Abstract
Bayesian and parsimony phylogenetic analyses of combined and partitioned datasets of molecular (partial sequences of 28S, wg, COI, and CAD) and morphological (51 characters of adults) data for exemplar taxa of five outgroup and 76 ingroup abacetine carabids resulted in a monophyletic Loxandrina Erwin & Sims, 1984 that is split into Australian and American clades. The genusLoxandrusLeConte, 1853 as previously delimited is not monophyletic relative to numerous genus-level taxa in Abacetini Chaudoir, 1873 and is restricted to a subgenus of North American species. A reclassification and nomenclatural changes for the subtribe that are consistent with the phylogeny are provided. Three genera are removed from Loxandrina:AulacopodusBritton, 1940 moved to Pterostichini Bonelli, 1810;CosmodiscusSloane, 1907 andTiferoniaDarlington, 1962 moved to Abacetina. Based on the phylogenetic relationships and nomenclatural priority only four genera are recognized in Loxandrina:CerabiliaLaporte, 1867,ZeoderaLaporte, 1867,PediomorphusChaudoir, 1878, andOxycrepisReiche, 1843. All other previously recognized genera are treated as subgenera. The classification change created eight secondary homonyms that are resolved by the proposal of the following:Oxycrepis gebi, replacement name forO. balli(Straneo, 1993);O. amatona, replacement name forO. matoana(Straneo, 1993);O. xiproma, replacement name forO. proxima(Straneo, 1993);O. rasutulis, replacement name forO. suturalis(Straneo, 1993);O. laevinota, replacement name forO. laevicollis(Bates, 1871);O. arvulap, replacement name forO. parvula(Straneo, 1951);O. noaffine, replacement name forO. affinis(Straneo, 1991);O. alutona, replacement name forO. notula(Tschitschérine, 1901). An overview of the morphological characteristics and diagnostic features of Loxandrina taxa is provided. A key and habitus images are provided for identification of genera and subgenera. The possible historical biogeography of the group is discussed in light of their phylogenetic relationships and past geological events.
Highlights
For more than 100 years, coleopterists such as Bates (1872), Casey (1918), and van Emden (1949), have recognized the similarity among taxa related to Loxandrus LeConte, 1853, though no formal grouping was implemented in classifications by these early authors
Clades corresponding to recognized genera and subgenera that are supported by the sequence data only analysis are indicated with a diamond in figure 1
The lack of resolution is expected given the small number of characters; Pediomorphus, Cerabilia s.l., Cerabilia (Biliacera) and clades within Biliacera were all found to be monophyletic in the strict consensus of the set of most parsimonious trees
Summary
For more than 100 years, coleopterists such as Bates (1872), Casey (1918), and van Emden (1949), have recognized the similarity among taxa related to Loxandrus LeConte, 1853, though no formal grouping was implemented in classifications by these early authors. Most publications maintained these constituent genera within a large, shifting concept of Pterostichini. It was not until Moore (1965) recognized an informal group of Australian and New Zealand genera as the Loxandrus series within his concept of Pterostichinae that a more formalized approach to the definition a higher taxon began. Allen and Ball (1980) enumerated the generic composition of the Loxandrus series, expanding Moore’s concept to include North and South American taxa.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
