The author mentions his theory of monophyletic evolution of the heteromeroid aedeagus in the insect order Coleoptera and defines Heteromera as Cucujoidea with heteromeroid aedeagus, whereby a Cucujoid beetle with heteromeroid aedeagus or its modification is not a member of Clavicornia but of Heteromera and vice versa. 17 primitive and derivative alternatives of characters of adults and larvae of the Heteromera are mentioned, of which the primitive characters are also shared with the Clavicornia, logically due to ancestry. The presence (+). absence (−) or gap in our knowledge (?) of the following 44 larval characters of the 33 families of Heteromera (arranged alphabetically: Anthicidae — including Cononotidae, Eurygeniidae and Pedilidae —, Boridae. Byturidae, Cephaloidae, Cisidae or Ciidae, Colydiidae, Dacoderidae, Diphyllidae or Biphyllidae, Hemipeplidae including Mycteridae, Inopeplidae, Melandryidae, Meloidae, Merycidae, Monommidae, Mordellidae, Mycetophagidae, Nilionidae, Oedemeridae, Othniidae or Elacatidae, Perimylopidae, Prostomidae, Pterogeniidae, Pyrochroidae, Pythidae, Rhipiphoridae, Salpingidae, Scraptiidae including Anaspis, Synchroidae. Tenebrionidae — including Alleculidae, Heterotarsidae. Lagriidae and Petriidae —, Tetratomidae, Trictenotomidae, Xylophilidae or Aderidae, and Zopheridae) is compared under 11 headings (mode of life and habits, shape, size, coloration. vestiture and armature, head, sense organs, mouth parts, thorax, abdomen and spiracles) numbered as follows: 1, mode of life and habits; 2, shape; 3, size; 4, coloration; 5, setae (chaetotaxy); 6, prognathous or hypognathous; 7, coronal suture and frontal suture, latter lyre-shaped or not (together = median epicranial suture): 8. clypeal or epistomal or frontoclypeal suture; 9, clypeolabral suture; 10, epipharynx; 11, hypostomal margins or rods: 12, hypopharyngeal sclerome; 13, ocelli; 14, sensory appendix or sensorium or tactile papilla or accessory process of antenna: 15, third antennal segment more than half longer than second or less; 16, number of antennal segments; 17, antennal insertion separated from base of mandible by a visible strip or not; 18, mandibles symmetrical or asymmetrical; 19, mandibular mola present; 20, mola asperate or with tubercles; 21, armament of mola extending ventrally; 22, mola with fine transverse ridges; 23, fleshy or setose post-molar appendage and penicillus; 24, retinaculum; 25, at least one mandible with multi-dentate or multi-lobed cutting edge along inner dorsal margin; 26, maxillary cardo divided or bipartite; 27, maxillary mala toothed; 28, mala with uncus (non-dentate. spine or hook-like); 29, ligula present or absent; 30, gula distinct from submentum and not united; 31, number of leg segments and claws; 32, prothorax longer than meso- or meta-thorax; 33, prothorax wider than others; 34, abdominal segments 10 or 9; 35, ninth sternite with asperities; 36, ninth sternite composed of a series of small plates; 37, ninth sternite broad and flat, plate-like: 38, urogomphi present; 39, complex or branched urogomphi; 40, urogomphi widely separated at base; 41, tenth sternite produced into 1 or 2 pseudopods; 42, spiracles annular-biforous; 43, spiracles cribriform; and 44, spiracles provided with a series of small peripheral tubes or not. A note on the pupa of Anthicidae is also included. The gaps indicated in the paper need to be filled. In every family (at any level), the primitive and derivative groups, the primitive and derivative characters, the direction in which the transformation series is to be read (and why) must be discovered and deduced according to the known principles discussed by the author elsewhere. In a phylogenetic classification, the larvae and adults (all structural and nonstructural characters) of the primitive groups are more important than those of derivative groups as indicators of relationships and ancestries at any level in Biology. R. A. Crowson's view that the Anthicidae has evolved from Xylophilid ancestors is discussed and rejected in favour of a Pyrochroid ancestry for Anthicids, advanced by the author earlier based on his studies of primitive genera (including his discoveries of Baltic amber fossils) of these families. Finally, the author warns his readers against ‘loose use of words’, ‘ascientific’ attitudes. and ‘overstatements of their position’ by some modern workers who publish their speculations on phylogeny, relationships. affinities etc., which are carefully and nicely worded to hide their ignorance or violations of the theoretical principles of such work on phylogenetic systematics. The author also defends ‘systematics’ and ‘systematic workers’ against the existing fanaticism and prejudice.
Read full abstract
Sep 7, 2023
Joachim Schmidt + 3
Open Access
