported groups. Corroborat-
ing Giorgi et al. (2009) and Seago et al. (2011), we recover
a basal split comprising Microweiseinae and the species-rich
Coccinellinae (Fig. 9). The subfamily Microweiseinae currently
includes three tribes: Carinodulini, Microweiseini (including
Sukunahikonini) and Serangiini (Escalona & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2012).
Within Microweiseinae the anatomically bizarre Carinodulinka
(Carinodulini) was recovered as the earliest diverging lineage,
corroborating the results of Seago et al. (2011). Our results
strongly support the monophyly of the microweiseine tribe
Serangiini (99), whereas Microweiseini was rendered para-
phyletic by Serangiini. We recovered a well-supported clade
comprising Microweisea Cockerell, Coccidophilus Brèthes and
Par asid i s (=Sarapidus)australis (Gordon). González (2008)
recently synonymized Sarapidus Gordon under Parasi dis
Brèthes,but this action is not supported here because P. australis
(formerly Sarapidus australis) is far removed from the remain-
ing Par asid i s sampled herein. Also consistent with previous
molecular studies (Giorgi et al., 2009; Seago et al., 2011) was
the placement of the Oriental genus Monocoryna Gorham as
sister to the remaining Coccinellinae. This relationship was
here well supported (97, 99). Monocoryna was only recently
moved to Coccinellidae from Endomychidae (Miyatake, 1988)
and is unique in having the antennal club comprising a single
large antennomere, and the male genitalia with the penis guide
reduced and phallobase complex (Seago et al., 2011).
The tribes Coccinellini (100) and Chilocorini (including
Chilocorellus Miyatake) (100) were each strongly supported as
monophyletic and were recovered as sister taxa with moderately
high support (77). Both Magro et al. (2010) and Seago et al.
(2011) recovered Coccinellini +Chilocorini as well. Branch
support for the internal relationships within Coccinellini and
Chilocorini was generally high in the present study. Within
Coccinellini, Pristonema Erichson was recovered as the earliest
diverging taxon with moderately high support (85), consis-
tent with the analysis of Giorgi et al. (2009). Pristonema and
related taxa from South America, sometimes recognized as tribe
Discotomini, are unique with respect to the remaining Coc-
cinellini in having antennae with pectinate antennal club. The
internal relationships of Chilocorini were strongly supported and
entirely concordant with those in Giorgi et al. (2009); the results
of Seago et al. (2011) differ only in the resolution of Halmus
Mulsant, Exochomus Redtenbacher and Orcus Mulsant. The
clade comprising Chilocorus Leach +Chilocorellus was sup-
ported as the earliest diverging chilocorine lineage in the present
study and Seago et al. (2011). Beyond the placement of Mono-
coryna, sister grouping of Coccinellini +Chilocorini, and the
internal relationships within Coccinellini and Chilocorini, there
is little agreement between the recovered major relationships
within Coccinellinae between the present study and previous
ones (Giorgi et al., 2009; Magro et al., 2010; Seago et al., 2011).
Although several small super-generic or tribal clades were
recovered with high support in the present analyses [e.g. Shi-
rozuellini; Hyperaspidius Crotch +Brachiacantha Chevrolat;
Neorhizobius Crotch (Oridia Gorham +Chnodes Chevrolat);
Sulcolotis Miyatake +Sticholotis Crotch], most higher-level
coccinelline relationships subtend very short branches that were
only weakly supported, such that little condence can be placed
on many of these internal coccinelline relationships.
Revised classication
Crowson (1981: 685) stated ‘The very heterogeneous
Cucujoidea may well merit division into two or more super-
families, not necessarily on present Clavicornia [Cucujoidea]-
Heteromera [Tenebrionoidea] lines.’ The results of the present
study strongly support such an action as implemented in the
following.
Cleroidea Latreille, 1802 s.n.
Clerii Latreille, 1802: 110
Type genus. Clerus Geoffroy, 1762: 303
Diagnosis. Cleroidea s.n. are characterized by the following
combination of features: adults with hindwing with basal portion
of RP very short (Lawrence et al., 2011), empodium well devel-
oped and visible between tarsal claws (Lawrence et al., 2011;
Robertson et al., unpublished), tergite VIII not concealed by ter-
gite VII in both male and female (Lawrence et al., 2011). Lar-
vae with one pretarsal seta and usually without mola (´
Slipi´
nski,
1992; Lawrence et al., 2011). In addition, most cleroids are
characterized by adults with mandibular mola absent (present
in Byturidae and Biphyllidae and some Trogossitidae), meta-
coxae extending laterally to meet elytral epipleura (most; excep-
tions: Byturidae and Biphyllidae), aedeagus with paired tegmi-
nal struts in addition to the common anterior strut (Crowson,
1964a) (part, e.g., Byturidae, Biphyllidae, most Trogossitidae,
Acanthocnemidae); larvae with mandibular mola absent (most;
exceptions: Byturidae and Biphyllidae).
Included taxa. The superfamily Cleroidea s.n. includes
Byturidae and Biphyllidae and all families formerly clas-
sied as Cleroidea including Phloiophilidae, Trogossitidae,
Chaetosomatidae, Metaxinidae, Thanerocleridae, Cleridae,
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
770 J. A. Robertson et al.
Acanthocnemidae, Phycosecidae, Prionoceridae, Mauronisci-
dae and Melyridae (Leschen, 2010).
Comments. There is no combination of character states
that unites all the families of Cleroidea, and the addition
of Byturidae and Biphyllidae only exacerbates the problem.
Despite the phenotypic heterogeneity within this superfamily,
Cleroidea s.n. are a strongly supported group based on molec-
ular data (present study; Hunt et al., 2007; Bocak et al., 2014).
Cleroidea is characterized by adults with mandibular mola
absent, metacoxae extending laterally to meet elytral epipleura
(most); larvae with mandibular mola absent, hypopharyngeal
sclerome absent. However, these character states are not found
in Byturidae and Biphyllidae Early diverging cucujoids (e.g.
Boganiidae, Hobartiidae) exhibit several features in common
with Byturidae and Biphyllidae, hence their long classication
within Cucujoidea. Anatomical features separating Byturidae
and Biphyllidae from Cucujoidea s.n. are few, but include larvae
with a single pretarsal seta (two in most Cucujoidea).
Cucujoidea Latreille, 1802 s.n.
Cucujipes Latreille, 1802: 210
Type genus. Cucujus Fabricius, 1775: 204
Diagnosis. Cucujoidea s.n. are characterized by the follow-
ing combination of features: adults with procoxal cavities inter-
nally open (most), tarsal formula 5-5-5 in female and 5-5-5
or 5-5-4 in male (rarely 4-4-4), tergite VIII in female dor-
sally concealed by tergite VII (Lawrence et al., 2011), tergite
X (proctiger) in male completely membranous (Lawrence et al.,
2011). Larvae with frontal arms lyriform (most; exceptions:
Dacne,Hymaea,Propalticus, Laemophloeidae, some Nitidul-
idae), mesal surface of mandible with well-developed mola
(most; exceptions: Myrabolia,Taphropiestes,Cyclaxyra, lae-
mophloeid group), maxillary articulating area present (most;
exceptions: some Nitidulidae, Smicrips,Lamingtonium Sen
Gupta & Crowson, Taphroscelidia Crotch, Cyclaxyra,lae-
mophloeid group), hypopharyngeal sclerome present (most:
exceptions: Myrabolia,Cyclaxyra,Taphropiestes,Lamingto-
nium, laemophloeid group), two pretarsal setae.
Included taxa. The superfamily Cucujoidea s.n. includes
25 families: Boganiidae, Hobartiidae, Helotidae, Protocucu-
jidae, Sphindidae, Erotylidae, Monotomidae, Smicripidae,
Kateretidae, Nitidulidae, Cryptophagidae, Agapythidae, Priasil-
phidae, Phloeostichidae, Silvanidae, Cucujidae, Myraboliidae,
Cyclaxyridae, Cavognathidae, Passandridae, Phalacridae, Lae-
mophloeidae (including Propalticidae; see McElrath et al.,
2015), Cybocephalidae, Tasmosalpingidae and Lamingtoniidae.
Comments. Even in the new, condensed concept of Cucu-
joidea, this superfamily remains difcult to characterize owing
to the phenotypic heterogeneity exhibited in this group. Like
Cleroidea, there are no character states that unite all the fam-
ilies of Cucujoidea. Several subgroups of Cucujoidea are well
dened anatomically such as the nitidulid series, cucujid series,
laemophloeid group +Cyclaxyra and Myrabolia. More anatom-
ical investigations are needed for Cucujoidea to identify shared
morphological character states and provide more practical diag-
nostic features for this complicated group.
Coccinelloidea Latreille, 1807 stat.n.
Coccinellidae Latreille, 1807: 70
Type genus. Coccinella Linnaeus, 1758: 364
Diagnosis. Coccinelloidea are characterized by the follow-
ing combination of anatomical features: adults with tarsal for-
mula reduced (4-4-4 or 3-3-3), hindwings lacking a closed radial
cell, hindwings with anal veins reduced, hind coxae separated
by more than 1
3coxal width, intercoxal process of abdominal
ventrite 1 broadly rounded or truncate (most), aedeagus rest-
ing on side when retracted, and phallobase (tegmen) reduced
(exception: Coccinellidae). Larvae with pretarsal claw unise-
tose, spiracles usually annular, and sensory appendage of second
antennomere usually as long as the third antennomere.
Included taxa. The superfamily Coccinelloidea comprises
those taxa formerly considered the Cerylonid Series of Cucu-
joidea and includes the following 15 families: Bothrideridae s.n.,
Teredidae stat.n., Euxestidae stat.n., Murmidiidae stat.n., Dis-
colomatidae, Cerylonidae s.n., Latridiidae, Akalyptoischiidae,
Alexiidae, Corylophidae, Anamorphidae stat.rev., Endomy-
chidae s.n., Mycetaeidae stat.n., Eupsilobiidae stat.n. and
Coccinellidae.
Comments. Coccinelloidea stat.n. have been repeatedly
shown to be only distantly related to the remaining cucujoid
families (Hunt et al., 2007; Robertson et al., 2008; Marvaldi
et al., 2009; Bocak et al., 2014) and are strongly supported here
as a distinct cucujiform lineage.
Bothrideridae Erichson, 1845 s.n.
Bothriderini Erichson, 1845: 287
Type genus. Bothrideres Dejean, 1835: 312
Diagnosis. Bothrideridae s.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing combination of anatomical features: adults with antennal
insertions exposed from above, frontoclypeal suture distinct,
gular sutures strongly convergent or conuent anteriorly,
subantennal grooves well-developed, tentorium absent (part),
pronotal disc variously modied with deep grooves or raised
costae (most), mesocoxal cavities closed, metepisternum long
and narrow, metepimeron strongly reduced, fused to metepis-
ternum and concealed from below by elytra and metepisternum,
metacoxae subcircular to circular, trochanters highly reduced
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 771
and concealed within excavation of femur, unequal protibial
spurs, tarsi 4-4-4 in both sexes, elytral intervals costate or var-
iously raised, apical abdominal ventrite with expanded margins
tting into interlocking devices of elytra, functional spiracles
on abdominal segments I– VII, aedeagus symmetrical, phal-
lobase long with articulated parameres (most) and long anterior
tegminal strut, penis long and narrow with paired anterior struts,
sternite VIII in female with long spiculum ventrale, and styli
of ovipositor long and subapical. First instar larvae (triungulin)
with labrum and clypeus fused to head capsule, single or two
stemmata on each side, antenna two-segmented with very long
antennomere 2 bearing long terminal seta, antennal sensorium
on segment 1 elongate but shorter than antennomere 2, mandible
narrow, sickle-shaped without mola or prostheca, ventral mouth
parts protracted, maxillary palps two- or three-segmented, labial
palps long, two-segmented, legs long, ve-segmented, pretarsal
seta single, segment IX with pair of long setae, spiracles annu-
lar. Latter instar larvae (ectoparasitic, grub like) with head
capsule distinctly narrower than prothorax, stemmata absent,
antennae very short one- or two-segmented, mandible short
without mola or prostheca but with acute process at base, ven-
tral mouthparts retracted with large maxillary articulating area,
frons and clypeus fused, labrum free, legs variable, abdominal
segment IX sometimes with short urogomphi, and spiracles
annular.
Included taxa. This family includes all taxa formerly
assigned to Bothriderinae including Antibothrus Sharp, Ace-
toderes Pope, Asosylus Grouvelle, Bothrideres Dejean, Chinikus
Pope, Cosmothroax Kraatz, Craspedophilus Heinze, Cylin-
dromicrus Sharp, Dastarcus Walker, Deretaphrus Newman,
Emmaglaeus Fairmaire, Erotylathris Motschulsky, Leptogly-
phus Sharp, Lithophorus Sharp, Mabomus Pope, Ogmoderes
Ganglbauer, Patroderes ´
Slipi´
nski, Petalophora Westwood,
Prolyctus Zimmermann, Machlotes Horn, Pseudantibothrus
Pope, Pseudobothrideres Grouvelle, Pseudososylus Grouvelle,
Roplyctus Pope, Shekarus Pope, Sosylus Erichson, Triboderus
Grouvelle.
Comments. In addition to the anatomical character states
dening this strongly supported group, Bothrideridae are unique
from an ecological standpoint for their parasitoid life his-
tory on wood-inhabiting larvae and pupae of Coleoptera and
Hymenoptera.
Teredidae Seidlitz, 1888 stat.n.
Teredini Seidlitz, 1888 [Gatt.]: 57
Type genus. Teredus Dejean, 1835: 313
Diagnosis. Teredidae stat.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing: adults with elongate body form, antennal insertions
exposed from above, frontoclypeal suture distinct, gular sutures
well-separated, subantennal grooves well-developed and
extending posteriorly to midpoint of eye or beyond, tentorium
well-developed, corpotentorium with median process (most),
labral rods club-like (absent in Sysolus), lacinia with apical
uncus, mesocoxal cavities closed (narrowly open in Sysolus),
hindwing with medial eck divided (wings absent in Anom-
matus) and anal lobe present, trochanterofemoral attachment
heteromeroid, apex of protibia spinose with xed teeth, sube-
qual protibial spurs, tarsi 4-4-4 or 3-3-3 (Anommatus) in both
sexes, intercoxal process of abdominal ventrite 1 narrow with
acute apex (broadly rounded in Anommatus), functional spira-
cles on abdominal segments I– VII, abdominal pleurites heavily
sclerotized on all segments represented by a ventrite, Xylar-
iophilus,Teredolaemus and Sysolus have the inner (anterior)
edge of the last abdominal ventrite crenulate, anterior edge of
sternite VIII in male with median strut, aedeagus symmetrical,
phallobase long with articulated parameres and long anterior
tegminal strut, penis long and narrow with paired anterior struts,
sternite VIII in female with long spiculum ventrale, and styli
of ovipositor long and subapical. Larvae with prognathous
head bearing short epicranial stem (absent in Anommatus)and
lyriform frontal arms, labrum free, frontoclypeal suture weak
or absent, stemmata 0 or 5, antenna three-segmented with
sensorium longer than apical antennomere, mandible with well
developed mola but reduced or absent prostheca, ventral mouth
parts retracted with large articulating area, hypostomal rods
long and diverging posteriorly, thoracic and abdominal terga
often granulose but without sclerotized plates, legs long, tergum
IX complex but with upturned urogomphi, and spiracles annular
(Anommatus) or annular-biforous.
Included taxa. The family Teredidae stat.n. comprises those
taxa formerly classied as Anommatinae, Teredinae and Xylar-
iophilinae, including Abromus Reitter, Anommatus Wesmael,
Kocherius Coiffait, Oxylaemus Erichson, Rustleria Stephan,
Sosylopsis Grouvelle, Sysolus Grouvelle, Teredolaemus Sharp,
Teredomorphus Heinze, Teredus Dejean and Xylariophilus Pal
&Lawrence.
Comments. Teredidae stat.n. share many character states
with Euxestidae stat.n. but can usually be distinguished by their
elongate body form [although Metacerylon (Euxestidae) is also
relatively elongate], apex of protibiae spinose (setose in Eux-
estidae except Metacerylon neotropicalis ´
Slipi´
nski), abdominal
ventrite 1 narrow with apex acute or broadly rounded (Anomma-
tus) (truncate in Euxestidae), aedeagus symmetrical (asymmet-
rical in Euxestidae), phallobase long with articulated parameres
(parameres indistinct in Euxestidae) and long anterior tegminal
strut (strut absent in Euxestidae).
Euxestidae Grouvelle, 1908 stat.n.
Euxestinae Grouvelle, 1908: 397
Type genus. Euxestus Wollaston, 1858: 411
Diagnosis. Euxestidae stat.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing combination of anatomical features: adults with oval
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
772 J. A. Robertson et al.
to oblong body form (elongate in Metacerylon), subantennal
grooves well-developed and extending posteriorly to midpoint
of eye or beyond, frontoclypeal suture distinct, corpotento-
rium with median process, labral rods club-like, lacinia with
apical uncus, mesocoxal cavities closed externally, hindwing
with medial eck divided (absent in Metacerylon Grouvelle)
and anal lobe present, trochanterofemoral attachment usually
heteromeroid, apex of protibiae setose (spinose in Metacerylon
neotropicalis ´
Slipi´
nski), subequal protibial spurs, tarsi 4-4-4 in
both sexes, intercoxal process of abdominal ventrite 1 broad
with angulate or truncate apex (Robertson et al., unpublished),
functional spiracles on abdominal segments I– VII, aedeagus
with phallobase asymmetrical, median tegminal strut absent,
parameres indistinct (distinct in Pseudodacne), and penis long
and sclerotized (´
Slipi´
nski, 1990). Larvae with prognathous
head without epicranial stem or frontal arms, labrum free,
frontoclypeal suture absent, stemmata 0 or 2, antenna rela-
tively long three-segmented with sensorium longer than apical
antennomere, mandible with well developed mola and ven-
tral accessory process, prostheca absent, ventral mouth parts
retracted with articularing area, hypostomal rods sometimes
visible and diverging posteriorly, thoracic and abdominal terga
often granulose but without sclerotized plates sometimes with
simple or branched processes, legs long, tergum IX with straight
urogomphi, and spiracles annular-biforous, sometimes on short
processes.
Included taxa. The family Euxestidae stat.n. comprises
those taxa formerly classied as Euxestinae and includes
the following genera: Bradycycloxenus Arrow, Cycloxenus
Arrow, Euxestoxenus Arrow, Euxestus Wollaston, Globoeux-
estus ´
Slipi´
nski, Hypodacne LeConte, Hypodacnella ´
Slipi´
nski,
Metacerylon Grouvelle, Metaxestus ´
Slipi´
nski, Protoxestus Sen
Gupta & Crowson, Pseudodacne Crotch.
Comments. Euxestidae stat.n. and Teredidae stat.n. are
anatomically similar and share many character states. However,
Euxestidae can be distinguished from Teredidae by euxestid
adults having the body form oval to oblong (elongate in
Metacerylon, Teredidae), apex of protibia setose (spinose in
Metacerylon neotropicalis, Teredidae), intercoxal process of
abdominal ventrite 1 broad with angulate or truncate apex [acute
(most) or broadly rounded in Teredidae], phallobase asymmet-
rical (symmetrical in Teredidae), median tegminal strut absent
(present and long in Teredidae), parameres indistinct (distinct
in Pseudodacne; Teredidae), and penis long and sclerotized
(´
Slipi´
nski, 1990).
Murmidiidae Jacquelin Du Val, 1858 stat.n.
Murmidiides Jacquelin Du Val, 1858: 227
Type genus. Murmidius Leach, 1822: 41
Diagnosis. Murmidiidae stat.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing combination of features: adults with broadly oval to
oblong body form with head deeply retracted into prothorax,
frontoclypeal suture and transverse occipital carina distinct, cor-
potentorium with median process, antenna ten-segmented with
one-segmented club, labral rods club-like, lacinia with api-
cal spine, prothorax with antennal cavities at anterior angles,
mesocoxal cavities closed externally, hindwing with medial
eck divided but without anal lobe, trochanterofemoral attach-
ment heteromeroid, tarsi 4-4-4, intercoxal process of abdomi-
nal ventrite 1 broad with truncate apex, postcoxal lines present
on metaventrite and abdominal ventrite 1, functional spira-
cles on abdominal segments I– V, ventrite 5 with hind mar-
gin crenulate, aedeagus with phallobase asymmetrical, median
tegminal strut present, parameres distinct, and penis moderately
long and sclerotized. Larvae broadly oval, disc-like with head
completely hidden under pronotum, head prognathous with-
out epicranial stem or frontal arms but with median endoca-
rina, labrum free, frontoclypeal suture absent, stemmata absent,
antenna long three-segmented with sensorium longer than api-
cal antennomere, mandible with well developed mola and ven-
tral accessory process, prostheca hyaline, ventral mouth parts
retracted with large articulating area, hypostomal rods absent,
thoracic and abdominal terga often granulose and asperate
without sclerotized plates, abdominal terga I– VIII with lateral
gland openings, tergum IX without urogomphi, and spiracles
annular.
Included taxa. Botrodus Casey, Murmidius Leach and
Mychocerinus ´
Slipi´
nski.
Cerylonidae Billberg, 1820 s.n.
Cerylonides Billberg, 1820: 47
Type genus. Cerylon Latreille, 1802: 205
Diagnosis. Cerylonidae s.n. are characterized by the follow-
ing combination of features: adults with frontoclypeal suture
absent, corpotentorium with median process, labral rods long
and narrow, maxillary and labial palps aciculate, hindwing
without medial eck or anal lobe, trochanterofemoral attach-
ment elongate, functional spiracles on abdominal segments I– V,
ventrite 5 with hind margin crenulate, aedeagus with tegmen
reduced or absent, parameres very rarely distinct, and penis
moderately long, heavily sclerotized and usually with complex
internal sac. Larvae oval to onisciform with thoracic and abdom-
inal terga variously lobed or expanded, head opisthognathous
hidden under prothorax, epicranial stem and frontal arms absent,
stemmata absent, labrum and clypeus fused, frontoclypeal suture
absent, mouthparts modied with mandibles stylet-like united
in tubular beak or endognathous (Cerylon Latreille); articu-
lating area absent, spiracles annular, and tergite IX without
urogomphi.
Included taxa. The family Cerylonidae s.n. includes Osto-
mopsis Scott, Loebliorylon ´
Slipi´
nski and all taxa recognized in
Ceryloninae by ´
Slipi´
nski (1990).
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 773
Anamorphidae Strohecker, 1953 stat.n.
Anamorphini Strohecker, 1953: 15
Type genus. Anamorphus LeConte, 1878: 445
Diagnosis. This family is characterized by the following
combination of anatomical features: adults with anterior arms
of tentorium separate, corpotentorium present, mesocoxal cavi-
ties closed by the meso- and metaventrite, mesotrochantin con-
cealed, pretarsal claws often modied, tarsi 4-4-4 or 3-3-3
(rarely 3-3-4 or 3-4-4), abdomen with ve pairs of functional
spiracles (functional spiracles absent on segments VI and VII),
and penis broad and stout with endophallic sclerites. Larvae with
body lacking tergal plates or sclerotization, covered with sim-
ple setae, mandibular apex reduced or absent, prostheca absent,
stemmata absent but may be present as a single pair in some
Bystus spp., frontal arms absent or very poorly developed, and
maxillary mala falciform.
Included taxa. Anamorphidae stat.n. include all taxa previ-
ously recognized as Anamorphinae (see Shockley et al., 2009a).
Endomychidae Leach, 1815 s.n.
Endomychides Leach, 1815: 116
Type genus. Endomychus Panzer, 1795: 175
Diagnosis. Endomychidae s.n. are characterized by the
following combination of features: adults with frontoclypeal
suture distinct, straight (arcuate in some Merophysiinae)
anterior arms of tentorium fused medially, corpotentorium
present (most), subantennal groove absent (present in some
Merophysiinae), pronotum often with basal and paired lateral
sulci, visible portion of procoxae subglobular, tarsi 4-4-4 or
3-3-3 (Merophysiinae) usually pseudotrimerous (simple in
Pleganophorinae, Merophysiinae, Leiestinae) (Tomaszewska,
2000), mesocoxal cavities open (closed in Merophysiinae
and Pleganophorinae) mesotrochantin exposed (concealed in
Pleganophorinae, Merophysiinae, Leiestinae), mesoventral
postcoxal openings present, metaventral paired postcoxal open-
ings present (Robertson, 2010), abdomen with ve pairs of
functional spiracles (functional spiracles absent on segments
VI and VII), abdominal ventrite 1 without postcoxal lines,
aedeagus variable, and tegmen with tegminal plate very short
and fused parameres (long tegminal plate present in Leiestinae,
whereas articulated parameres are present in Phymaphora,
Leiestinae). Larvae with frontal arms well developed and
long, typically U- or V-shaped (most), lyriform in Leiestinae,
Pleganophorinae and Merophysiinae (poorly developed in
Xenomycetinae), stemmata hemisphaerical in shape, four pairs
(most), three pairs in Leiestinae and Xenomycetinae, two pairs
in Pleganophorinae, absent in Merophysiinae.
Included taxa. Includes the genus Endomychus and all
taxa previously classied as Danascelinae, Endomychinae,
Epipocinae, Leiestinae, Lycoperdininae, Merophysiinae,
Pleganophorinae and Xenomycetinae (see Shockley et al.,
2009a).
Comments. The present study does not include exemplars
of the subfamilies Danascelinae and Xenomycetinae. Although
the family in its redened constitution is well supported in the
present study, the group remains anatomically heretogeneous.
Endomychinae Leach, 1815: 116 s.n.
Endomychides Leach, 1815: 116
Type genus. Endomychus Panzer, 1795: 175
Diagnosis. Endomychinae s.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing combination of features: adults with body densely
pubescent (glabrous in most species of Endomychus), prono-
tum with broad lateral, raised margins (most) (except for Saula
and Endomychus), tegmen strongly reduced to simple, short
ring encircling penis in half length, with long membranous
at strut (Tomaszewska, 2005), and basal parts of the coxites
deeply excised (Tomaszewska, 2000, 2005) (entire in Endomy-
chus). Larvae anatomically diverse, with abdominal terga pro-
vided with lateral parascoli (absent in Endomychus and Ectomy-
chus) (Tomaszewska & Zaitsev, 2012), thoracic and abdominal
terga with median ecdysial line present, frontal arms U-shaped
(V-shaped in Ectomychus), hypostomal rods absent (present
in Ectomychus and Endomychus), and mola well developed or
replaced by membranous lobe in Endomychus.
Included taxa. Endomychus and all taxa previously classied
as Stenotarsinae are included in this new concept of Endomychi-
nae (see Shockley et al., 2009a).
Comments. Although well supported by the present study,
the newly dened subfamily Endomychinae is anatomically
heterogenous in adult and even more so in larval stages.
However, the combination of characters listed above separates
Endomychinae s.n. from Cyclotominae stat.n. (including most
former Endomychinae).
Cyclotominae Imhoff, 1856 stat.n.
Cyclotomidae Imhoff, 1856: [2] 151
Type genus. Cyclotoma Mulsant, 1851: 71
Diagnosis. Cyclotominae stat.n. are characterized by the
following combination of anatomical features: adults with
body highly convex, brightly coloured and ornamented,
labial prementum entirely sclerotized without a distinct ligula
(Tomaszewska, 2005), pronotal sulci absent or weakly devel-
oped, prosternal process broadly separates front coxae and
extends posteriorly beyond them, penis curled along the proxi-
mal 1
3of its length, sperm duct connected to broad attachment
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
774 J. A. Robertson et al.
between spermatheca and accessory gland (Tomaszewska,
2005).
Included taxa. Cyclotoma,Meilichius, Bolbomorphus and
Eucteanus.
Comments. Cyclotominae stat.n. as circumscribed above are
a distinctive and clearly dened group of Endomychidae. The
larval form is not known for this subfamily.
Mycetaeidae Jacquelin Du Val, 1857 stat.n.
Mycetéides Jacquelin Du Val, 1857: 102
Type genus. Mycetaea Stephens, 1829: 87
Diagnosis. Mycetaeidae stat.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing combination of anatomical features: adults with body
vestiture consisting of long and suberect setae, anterior arms
of tentorium fused medially, corpotentorium present, mentum
with small triangular setose tubercle medially (Tomaszewska,
2005), mesoventral and metaventral postcoxal openings absent
(Robertson, 2010), mesocoxae laterally open, mesotrochantin
concealed, and abdomen with ve pairs of functional spiracles
(functional spiracles absent on segments VI and VII).
Larvae of Mycetaea and Agaricophilus are notably different
anatomically, but both genera share two pairs of stemmata, a
rigid tooth-like prostheca and frontal arms absent or at most
poorly developed (Tomaszewska, 2005).
Included taxa. Mycetaea and Agaricophilus.
Comments. This family is anatomically heterogeneous.
Agaricophilus was not sampled in the present study so the
monophyly of Mycetaeidae remains in question. As reviewed
by Tomaszewska (2005), Mycetaea and Agaricophilus are quite
different anatomically in both the adult and larval forms, being
united by only a single adult character state: mentum with small
triangular setose tubercle medially.
Eupsilobiidae Casey, 1895 stat.n.
Eupsilobiini Casey, 1895: 452
Type genus. Eupsilobius Casey, 1895: 454 [=Eidoreus Sharp,
1885: 146]
Diagnosis. Eupsilobiidae stat.n. are characterized by the fol-
lowing combination of features: adults with frontoclypeal suture
present (absent in Chileolobius), subantennal grooves short,
anterior arms of tentorium widely divergent and narrowly fused
medially, antennal club comprising one or two antennomeres,
procoxae internally closed and externally widely open, anterior
edge of the mesoventrite on a different plane as the metaven-
trite, mesocoxae laterally open, mesoventral and metaventral
postcoxal openings absent, metacoxae transverse, metaventral
postcoxal lines moderately to well developed (absent in Natal-
inus and Ibicarella), tarsal formula 4-4-4, abdomen with ve
pairs of functional spiracles (functional spiracles absent on seg-
ments VI and VII), abdominal ventrite 1 with postcoxal lines,
penis elongate, slender and curved with the base sclerotized
and T-shaped, tegmen complex but with parameres fused, and
sperm duct modied, partly sclerotized and inated or twisted
(Tomaszewska, 2011). Larvae with body covered with frayed
setae, a rigid tooth-like prostheca, two pairs of stemmata, and
frontal arms absent (Tomaszewska, 2005).
Included taxa. Cerasommatidia Brèthes, Chileolobius
Pakaluk & ´
Slipi´
nski, Eidoreus Sharp, Evolocera Sharp,
Ibicarella Pakaluk & ´
Slipi´
nski, Microxenus Wollaston and
Natalinus Tomaszewska.
Comments. Eupsilobiidae shares many anatomical features
with Coccinellidae and Endomychidae; the combination of
characters listed above distinguishes Eupsilobiidae from both
families.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of this article under the DOI reference:
10.1111/syen.12138
Table S 1 . Terminal taxa and genes used in this study.
Taxonomy follows classication prior to changes introduced
in the text. The subfamily or tribe is given when relevant.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted in partial fulllment of PhD degree
for the senior author JAR in the Department of Entomology,
University of Georgia. JAR thanks members of his doctoral
advisory committee, JVM, Kenneth Ross and Mark Farmer, and
expresses particular appreciation to co-authors JVM, AS and
MFW without whom this work would not have been possible.
JAR thanks past and present members of the McHugh, Whiting
and Wendy Moore labsfor continued support. Michael Caterino,
Matthew Gimmel and one anonymous reviewer provided helpful
comments on an earlier version of this paper. We express
special gratitude to our generous colleagues who preserved
specimens for molecular work and made these specimens
available for this study, especially Roger Booth, Seth Bybee,
Michael Caterino, Andy Cline, Anthony Cognato, Richard
Leschen, Geoff Monteith, Al Newton, Rudi Schuh, Paul Skelley,
Alexey Solodovnikov, Gavin Svenson, Margaret Thayer and
Michael Thomas. Al Newton and Don Chandler kindly provided
advice regarding nomenclatural issues. Pavel Krásensk´
y, Luigi
Lenzini, Walter Piegler and Alex Wild kindly granted use
of their wonderful photographs of beetles. Special thanks go
to Mark Miller and the CIPRES Science Gateway. This work
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 775
was supported by N.S.F. PEET grant DEB-0329115 (to JVM,
KBM and MFW). Additional support was provided by N.S.F.
ATOL grant DEB-0531768 (to B. Farrell, D. Maddison, MFW;
subaward JVM), N.S.F. B.S.&I. grant DEB-0417180 (to M.
Blackwell, JVM, and S.O. Suh), N.S.F DEB-1256976 (to W.
Moore and JAR), a Dissertation Completion Award given by
the Graduate School at the University of Georgia (to JAR), a
grant from the H. H. Ross Memorial Fund (to JAR), and the
Department of Entomology, University of Georgia. The authors
declare no conict of interest.
References
Bocak, L., Barton, C., Crampton-Platt, A., Chesters, D., Ahrens, D. &
Vogler, A.P. (2014) Building the Coleoptera tree-of-life for >8000
species: composition of public DNA data and t with Linnaean
classication. Systematic Entomology,39, 97– 110.
Bouchard, P., Bousquet, Y., Davies, A.E. et al. (2011) Family-group
names in Coleoptera (Insecta). ZooKeys,88, 1– 895.
Burakowski,B.& ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2000) The larvae of Leiestinae with
notes on the phylogeny of Endomychidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea).
Annales Zoologici,50, 559– 573.
Cline, A.R. (2010) Smicripidae Horn, 1879. Handbuch der
zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta
Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology and
Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel
and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 407–411. W. DeGruyter, Berlin.
Cline, A.R. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2010) Discolomatidae Horn, 1878. Hand-
buch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda:
Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology
and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G.
Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 435 442. W. DeGruyter, Berlin.
Cline, A.R., Smith, T., Miller, K., Moulton, M. & Whiting, M. (2014)
Higher phylogenetics of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial and
tribal classications, and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Systematic Entomology,39, 758– 772.
Crowson, R.A. (1955) The Natural Classication of the Families of
Coleoptera. Nathaniel Lloyd, London. [1967 reprint, 187 pp., E.W.
Classey, Hampton].
Crowson, R.A. (1960) The phylogeny of Coleoptera. Annual Review of
Entomology,5, 111– 134.
Crowson, R.A. (1964a) A review of the classication of Cleroidea
(Coleoptera), with descriptions of two new genera of Peltidae and of
several new larvaltypes. The Transactions of the Royal Entomological
Society of London,116, 275– 327.
Crowson, R.A. (1964b) A new genus of Australian Clavicorn
Coleoptera. Probably of a new family. Proceedings of the Linnean
Society of New South Wales,89, 241 245.
Crowson, R.A. (1966) Further observations on Peltidae (Coleoptera:
Cleroidea), with denitions of a new subfamily and four new genera.
Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Series B,
35, 119– 127.
Crowson, R.A. (1970) Further observations on Cleroidea (Coleoptera).
Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Series B,
39, 1– 20.
Crowson, R.A. (1973) Further observations on Phloeostichidae and
Cavognathidae, with denition of new genera from Australia and New
Zealand. The Coleopterists Bulletin,27, 54– 62.
Crowson, R.A. (1981) The Biology of Coleoptera, 1st edn. Academic
Press, London.
Crowson, R.A. (1990) A new genus of Boganiidae (Coleoptera)
from Australia, with observations on glandular openings, cycad
associations and geographical distribution in the family. Journal of
the Australian Entomological Society,29, 91– 99.
Dajoz, R. (1980) Insectes Coléoptères: Colydiidae et Cerylonidae.
Faune de Madagascar,54, 1– 265.
Edgar, R.C. (2004) MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with
high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acid Research,32,
1792– 1797.
van Emden, F. (1932) Die Larven von Discoloma cassideum Reitt. (Col.
Colyd.) und Skawarraia paradoxa Lac. (Col. Chrysom.). Zoologis-
cher Anzeiger,101, 10– 17.
van Emden, F. (1938) Beschreibung der Larve von Notiophygus Hessei
John. Arbeiten Über Morphologische und Taxonomische Entomologie
aus Berlin-Dahlem,5, 132– 134.
Escalona, H.E., & ´
Slipi´
nski, A. (2012) Generic revision and phylogeny
of Microweiseinae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Systematic Entomol-
ogy,37, 125–171.
Farrell, B.D. (1998) “Inordinate fondness” explained: why are there so
many beetles? Science,281, 555– 559.
Gimmel, M.L. (2013) Genus-level revision of the family Phalacridae
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Zootaxa,3605, 1– 147.
Giorgi, J.A., Vandenberg, N.J., McHugh, J.V. et al. (2009) The evo-
lution of food preferences in Coccinellidae. Biological Control,51,
215– 231.
González, G. (2008) Lista y distribución geográca de especies de
Coccinellidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) presentes en Chile. Boletín del
Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile,57, 77– 107.
Gunter, N.L., Leavengood, J.M., Bartlett, J.S., Chapman, E.G. &
Cameron, S.L. (2013) A molecular phylogeny of the checkered
beetles and a description of Epiclininae a new subfamily (Coleoptera:
Cleroidea: Cleridae). Systematic Entomology,38, 626– 636.
Gunter, N.L., Levkaniˇ
cová, Z., Weir, T.H., ´
Slipi´
nski, A., Cameron, S.L.
& Bocak, L. (2014) Towards a phylogeny of darkling beetles, the
Tenebrionoidea (Coleoptera). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolu-
tion,79, 305– 312.
Haran, J., Timmermans, M.J.T.N. & Vogler, A.P. (2013) Mitogenome
sequences stabilize the phylogenetics of weevils (Curculionoidea) and
establish the monophyly of larval ectophagy. Molecular Phylogenet-
ics and Evolution,67, 156– 166.
Hartley, C.S. & McHugh, J.V. (2010) Latridiidae Erichson, 1842. Hand-
buch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda:
Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles. Vol. 2: Morphology
and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G.
Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 481–486. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Hartley, C., Andrews, F. & McHugh, J.V. (2008) A Revision of
Akalyptoischion (Coleoptera: Latridiidae), Vaurie Monograph Series.
Coleopterists Society/ Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
Hunt, T., Bergsten, J., Levkanicova, Z. et al. (2007) A comprehensive
phylogeny of beetles reveals the evolutionary origins of a superradia-
tion. Science,318, 1913– 1916.
Jelínek, J. & Cline, A.R. (2010) Kateretidae Erichson in Agassiz,
1846. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV:
Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2:
Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B.
Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 386 390. W. De
Gruyter, Berlin.
Jelínek, J., Carlton, C., Cline, A.R. & Leschen, R.A.B. (2010) Nitidul-
idae Latreille, 1802. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,
Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Bee-
tles, Vol. 2: Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by
R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 390 407. W.
De Gruyter, Berlin.
Katoh, K. & Toh, H. (2008) Recent developments in the MAFFT
multiple sequence alignment program. Briengs in Bioinformatics,9,
276– 285.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
776 J. A. Robertson et al.
Kergoat, G.J., Soldati, L., Clamens, A.-L. et al. (2014) Higher-level
molecular phylogeny of darkling beetles (Coleoptera, Tenebri-
onoidea, Tenebrionidae). Systematic Entomology,39, 486–499.
Kirejtshuk, A.G. (2000) On origin and early evolution of the superfamily
Cucujoidea (Coleoptera, Polyphaga). Comments on the family Heloti-
dae. The Kharkov Entomological Society Gazette,8, 8– 38.
Kolibáˇ
c, J. & Leschen, R.A.B. (2010) Trogossitidae Fabricius, 1801.
Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthro-
poda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphol-
ogy and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G.
Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 241–247. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Kováˇ
r, I. (1996) Phylogeny. Ecology of Coccinellidae (ed. by I. Hodek
and A. Honek), pp. 19– 31. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Lanfear, R., Calcott, B., Ho, S.Y.W. & Guindon, S. (2012) Partition-
Finder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution
models for phylogenetic analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution,
29, 1695– 1701.
Latreille, P.A. (1807) Genera crustaceorum et insectorum secundum
ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, inconibus exemplisque
plurimis explicata. Tomus Tertius. A. Koenig, Parisis et Argentorati.
Lawrence, J.F. (1977) The family Pterogeniidae, with notes on the
phylogeny of the Heteromera. The Coleopterists Bulletin,31, 25– 56.
Lawrence, J.F. (1991) Corylophidae (Cucujoidea) (=Orthoperi-
dae). Immature Insects,Vol.2(ed. by F.W. Stehr), pp. 495– 497.
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Lawrence, J.F. & Leschen, R.A.B. (2010) 9.1. Phloiophilidae Kiesen-
wetter, 1863. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,
Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera,
Beetles. Vol. 2: Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed.
by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 239 241.
W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F. Jr. (1982) Evolution and classication of
beetles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,13, 261– 290.
Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F. Jr. (1995) Families and subfamilies
of Coleoptera (with selected genera, notes and references, and data
on family-group names). Biology, Phylogeny, and Classication of
Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson
(ed. by J. Pakaluk and S.A. ´
Slipi´
nski), pp. 779– 1006. Muzeum i
Instytut Zoologii Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa.
Lawrence, J.F. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2010) 10.13. Phloeostichidae Reitter,
1911. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV:
Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles. Vol. 2:
Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B.
Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 340 346. W. De
Gruyter, Berlin.
Lawrence, J.F. & Stephan, K.H. (1975) The North American Cery-
lonidae (Coleoptera: Clavicornia). Psyche,82, 131– 166.
Lawrence, J.F., Hastings, A.M., Dallwitz, M.J., Paine, T.A. & Zurcher,
E.J. (1999) Beetles of the World: A Key and Information System for
Families and Subfamilies. CD-ROM, Version 1.0 for MS-Windows.
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Lawrence, J.F., ´
Slipi´
nski, A., Seago, A., Thayer, M., Newton, A. &
Marvaldi, A. (2011) Phylogeny of the Coleoptera based on adult and
larval morphology. Annales Zoologici,61, 1– 217.
Leschen, R.A.B. (2010) 9. Cleroidea Latreille, 1802. Handbuch der
zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta
Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology and Sys-
tematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and
J.F. Lawrence), pp. 337–239. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Leschen, R.A.B. (2003) Erotylidae (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cucujoidea):
Phylogeny and Review. Fauna of New Zealand,47, 1 –108.
Leschen, R.A.B. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2010) Chapter 10. Cucujoidea,
Latreille, 1802: Introduction, Phylogeny. Handbuch der zoolo-
gie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta
Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology and
Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel
and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 281–282. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Leschen, R.A.B., Lawrence, J.F. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2005) Classication
of basal Cucujoidea (Coleoptera: Polyphaga), with a cladistic anal-
ysis, description of new genera and species, and keys to adults and
larvae of cucujoid families. Invertebrate Systematics,19,17–73.
Leschen, R.A.B., Gimmel, M. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2010) Chapter 10.24.
Cyclaxyridae Gimmel, Leschen & ´
Slipi´
nski, 2009. Handbuch der
zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta
Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology and Sys-
tematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and
J.F. Lawrence), pp. 383 386. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Lord, N.P. & McHugh, J.V. (2013) A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus
Deretaphrus Newman (Coleoptera: Bothrideridae). The Coleopterists
Society Monograph Number 12, The Coleopterists Bulletin,67,
1– 107.
Lord, N.P., Hartley, C.S., Lawrence, J.F., McHugh, J.V., Whiting, M.F.
& Miller, K.B. (2010) Phylogenetic analysis of the minute brown
scavenger beetles (Coleoptera: Latridiidae), and recognition of a new
beetle family Akalyptoischiidae fam. n. (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea).
Systematic Entomology,35, 753– 763.
Maddison, W.P. & Maddison, D.R. (2011) Mesquite: A Modular System
for Evolutionary Analysis. Version 2.75 [WWW document]. URL
http://mesquiteproject.org. [accessed on 1 January 2014].
Magro, A., Lecompte, E., Magné, F., Hemptinne, J.L. & Crouau-Roy, B.
(2010) Phylogeny of ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): are the
subfamilies monophyletic? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,
54, 833– 848.
Marvaldi, A.E., Duckett, C.N., Kjer, K.M. & Gillespie, J.J. (2009)
Structural alignment of 18S and 28S rDNA sequences provides
insights into phylogeny of Phytophaga (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea
and Chrysomeloidea). Zoologica Scripta,38, 63– 77.
McElrath, T.C., Robertson, J.A., Thomas, M.C., Osborne, J., Miller,
K.B., McHugh, J.V. & Whiting, M.F. (2015) A molecular phyloge-
netic study of Cucujidae s.l. (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Systematic
Entomology. DOI: 10.1111/syen.12133.
McHugh, J.V. (1993) A revision of Eurysphindus LeConte (Coleoptera:
Cucujoidea: Sphindidae) and a review of sphindid classication and
phylogeny. Systematic Entomology,18, 57– 92.
McKenna, D.D. (2014) Molecular phylogenetics and evolution of
Coleoptera. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol.
IV: Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 3:
Morphology and Systematics (Phytophaga) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen
and R.G. Beutel), pp. 1– 10. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
McKenna, D.D. & Farrell, B.D. (2009) Beetles (Coleoptera). The
Timetree of Life (ed. by S.B. Hedges and S. Kumar), pp. 278–289.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McKenna, D.D., Sequeira, A.S., Marvaldi, A.E. & Farrell, B.D. (2009)
Temporal lags and overlap in the diversication of weevils and
owering plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America,106, 7083–7088.
McKenna, D.D., Farrell, B.D., Caterino, M.S. et al. (2014) Phylogeny
and evolution of Staphyliniformia and Scarabaeiformia: forest litter
as a stepping-stone for diversication of non-phytophagous beetles.
Systematic Entomology,40, 35– 60.
Miller, M.A., Pfeiffer, W. & Schwartz, T. (2010) Creating the CIPRES
Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceed-
ings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE).New
Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 1– 8.
Miyatake, M. (1988) A revision of the genus Monocoryna Gorham, with
proposal of a new tribe (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Transactions of
the Shikoku Entomological Society,19, 25– 46.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
Systematics of Cucujoidea and Coccinelloidea 777
Oberprieler, R.G., Marvaldi, A.E. & Anderson, R.S. (2007) Weevils,
weevils, weevils everywhere. Zootaxa,1668, 491–520.
Pakaluk, J. (1986) Description of an Anagaricophilus (Coleoptera:
Endomychidae) larva from Madagascar. Proceedings of the Entomo-
logical Society of Washington,88, 313 315.
Pakaluk, J. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (1990) New genera and species of
the Neotropical Eupsilobiinae (Endomychidae). Revue suisse de
Zoologie,97, 705– 728.
Pal, T.K. & Lawrence, J.F. (1986) A new genus and subfamily
of mycophagous Bothrideridae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) from the
Indo-Australian Region, with notes on related families. Journal of the
Australian Entomological Society,25, 185– 210.
Pic, M. (1926) Pars 87. Phloeophilidae, Rhadalidae, Prionoceridae.
Coleopterorum Catalogus. W. Junk, Berlin.11 pp.
Roberts, H. (1980) Descriptions of the developmental stages of Sosy-
lus spp. (Coleoptera: Colydiidae) from New Guinea, parasites and
predators of ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Platypodidae). Bulletin of
Entomological Research,70, 245– 252.
Robertson, J.A. (2010) Phylogenetic systematics of the cerylonid series
of Cucujoidea (Coleoptera). PhD Thesis, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
Robertson, J.A., McHugh, J.V. & Whiting, M.F. (2004) A molecular
phylogenetic analysis of the pleasing fungus beetles (Coleoptera:
Erotylidae): evolution of colour patterns, gregariousness and
mycophagy. Systematic Entomology,29, 173– 187.
Robertson, J.A., Whiting, M.F. & McHugh, J.V. (2008) Searching
for natural lineages within the Cerylonid Series (Coleoptera: Cucu-
joidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,46, 193– 205.
Robertson, J.A., ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A., Hiatt, K., Miller, K.B., Whiting, M.F.
& McHugh, J.V. (2013) Molecules, morphology and minute hooded
beetles: a phylogenetic study with implications for the evolution and
classication of Corylophidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Systematic
Entomology,38, 209– 232.
Sasaji, H. (1968) Phylogeny of the family Coccinellidae (Coleoptera).
Etizenia, Occasional Publications of the Biological Laboratory,
Fukui University,35, 1– 37.
Sasaji, H. (1978) Notes on the Japanese Endomychidae, with an
establishment of a new subfamily (Coleoptera). Memoirs of the
Faculty of Education, Fukui University Series II (Natural Science),
28, 1– 31.
Sasaji, H. (1987) On the higher classication of the Endomychidae and
their relative families (Coleoptera). Entomological Journal of Fukui,
1, 44– 51.
Sasaji, H. (1990) The family Mychothenidae of Japan (Coleoptera).
Esakia, Special Issue,1, 65– 75.
Seago, A.E., Giorgi, J.A., Li, J. & ´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2011) Phylogeny,
classication and evolution of ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinel-
lidae) based on simultaneous analysis of molecular and morphological
data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,60, 137– 151.
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. (1966) A new family of cucujoid beetles,
based on six Australian and one New Zealand genera. The Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, Zoology, Botany, and Geology (Series
13),9, 61– 85.
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. (1969a) Further observations on the
family Boganiidae, with denition of two new families Cavognathidae
and Phloeostichidae. Journal of Natural History,3, 571– 590.
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. (1969b) On a new family of Clavicornia
(Coleoptera) and a new genus of Languriidae. Proceedings of the
Royal Entomological Society of London, Series B: Taxonomy,38,
125– 131.
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. (1971) A review of the classication
of the family Languriidae (Coleoptera: Clavicornia) and the place
of Languriidae in the natural system of Clavicornia. Memoirs of the
Zoological Survey of India,15, 1– 42.
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. (1973) A review of the classication
of Cerylonidae (Coleoptera, Clavicornia). Transactions of the Royal
Entomological Society of London,124, 365– 446.
Sharp, D. & Muir, F. (1912) The comparative anatomy of the male
genital tube in Coleoptera. Transactions of the Royal Entomological
Society of London,1912, 477– 642, pls. 42–78.
Shockley, F.W., Tomaszewska, K.W. & McHugh, J.V. (2009a) An
annotated checklist of the Handsome Fungus Beetles of the world
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Endomychidae). Zootaxa,1999,1113.
Shockley, F.W., Tomaszewska, K.W. & McHugh, J.V. (2009b) A review
of the natural history of the Handsome Fungus Beetles (Coleoptera:
Cucujoidea: Endomychidae). Insecta Mundi,72, 1– 24.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (1990) A monograph of the world Cerylonidae
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) Part I introduction and higher classi-
cation. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria,
33, 1– 273.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (1992) Larinotinae, a new subfamily of Trogossitidae
(Coleoptera) with notes on the constitution of Trogossitidae and
related families of Cleroidea. Revue suisse de Zoologie,99, 439– 463.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. (2007) Australian Ladybird Beetles (Coleoptera: Coc-
cinellidae): Their Biology and Classication. Australian Biological
Resources Study, Canberra.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. & Lawrence, J.F. (2010) 10.29. Cerylonidae Billberg,
1820. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV:
Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2:
Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B.
Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 411 422. W. De
Gruyter, Berlin.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. & Pakaluk, J. (1991) Problems in the classication
of the Cerylonid series of Cucujoidea (Coleoptera). Advances in
Coleopterology (ed. by M. Zunino, X. Belles and M. Blas), pp. 79– 88.
European Association of Coleopterology, Silvestrelli and Cappelletto,
Torino, Barcelona.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A. & Pal, T.K. (1985) Sysolini, new tribe of Bothriderinae
(Coleoptera, Colydiidae), with a description of a new species of
Sysolus from Viet Nam. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne,55, 39– 44.
´
Slipi´
nski, A. & Tomaszewska, W. (2010) Alexiidae Imhoff, 1861. Hand-
buch der Zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda:
Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology
and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G.
Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 432–434. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
´
Slipi´
nski, A., Lawrence, J.F. & Tomaszewska, W. (2001) The placement
of Periptyctus Blackburn in Corylophidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)
with descriptions of a new genus and subfamily. Annales Zoologici,
51, 311– 317.
´
Slipi´
nski, A., Tomaszewska, W. & Lawrence, J.F. (2009) Phylogeny
and classication of Corylophidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) with
descriptions of new genera and larvae. Systematic Entomology,34,
409– 433.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A., Tomaszewska, W. & Lawrence, J.F. (2010a) 10.16.
Myraboliidae Lawrence and Britton, 1991. Handbuch der zoolo-
gie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta Teil-
band/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles. Vol. 2: Morphology and Systemat-
ics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F.
Lawrence), pp. 354– 357. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
´
Slipi´
nski, S.A., Lord, N.P. & Lawrence, J.F. (2010b) 10.28. Bothrideri-
dae Erichson, 1845. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,
Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Bee-
tles, Vol. 2: Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by
R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 411 422. W.
De Gruyter, Berlin.
Stamatakis, A. (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: Maximum likelihood-based
phylogenetic analysis with thousands of taxa and mixed models.
Bioinformatics,22, 2688– 2690.
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
778 J. A. Robertson et al.
Stamatakis, A., Ludwig, T. & Meier, H. (2005) RAxML-III: a fast pro-
gram for maximum likelihood-based inference of large phylogenetic
trees. Bioinformatics,21, 456– 463.
Stamatakis, A., Hoover, P. & Rougemont, J. (2008) A rapid bootstrap
algorithm for the RAxML Web-Servers. Systematic Biology,57,
758– 771.
Stephan, K.H. (1968) Notes on additional distribution and ecology of
Euxestus punctatus LeC. (Coleoptera: Colydiidae). The Coleopterists
Bulletin,22, 19.
Strohecker, H.F. (1953) Coleoptera. Fam. Endomychidae, Fascicle
210. Genera Insectorum (ed. by P. Wytsman), pp. 1– 140. L.
Desmet-Verteneuil, Brussels.
Thomas, M.C. (1984a) A new Neotropical genus and species of rostrate
Laemophloeinae (Coleoptera: Cucujidae) with discussion of the
systematic position of the subfamily. The Coleopterists Bulletin,38,
67– 83.
Thomas, M.C. (1984b) A new species of apterous Telephanus
(Coleoptera: Silvanidae) with a discussion of phylogenetic rela-
tionships of the Silvanidae. The Coleopterists Bulletin,38, 38– 45.
Thomas, M.C. (1993) Glands in larval Cryptolestes (Coleoptera: Lae-
mophloeidae) and their taxonomic signicance. Mola,3,23.
Thomas, M.C. (2003) The Brontini of the world: a generic review
of the tribe (Coleoptera: Silvanidae: Brontinae). Insecta Mundi,17,
1– 31.
Thomas, M.C. & Leschen, R.A.B. (2010a) Cucujidae Latreille, 1802.
Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthro-
poda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Mor-
phology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen,
R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 350 354. W. De Gruyter,
Berlin.
Thomas, M.C. & Leschen, R.A.B. (2010b) Silvanidae Kirby, 1837.
Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthro-
poda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphol-
ogy and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G.
Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 346–350. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Thomas, M.C. & Nearns, E.H. (2008) A new genus of telephanine
Silvanidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea), with a diagnosis of the tribe and
key to genera. Insecta Mundi,0048, 1– 14.
Tomaszewska, K.W. (2000) Morphology, phylogeny and classication
of adult Endomychidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Annales Zoologici,
50, 449– 558.
Tomaszewska, W. (2004) A review of the genus Erotendomychus Lea
(Coleoptera: Endomychidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique
de France (N.S.),40, 395–419.
Tomaszewska, K.W. (2005) Phylogeny and generic classication of the
subfamily Lycoperdininae with a re-analysis of the family Endomy-
chidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Annales Zoologici,55 (Suppl. 1),
1– 172.
Tomaszewska, W. (2010) Endomychidae Leach, 1815. Handbuch der
zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta
Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles, Vol. 2: Morphology and Sys-
tematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed. by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and
J.F. Lawrence), pp. 442 454. W. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Tomaszewska, W. (2011) On African Eupsilobiinae (Coleoptera:
Endomychidae) with descriptions of new genus and species. Journal
of Insect Science,11, 1– 14.
Tomaszewska, W. (2012) Descriptions of new Neotropical Lycoperdini-
nae (Coleoptera: Endomychidae) and their phylogenetic placement.
Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France,48, 8–17.
Tomaszewska, W. & ´
Slipi´
nski, A. (2010) Hobartiidae Sen Gupta
& Crowson, 1966. Handbuch der zoologie/Handbook of Zoology,
Band/Vol. IV: Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband/Part 38. Coleoptera,
Beetles. Vol. 2: Morphology and Systematics (Polyphaga partim) (ed.
by R.A.B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel and J.F. Lawrence), pp. 324 –327. W.
De Gruyter, Berlin.
Tomaszewska, W. & Zaitsev, A. (2012) Larva of Endomychus basalis
Gorham (Coleoptera, Endomychidae, Stenotarsinae) and its phyloge-
netic placement. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift,59,8190.
Vaidya, G., Lohman, D. & Meier, R. (2011) SequenceMatrix: concate-
nation software for the fast assembly of multi-gene datasets with char-
acter set and codon information. Cladistics,27, 171– 180.
Vandenberg, N.J. (2002) Coccinellidae Latreille 1807. American Bee-
tles,Vol. 2: Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea (ed.
by R.H. Arnett Jr., M.C. Thomas, P.E. Skelley and J.H. Frank), p. 861.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Vandenberg, N.J. & Perez-Gelabert, D.E. (2007) Redescription of the
Hispaniolan ladybird genus Bura Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinelli-
dae) and justication for its transfer from Coccidulinae to Sticholo-
tidinae. Zootaxa,1586, 39– 46.
W
¸
egrzynowicz, P. (2002) Morphology, phylogeny and classication
of the family Erotylidae based on adult characters (Coleoptera:
Cucujoidea). Genus,13, 435– 504.
Young, D.K. (2002) Lymexylidae. American Beetles,Vol. 2: Polyphaga:
Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea (ed. by R.H. Arnett Jr., M.C.
Thomas, P.E. Skelley and J.H. Frank), pp. 261 –262. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Accepted 27 April 2015
First published online 6 August 2015
© 2015 The Royal Entomological Society, Systematic Entomology,40, 745– 778
... Historically, it is essentially a group of families without clear diagnostic characteristics of other superfamilies (especially Tenebrionoidea; Crowson, 1955;Lawrence and Newton, 1982). The coccinelloid group, once regarded as the cerylonid series, was recognized based on multiple lines of morphological (Crowson, 1955;Ślipiński and Pakaluk, 1991) and molecular evidence (Hunt et al., 2007;Robertson et al., 2008Robertson et al., , 2015Bocak et al., 2014), and formally removed from Cucujoidea and elevated to its superfamilial status by Robertson et al. (2015). The phylogenetic relationships within the remaining Cucujoidea vary dramatically among various morphological and molecular studies (e.g., Leschen et al., 2005;Robertson et al., 2008Robertson et al., , 2015Lawrence et al., 2011;McElrath et al., 2015;Timmermans et al., 2016;Zhang et al., 2018;McKenna et al., 2019). ...
... Historically, it is essentially a group of families without clear diagnostic characteristics of other superfamilies (especially Tenebrionoidea; Crowson, 1955;Lawrence and Newton, 1982). The coccinelloid group, once regarded as the cerylonid series, was recognized based on multiple lines of morphological (Crowson, 1955;Ślipiński and Pakaluk, 1991) and molecular evidence (Hunt et al., 2007;Robertson et al., 2008Robertson et al., , 2015Bocak et al., 2014), and formally removed from Cucujoidea and elevated to its superfamilial status by Robertson et al. (2015). The phylogenetic relationships within the remaining Cucujoidea vary dramatically among various morphological and molecular studies (e.g., Leschen et al., 2005;Robertson et al., 2008Robertson et al., , 2015Lawrence et al., 2011;McElrath et al., 2015;Timmermans et al., 2016;Zhang et al., 2018;McKenna et al., 2019). ...
... The coccinelloid group, once regarded as the cerylonid series, was recognized based on multiple lines of morphological (Crowson, 1955;Ślipiński and Pakaluk, 1991) and molecular evidence (Hunt et al., 2007;Robertson et al., 2008Robertson et al., , 2015Bocak et al., 2014), and formally removed from Cucujoidea and elevated to its superfamilial status by Robertson et al. (2015). The phylogenetic relationships within the remaining Cucujoidea vary dramatically among various morphological and molecular studies (e.g., Leschen et al., 2005;Robertson et al., 2008Robertson et al., , 2015Lawrence et al., 2011;McElrath et al., 2015;Timmermans et al., 2016;Zhang et al., 2018;McKenna et al., 2019). Although some molecular analyses either based on a few gene markers or a larger dataset (95 nuclear protein-coding genes) under a site-homogeneous substitution model supported a monophyletic Cucujoidea sensu Robertson et al. (2015), recent studies using transcriptomic data (McKenna et al., 2019) or a better-fitting site-heterogeneous model (Cai et al., 2022) have consistently demonstrated the paraphyly of Cucujoidea sensu Robertson et al. (2015). ...