Molecular phylogenetic assessment of the tribal classification of Lamiinae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

Abstract

Lamiinae is the most diverse subfamily of longhorned beetles, with about 20,000 described species classified into 80 tribes. Most of the tribes of Lamiinae were proposed during the 19th century and the suprageneric classification of the subfamily has never been assessed under phylogenetic criteria. In this study, we present the first tribal-level phylogeny of Lamiinae, inferred from 130 terminals (representing 46 tribes, prioritizing generic type species of the tribes) and fragments of two mitochondrial and three nuclear markers (cox1, rrnL, Wg, CPS and LSU; 5,024 aligned positions in total). Analyses were performed under Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian methods based on two datasets: a dataset including all taxa available for the study, and a reduced dataset with 111 terminals where taxa only contributing with mitochondrial markers were excluded from the matrix. The monophyly of Lamiinae was corroborated in three of the four analyses and 11 of the 35 tribes with more than one species represented in the analyses were consistently recovered as monophyletic. However, 15 tribes were not retrieved as monophyletic, requiring a revision of their boundaries: Acanthocinini, Acanthoderini, Agapanthiini, Apomecynini, Desmiphorini, Dorcaschematini, Enicodini, Hemilophini, Monochamini, Onciderini, Parmenini, Phytoeciini, Pogonocherini, Pteropliini and Saperdini. Based on these results, when strong support values for paraphyly were recovered, we argue a number of tribe synonymies, including Moneilemini as synonym of Acanthocinini; Onocephalini of Onciderini; Dorcadionini, Gnomini, Monochamini and Rhodopinini of Lamiini; and Obereini and Phytoeciini of Saperdini. Other taxonomic changes proposed in this study based on the criterion of monophyly and supported by morphological characters include the transfer of Tricondyloides and Stenellipsis to Enicodini, and of Dylobolus stat. rest., which is removed as subgenus of Mecas and restituted as genus, to Hemilophini. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that Ostedes and Neohoplonotus should be removed from Acanthocinini and Parmenini, respectively, and Colobotheini should be redefined to encompass several genera currently placed in Acanthocinini.