Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Structural and Functional Diversity of Mollusc Assemblages within Vermetid Bioconstructions
Next Article in Special Issue
A Tribute to Guillermo (Willy) Kuschel (1918–2017)
Previous Article in Journal
Water Availability Coincides with Population Declines for an Endangered Butterfly
Previous Article in Special Issue
Validation of the Names of Three Weevil Species Described by Borovec et al., The Enigmatic Weevil Genus Philetaerobius from Southern Africa: Definition, Affinities and Description of Three New Species (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae); Diversity, 2018, 10, 30
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/d10030095
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Combined Molecular and Morphological Approach to Explore the Higher Phylogeny of Entimine Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with Special Reference to South American Taxa

by
Adriana E. Marvaldi
1,*,
María Guadalupe Del Río
1,*,
Vanina A. Pereyra
2,
Nicolás Rocamundi
3 and
Analía A. Lanteri
1
1
División Entomología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, CONICET, Paseo del Bosque s/n, La Plata B1900FWA, Argentina
2
Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de Zonas Áridas, CONICET, C.C. 507, Mendoza 5500, Argentina
3
Laboratorio de Ecología Evolutiva y Biología Floral, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CONICET, FCEFyN, Córdoba X5016GCA, Argentina
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2018, 10(3), 95; https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030095
Submission received: 1 August 2018 / Revised: 17 August 2018 / Accepted: 20 August 2018 / Published: 23 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systematics and Phylogeny of Weevils)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Entiminae are broad-nosed weevils constituting the most diverse subfamily of Curculionidae, with over 50 tribes. We performed Bayesian and Maximum Parsimony combined phylogenetic analyses with the main objective of testing higher-level relationships and the naturalness of the major Neotropical and Southern South American (Patagonia and Andes) tribes, including some members from other regions. We compiled a data matrix of 67 terminal units with 63 Entiminae species, as well as four outgroup taxa from Cyclominae, by 3522 molecular (from nuclear 18S rDNA and 28S rDNA, and mitochondrial 16S rDNA and COI gene sequences) and 70 morphological characters. The resulting trees recover a clade Entiminae with a monophyletic Cylydrorhinini and Premnotrypes branching off early. The tree resulting from parsimony analysis shows a clade of Leptopiini from the Australian region and another clade including taxa mainly distributed in the Palaearctic and Neotropical regions, but in the Bayesian tree the South American and Australian Leptopiini are grouped together. The mainly Palaearctic Entiminae (e.g., Brachyderini, Laparocerini, Otiorhynchini, Peritelini, Polydrusini, Phyllobiini and Sciaphylini) form a subclade separated from Southern Hemisphere taxa. Among the latter, the well-supported Naupactini are the sister group of the South American Tanymecini, excluding Platyaspistes, herein transferred to Leptopiini (new placement). Another well-justified clade is Eustylini–Geonemini, which also includes the enigmatic Galapagonotus, and the genus Artipus, thus corroborating its recent exclusion from Naupactini.

1. Introduction

Entiminae constitute the most species-rich subfamily of Curculionoidea, with about 12,000 described species worldwide, classified into ca. 1370 genera and 54 tribes [1,2,3]. This subfamily includes mainly taxa that were grouped in the section Adelognatha of older Curculionidae classifications. With few exceptions, most entimine species have soil-dwelling larvae, many of them polyphagous. Monophyly of Entiminae is suggested by some synapomorphic characters in the adult (e.g., mandibles with deciduous mandibular processes or their corresponding scar) [1] as well as the larva (e.g., cushion-like antennal sensorium) [4]. Molecular analyses consistently show the Entiminae as being part of a larger clade of broad-nosed weevils that also includes taxa classified in the Cyclominae and Hyperinae [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Such molecular studies, however, do not provide evidence supporting a clade Entiminae distinct from Cyclominae, except for a shared gene order rearrangement in the mitogenome [7,11]. The entimines and allied taxa have in common a relatively short, broad rostrum that is not used in oviposition site preparation; and their larvae are mostly ectophytic, feeding on roots in the soil or on aerial plant parts (some species with endophytic or semi-endophytic larvae, especially in Cyclominae) [3,12]. Among the structural features that would support the monophyly of “broad-nosed weevils” are the bilobed, largely sclerotized basal part of male sternite IX, the meso- and metatibiae apically either unarmed or mucronate (not uncinate) and the occurrence of iridescent scales with a particular nanostructure [3].
During recent decades, several specialists worldwide have done a considerable revisionary work on different tribes of Entiminae, providing useful morphological features to contribute to tribal diagnoses, to recognize genera and species, and to analyze their relationships. Most of the studies include taxa from a restricted biogeographic region, e.g., Entimini [13,14,15]; Eustylini and Geonemini [16,17,18,19,20]; Tanymecini [21,22,23,24,25]; Naupactini [26,27,28,29]; Sitonini [30]; Cyphicerini, Phyllobiini and Polydrusini [31,32]; Laparocerini [33,34,35,36]; Otiorhynchini [37,38,39,40]; Tanyrhynchini [41,42]; Leptopiini (as Tropiphorini in recent studies) [43,44,45,46]; and Trachyphloeini [47]. However, the generic classification of the entimines into tribes, as in the last worldwide weevil catalogue [2], remains unsatisfactory, with many tribes probably not representing natural groups.
For historical reasons, weevil generic and suprageneric classifications remain essentially based on the Holarctic fauna. The relatively less studied entimines from other regions have been often classified in already well-known genera and tribes from the Holarctic region, but based on similar observed features which do not necessarily reflect unique common ancestry. A more detailed examination of the morphological features, however, suggests a deep divergence of the austral faunas relative to the Holarctic fauna, and a probable closer relationship between some Australian Entiminae and Cyclominae with those from southern Argentina and Chile [48,49,50,51,52].
In this contribution, we present results of a phylogenetic study focused on South American tribes of Entiminae. The study was based on nuclear and mitochondrial molecular markers combined with morphological data for a sample of species representing the Neotropical and Patagonian-Andean faunas as well as entimines from other regions in both southern and northern hemispheres, including some South American Cyclominae used as outgroups.
The main hypotheses to be tested are as follows: that the Neotropical and Patagonian-Andean members of the tribes Cylydrorhinini, Entimini, Eudiagogini, Eustylini, Geonemini, Leptopiini, Naupactini, Premnotrypini and Tanymecini form a clade separated from the mainly Palaearctic tribes (e.g., Brachyderini, Laparocerini, Otiorhynchini, Peritelini, Polydrusini, Phyllobiini and Sciaphylini) and Oriental Entiminae (e.g., Celeuthetini); and that the South American species of Leptopiini are related to genera of this tribe occurring in the Australian region. In addition, we are interested to address the phylogenetic positions of Platyaspistes Schoenherr and Galapagonotus Anderson & Lanteri, two South American genera with unclear affinities but currently classified in Tanymecini and Eustylini, respectively.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Specimens and Taxon Sampling

Table 1 lists the specimens and taxa used in the phylogenetic analyses, corresponding to 67 terminal species of Entiminae and Cyclominae, including valid names, acronyms, geographic data and GenBank accession numbers of DNA sequences for the four markers used.
The tribal classification used in this paper is based primarily on the world generic catalogue by Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal [2], but incorporating some changes made subsequent to this publication. Artipus Sahlberg was classified in Geonemini and not in Naupactini [28]. The names of the Palaearctic species, genera and subgenera, and their assignment to tribes were updated according to Alonso-Zarazaga et al. [53]. Since the concept of Tropiphorini is very controversial (e.g., [53,54]), for the moment, we prefer to classify the genera from the southern hemisphere in the tribe Leptopiini, as suggested by Pullen et al. [55].
The classification of geographic regions follows Morrone [56] except for the Andean region in which case we recognized four biogeographic units: High Andes, Central Chile, Patagonia and Subantarctic.
We selected 63 species of Entiminae in 42 genera representing 17 tribes, as well as four species of Cyclominae in three genera from two tribes used as outgroups. The taxon sampling includes the tribes of Entiminae best representing the Neotropical and Patagonian-Andean faunas (Cylydrorhinini, Entimini, Eudiagogini, Eustylini, Geonemini, Leptopiini, Naupactini, Premonotrypini and Tanymecini), as well as some tribes typical of the Palaearctic fauna (Brachyderini, Laparacerini, Otiorhynchini, Peritelini, Phyllobiini, Polydrusini, and Sciaphilini) and some representatives of the dominant element of the Australian fauna in tribe Leptopiini [55] and Celeuthetini, corresponding to the Australian and Oriental regions. In Southern Chile and Argentina three species of Polydrusus Germar are associated with Nothofagus spp. trees [57,58]. In our study, the Polydrusus specimens from this area were not preserved for DNA extraction, and consequently we only analyzed Polydrusini species from Europe.
Samples of adult specimens assayed for molecular analyses were collected in different areas of Argentina and Brazil, using a beating sheet or a sweep net, or were provided by colleagues (see Acknowledgements). The material was stored in 96–100% ethanol at −20 °C freezer until DNA extraction. Voucher specimens were deposited at the entomological collection of the Museo de La Plata, Argentina.

2.2. Molecular Data

2.2.1. DNA Isolation, PCR Amplification and Sequencing

The experiments of DNA extraction and PCR amplification of genetic material were performed at the molecular laboratories of IADIZA-CONICET (Mendoza, Argentina) and IMBIV-CONICET-UNC (Córdoba, Argentina).
Total genomic DNA was extracted from adult voucher specimens using an adapted “salting out” protocol [59] or, alternatively, the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAGEN, MD, USA.). Tissue was processed from 1–2 legs or part of the thorax. Extracted DNA was stored at −20 °C. Four molecular markers (two nuclear and two mitochondrial) were used in this study: 18S rDNA (entire), 28S rDNA (regions D2, D3), 16S rDNA (regions IV, V) and COI (“barcode” or 5´region).
Amplification and sequencing of the targeted loci was performed using primers listed in Table 2. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed in a 50 µL volume: 10 pmol for each primer, 0.8 mM dNTPs (Genbiotech SRL, Buenos Aires, Argentina), MgCl2 50 mM to a final concentration of 2–4 mM, 5 µL 10 × Buffer, and 1.25 units of Taq DNA Polymerase (Invitrogen SA, Buenos Aires, Argentina). The 18S (~2000 bp) was amplified in two parts with the primer pairs E and F1094, and R1138 and P, with PCR conditions as in McKenna et al. [6]: 3 min at 95 °C; then 30 cycles of 1 min at 94 °C, 1 min at 60 °C, 1 min at 72 °C; final extension of 5 min at 72 °C; kept at 4 °C. In few instances, another combination of primers was used to obtain two smaller 18S fragments of ~500 bp each that contain the variable regions V4 and V7–V9 of 18S [60]: 18S a07 and 18S b25, and V7V9up and V7V9dwn, with PCR conditions: 3 min at 95 °C; then 10 cycles of 30 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 46 °C, 30 s at 72 °C; then 30 cycles of 30 s at 95 °C, 40 s at 48 °C, 40 s at 72 °C; final extension of 10 min at 72 °C. The fragment used of 28S (~700 bp spanning regions D2 and D3) was amplified with primers S3660 and A335, with PCR reactions as in Brown et al. [61]: 2 min at 94 °C; 40 cycles of 15 s at 94 °C, 30 s at 54 °C, 75 s at 72 °C; final extension of 7 min at 72 °C. The 16S (~600 bp spanning regions IV and V) was amplified with primers N13398 and J12887, with PCR conditions as in Hundsdoerfer et al. [5]: 4 min at 94 °C; 5 cycles of 45 s at 93 °C, 90 s at 40 °C, 90 s at 72 °C; then 26 cycles of 45 s 93 °C, 90 s at 50 °C, 90 s at 72 °C; final extension of 10 min at 72 °C. The COI gene was amplified with the primer pair LCO and HCO that produce the standard barcode fragment of 658 bp, but sometimes with the primers LCO and A3014 that allow a longer fragment of 1000–1300 bp; using in both cases the PCR conditions as in McKenna et al. [6]: 3 min at 94 °C; then 5 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 30 s at 42 °C, 90 s at 72 °C; then 34 cycles of 1 min at 94 °C, 30 s at 45 °C, 90 s at 72 °C; final extension of 5 min at 72 °C. The PCR products were purified and bi-directionally sequenced with the Sanger method, by means of the Sequencing Service of “Unidad de Genómica de INTA-Castelar” (Buenos Aires, Argentina) or by Macrogen Inc. (Seul, South Korea). Electropherograms were edited and contig assembled using ProSeq v.2.91 [62] or Sequencher v.5 (GeneCodes Corp.). All sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers provided in Table 1.

2.2.2. Alignment of Sequences

The sequences of the ribosomal markers (nuclear 18S and 28S and mitochondrial 16S) were aligned using information on secondary structure of the rRNA genes to identify homologous positions [63]. The alignment was constructed manually using as reference the structural model of arthropod rRNA [64,65]. The program PAUP [66] was used for editing the annotated alignment as text file and for exporting the data in other formats for analyses. Regions identified as being of ambiguous alignment were bracketed to be excluded from phylogenetic analyses.

2.3. Morphological Characters

External and internal (dissected) adult structures were observed with a Nikon SMZ1000 stereomicroscope (Tokyo, Japan), Leica S6D and MZ16 stereomicroscopes (Wetzlar, Germany); line drawings were done with a camera lucida attached to the former scope. Digital photographs were taken with cameras attached to the S6D and MZ16 steromicroscopes. For dissections, we used standard entomological techniques [73]. The terminology used for morphological characters follows Marvaldi et al. [3], and Lanteri and del Rio [28]. Some characters have been illustrated to facilitate recognition of different character states (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
For each terminal, we scored 70 discrete morphological characters, of which 62 correspond to the morphology of adults and 8 to larvae. The list of morphological characters is given in Table 3 and the data matrix is shown in Table S1. When larval specimen or genitalia from adult could not be examined, character states were scored with “?” and treated as missing data. For some taxa (e.g., Aegorhinus Erichson, Listroderes Schoenherr, Cylydrorhinus Guérin-Méneville, and Entimus Germar), larval information was available from specimens belonging to different, but clearly co-generic species of those included in the analysis (see [4,74,75]).

2.4. Phylogenetic Analyses

The molecular and combined data sets were analyzed using Bayesian Inference (BI) and Maximum Parsimony (MP) approaches.
The Bayesian analysis was performed using BEAST 2 v2.4.8 [80] on the Cipres Science Gateway (http://www.phylo.org) [81] with random starting trees without constraints. Each individual gene was treated as a separate partition in the analyses, resulting in a dataset comprising 3522 aligned nucleotide positions. The optimal substitution model for each partition was selected using the jModeltest software v.2.0 [82], on the basis of the corrected Akaike Information Criterion, as suggested by Burnham and Anderson [83]. We applied the following substitution models: TVM + I + G (16S, 28S), SYM + I + G (18S), TIM2 + I + G (COI) and Lewis MK for morphological data. We assumed a Yule speciation model and strict molecular clock. Clock and tree parameters were linked across partitions. All priors were left as the default values in BEAUti [80]. The analyses were run for a total of 30 million generations with sampling every 20,000 generations. The convergence of the runs was evaluated by accessing log files in TRACER v1.6 [84]. We generated a maximum clade credibility tree in TreeAnnotator v2.4.8 [80], using a burn-in of 10% (1500 trees) and visualized in FigTree v1.4.3 [85].
Parsimony analysis was conducted using TNT v1.5 [86], excluding third codon positions of COI and considering all other characters as un-weighted and non-additive. Gaps were treated as a fifth state (default in TNT). A heuristic search with TBR branch swapping was applied to a series of 500 random addition sequences, retaining 30 trees per replicate. A strict consensus tree was calculated when more than one most parsimonious tree (MPT) was obtained. Clade stability was evaluated by 1000 parsimony bootstrap replications [87]. For the MPTs we provided the basic parameters as total length (L), consistency index (CI) [88] and retention index (RI) [89].The program WinClada [90] was used for character mapping (under unambiguous, fast and slow optimization options) and to prepare MP tree figures.
The outgroup Aegorhinus silvicola Kuschel (Cyclominae, Aterpini) was used to root the trees in both analyses. Posterior probability values (under BI) were considered as follows in the Results and Discussion: 0.95–1, strong to maximal clade support; 0.70–0.94, low to moderate clade support; and <0.70, not supported.

3. Results

3.1. Annotated Structural Alignment

The annotated structural alignments of the entire 18S rRNA gene, the D2 and D3 expansion segments of the 28S rRNA gene and domains IV and V of the 16S rRNA gene performed for 63 entimine taxa and four cyclomine outgroups, are available online as Supplementary Materials (Table S2).

3.2. Phylogenetic Trees

3.2.1. Bayesian Analysis

The tree obtained from the Bayesian analysis is shown in Figure 5. Entiminae are monophyletic (PP 0.92), with the tribes Cylydrorhynini–Premnotrypini (Andes, Patagonia) (Clade I) retrieved as a sister group of the remaining members of this subfamily, which form a quite well-supported clade (Clade II). The latter contains four main groups (A–D) of which the first three include taxa from the Southern Hemisphere and the fourth from the Palaearctic and Oriental regions. Group A shows three subclades: the pair Entimus–Eudiagogini, the sampled Leptopiini from South America (Strangaliodes Schoenherr and Vossius Kuschel) with Platyaspistes (Tanymecini) as a sister group of Vossius (PP = 1), and the sampled Leptopiini from the Australian region (Catasarcus Schoenherr, Cecyropa Pascoe and Irenimus Pascoe); Group B includes the sister tribes Naupactini–Tanymecini; Group C includes the Eustylini–Geonemini tribes, even though they may not be reciprocally monophyletic; and Group D consists of entimines mainly from the Palaearctic and Oriental regions. Within Group D, there are three subgroups, one corresponding to Bachyderini, Phyllobiini, Sciaphilini and Polydrusini; another to Otiorhynchini; and a third to Laparocerini with Simo Dejean (Peritelini), sister of the strongly supported pair Drouetius Méquignon (Peritelini) and Celeuthetes Schoenherr.
The following entimine tribes are recovered as monophyletic, with either maximal or almost maximal support: Cylydrorhinini, Eudiagogini, Naupactini, Tanymecini (except for Platyaspistes), Brachyderini, Polydrusini, Sciaphilini, Otiorhynchini, and Laparocerini. Conversely, the relationships among tribes are moderate, weakly or not supported, except for the sister groups Tanymecini–Naupactini, Geonemini–Eustylini (not reciprocally monophyletic) and Phyllobiini–Brachyderini (among the Palaearctic taxa).

3.2.2. Combined Maximum-Parsimony Analysis and Synapomorphies

The Maximum Parsimony (MP) analysis yielded four most parsimonious trees (L = 3325 steps; CI = 0.35; RI = 0.53), the strict consensus of which is shown in Figure 6. Bootstrap values over 40% are indicated above the branches of the tree. The main differences from the Bayesian (BI) tree are as follows: (1) The Leptopiini from the Australian region (Catasarcus, Cecyropa and Irenimus) are separated from those of South America (Vossius and Strangaliodes) (Group A of the BI tree is broken up). (2) The remaining entimines are grouped into two main clades, one including tribes mainly distributed in the Palaearctic and Oriental regions, and the other including those from the Neotropics, Andes and Patagonia. (3) The latter clade includes Groups B and C and the Neotropical members of Group A of the BI, Strangaliodes–Entimus, the pair Platyaspistes–Vossius, and the Eudiagogini. (4) Within the Palaearctic and Oriental Group D, the consensus tree shows that the basal relationships are not resolved, resulting in a polytomy of Simo (Peritelini), Otiorhynchini, Laparocerus Schoenherr and Celeuthetes–Droetius, and a clade of the remaining tribes, within which Polydrusini are closer to Brachyderini and Phyllobiini than Sciaphilini.
The selected MP tree (Figure 7) shows unambiguous optimization of morphological characters (see Figures S1 and S2 for character changes under fast and slow optimization options), with unique and homoplastic changes in black and white, respectively. It suggests that the monophyly of Entiminae is mainly justified by the presence of a scar or lasting appendage in the mandibles (18.1) and several larval synapomorphies: antennal sensorium wider than long, cushion-like (63.1) and elliptical in apical view (64.1), maxillary mala with four setae (65.1), mandibles without accessory teeth on the intermediate portion of the cutting edge (67.1) and slightly sclerotized mandibular scrobes, which are paler than the rest of the mandible (68.1). The monophyly of entimines is also supported by two other adult mouthpart characters using the fast optimization (Figure S1): absence of two or more teeth on the inner margin of mandibles (17.1) and prementum completely concealing the maxillae (19.1); however, in Cylydrorhinini, these characters appear to have reversed to the primitive condition and the mandibular scar is sometimes markedly reduced.
Most Entiminae, except for Cylydrorhinini and Premnotrypini, share the synapomorphies of tibiae lacking spurs (49.1) and moderately separated tarsal claws (53.1), although this character shows further change. Some European groups such as Otiorhynchini have tibial spurs but these are usually more slender and shorter than those of Cyclominae (Aterpini and Listroderini) and Cylydrorhinini. Other characters supporting the monophyly of this group under fast optimization (Figure S1) are: epistome not projecting beyond the anterior margin of the rostrum (2.0) and rostrum not separated from the forehead by a deep impression (21.1). However, rostrum and forehead are separated by a deep impression in several Leptopiini from Australia, mainly Catasarcus.
Except for the Australian Leptopiini, the remaining entimines form a clade supported by characters of the rostrum, which is usually less than 1.25 × as long as wide at the apex (1.1), has an impressed or flat dorsum (6.0) and is neither unicarinate nor tricarinate (8.0); eyes usually rounded (27.0); absence of postocular lobes (36.0); and a truncate-conical or subcylindrical pronotum (38.0), in contrast to the subhexagonal pronotum of most South American Listroderini, Cylydrorhinini, and Premnotrypini. This clade split into two major subclades, one including the Palaearctic and Oriental tribes and the other the mainly Neotropical tribes. The Palaearctic and Oriental subclade is justified by the following characters: slightly defined scrobes widening backwards (13.1), occipital sutures transversal relative to the longitudinal axis of the rostrum and usually not connected with eyes (16.1), setae behind eyes directed posteriad (23.1), reduced to indistinct mucro of protibiae (47.0), narrow metepisternum and complete metepisteral-metasternal suture (54.1), larvae with labral rods diverging in their distal half (69.1) and larvae with a single seta on the alar area (70.1). The Neotropical subclade is justified by a usually present rostral groove (7.1), scrobes partially visible in dorsal view (10.1) and strongly curved towards the ventral side of the head or passing below the eyes in lateral view (12.0–1), and a scape passing below the eyes (32.0).
The intertribal relationships within both Palaearctic and Oriental and Neotropical subclades are weakly supported by synapomorphies. Within the Palaearctic and Oriental subclade, the group that includes most of the tribes (i.e., all except Laparocerini, Peritelini and Celeuthetini) is mainly justified by the presence of teeth on the three pairs of femora (45.1). Within the Neotropical subclade, the relationship between Tanymecini and Naupactini is the best supported based on the following characters: rostrum with subparallel or convergent sides toward the apex (5.1), and usually bicarinate (9.1); occipital sutures reduced to a small fovea (16.2), a usually slender and capitate scape (30.1), inner margin of protibiae with a line of denticles (48.1), presence of dorsal comb at metatibial apex (52.1) and presence of baculi along the ovipositor (62.1). Most of these characters are also present in other tribes, e.g., Eustylini–Geonemini. Although baculi are also found along the ovipositor of Australian and South American Cylydrorhinini and Leptopiini, in these groups, they are more laterally placed and usually curved at the distal end.

3.2.3. Separate Molecular Analyses (Bayesian and Parsimony)

The monophyly of Entiminae was supported by the BI and MP trees derived from combined molecular and morphological data, but not by those obtained from molecular data only (Figures S3 and S4), because Listroderes and Rhigopsidius Heller were included in the ingroup. In addition, several suprageneric groups (e.g., tribes) were resolved as monophyletic independently of morphological evidence (e.g., Cylydrorhinini, Naupactini, Tanymecini (except for Platyaspistes), Eudiagogini, Brachyderini, Otiorhynchini (except for Otiorhynchus subgenus Metopiorrhynchus) and Laparocerini). Moreover, both the BI and MP molecular trees justify the relationships Geonemini–Euslylini (including Artipus and Galapagonotus) and Celeuthetes–Drouetius, while the relationship Entimus–Strangaliodes was supported by the BI molecular tree as well as the combined and molecular MP trees.

4. Discussion

4.1. Southern South American Entiminae and Cyclominae

The Cyclominae are widely distributed in the Southern Hemisphere [12,91,92], with some fossils being found in Antarctica [93], suggesting a Gondwanan ancestry [52]. The tribe Aterpini, used as outgroup in our analyses, is distributed in the Australian region (Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea, New Caledonia and New Zealand) and southern Argentina and Chile [94], along the southern Andes from 37° S to the Cape Horn, including the archipelago of southern Chile, Tierra del Fuego, South Georgia, and the Falkland Islands, an area mainly corresponding to the Subantarctic subregion [51,95,96].
Listroderini, Cylydrorhinini and Leptopiini are other tribes of Cyclominae and Entiminae with South American elements that would have close relatives in the Australian region [49,58,97,98,99,100,101,102]. However, they are not mainly associated to the Subantarctic and have diversified in northern and eastern areas, mainly Central Chile, Patagonia and the Andes. In comparison with Aterpini, these tribes are less clearly related to the Australian groups, probably because the latter areas have been subjected to more drastic geological and environmental changes after the separation of the southern continents [99]. It is worth mentioning that Rhigopsidius Heller and Listroderes Schoenherr are sister taxa in the Bayesian tree, consistent with the hypothesis of Oberprieler [91] that Rhythirrinini are confined to the African region and Rhigopsidius is assumed to belong to the tribe Listroderini. Morrone [52], who recovered the relationship of Rhythirrinus Schoenherr with Rhigopsidius based on a morphological cladistic analysis of Listroderini using other cyclomines as outgroups, considered that this inference required further confirmation. From a biogeographical point of view, it seems more plausible that Rhigopsidius is more closely related to other Andean genera of Listroderini than to any African Rhytirrhinini. The morphology of Rhygopsidius, including that of the female genitalia [91,103], suggests that it is a Listroderini which has acquired new characters in response to a new environment. Indeed, the species of this genus inhabit the Andean region from southern Peru to Argentina at higher altitudes than do most other listroderines (mainly highland plateau of Puna), and their larvae bore into potato tubers [103], unlike the aerial and ectophytic larvae of most members of this tribe.
Several authors have classified Listroderini and Cylydrorhinini in the same subfamily Cylydrorhininae [104,105,106,107]. Their distribution ranges overlap but Cylydrorhinini mostly occur from 36° to 48° S, while Listroderini are mainly distributed from 48° S southward [48,52], including the Tristan da Cunha-Gough Islands [49]. Both tribes are phanerognathous, with a subcylindrical rostrum which is frequently unicarinate or tricarinate and has a transversal impression separating it from the forehead. In addition, they show well-developed postocular lobes and oval, dorso-ventrally oriented eyes; a typical subhexagonal pronotum which is transversally impressed behind the anterior margin; tibiae with spurs and widely separated tarsal claws (Figure 4d). The latter two characters are most likely plesiomorphic and have not been found in other South American Entiminae. These tribes mainly differ in larval morphology [49,74], and the adults show the following differences: Listroderini lack mandibular scars and their ovipositor is reduced to a pair of distal gonocoxites, whereas Cylydrorhinini have mandibular appendages or scar (though sometimes extremely reduced) and a long ovipositor with baculi.
The monophyly of Entiminae was recovered by our analyses based on molecular and morphological data (including Cylydrorhinini and excluding Listroderini), but not by the trees obtained from molecular data only. A more accurate analysis of the relationship between Cyclominae and Entiminae—with a particular focus on Listroderini and Cylydrorhinini—would be achieved by a modern taxonomic revision involving diverse, yet poorly studied, genera such as Cylydrorhinus. Moreover, such phylogenetic analysis should include increased taxon and character sampling of both groups and allied taxa.
The Clade I, Cylydrorhinini–Premnotrypini in trees from BI and MP analyses based on combined evidence, is rather weakly supported. Under slow optimization (Figure S2), this relationship is justified by having the anterior part of the epistome usually raised and projecting beyond the anterior margin of the rostrum (2.1). The Premnotrypini occur in the high Central Andes, from Colombia to northern Chile, within 2800–4500 masl. The adults show some particular features (e.g., presence of false corbels) and external similarities with Rhigopsidius (see Figure 3d) probably because adults and larvae share habits associated with development in potato tubers [108,109]. Interestingly, the geographic distributions of the South American groups that attack potatoes in the Andes (Rhigopsidius and Premnotrypes Pierce) are partially sympatric with those of their putative related taxa (Listroderini and Cylydrorhinini, respectively).
The Leptopiini (type genus Leptopius Oke endemic to Australia) sensu Kuschel [58,97] basically correspond to the entimines from the Southern Hemisphere, which are listed in Tropiphorini by Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal [2]. They share some characters with Cylydrorhinini, particularly those of the rostrum and the hexagonal pronotum. However, they are adelognathous, as are most Entiminae, their tibiae lack spurs, their tarsal claws are less separated than in Cylydrorhinini, and their metatibial apex usually has true corbels (also referred to as close corbels). The leptopiines are particularly well-represented in extreme environments such as deserts, mountain areas and Subantarctic islands [58,97,101,102] although some also occur in temperate forests [110]. The external expansion of the protibiae in Leptopiini from deserts may represent an adaptation to this environment [45].
Kuschel [97] described several genera and species of leptopiines from arid and semiarid environments in Chile, Argentina and Peru [58,107]. More recently, new synonymies, new species and a new genus have been established [45,110,111]. Thompson [43] revised the Australian genus Catasarcus and Brown [46] studied some genera endemic to New Zealand, such as Irenimus and Cecyropa.
The South American Leptopiini, Strangaliodes and Vossius form a monophyletic group with those from the Australian region in the Bayesian tree (Figure 5), but not in the MP tree (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The former result could be interpreted as a phylogenetic signal of an ancient southern connection, whereas the MP tree suggests that Strangaliodes is related to some typical Neotropical entimines. In fact, Strangaliodes is distributed in the Transition Zone sensu Morrone [56] between the Brazilian and Patagonian biotas, the latter being more related to the Southern Hemisphere fauna. The relationship Strangaliodes–Entimus is mostly justified by molecular evidence, recovered in both combined and molecular MP trees and in the BI molecular tree. According to previous phylogenetic analyses based on morphology, Strangaliodes would be closer to other southern South American letopiines, e.g., Geniocremnus Kuschel and Megalometis Schoenherr, and less related to Leptopius and some genera from the Australian region [44]. Conversely, Entimini would be related to the Neotropical Lordopini [14]. Unfortunately, no samples of these groups were available in our study.
Although it is beyond the scope of our analyses, we consider that the wide concept of Tropiphorini (type genus Tropiphorus Schoenherr from the Palaearctic) as in Alonso-Zarazaga and Lyal [2] is not appropriate for the South American fauna, because the Palaearctic Tropiphorini exhibit a different combination of characters, such as mandibles without an obvious scar, absence of postocular lobes and connate tarsal claws. Therefore, we prefer to use the name Leptopiini as originally used by Kuschel [97] and more recently by Pullen et al. [55], at least until a more comprehensive study is carried out. According to molecular analyses based on mitogenome data, the Palaearctic Tropiphorini would be related to Otiorhynchini [7,8]. Moreover, we disagree with the placement of Strangaliodes in the Palaearctic tribe Alophini (as a synonym of Tropiphorini) as proposed by Alonso-Zarazaga et al. [112], because of the synonymy of the monotypic genus Ctenolobus Debrochers based on a single specimen from Morocco, which was probably mislabeled.

4.2. Neotropical Entiminae

Entimini, Eudiagogini, Naupactini and Eustylini have been based on Neotropical genera and are highly diversified in this region, particularly in tropical and subtropical forests, although some derived lineages have colonized other areas and a few genera or species occur in the Nearctic [28,113].
Entimini include 13 genera [14], most of which have been revised taxonomically [13,15,114,115]. They are composed of large species (about 20 mm long) with iridescent scaly vestiture and well-developed humeri and hind wings; their rostrum usually shows a median sulcus and the postocular lobes are always present. Females have a subtriangular sternite VIII, with a slightly longer than plate apodeme—as in most entimines—and a short ovipositor (about one-third the length of the abdomen) bearing styli and sclerotized proximal and distal gonocoxites [15]. The phylogenetic position of Entimini is doubtful because our analyses included a single species of Entimus and lacked representatives of other allied taxa, such as Lordopini [14].
Eudiagogini are probably close to Entimini (in the BI, Figure 5), as suggested by shared larval features [74], but their adults are differentiated by having several apomorphic characters: a very short rostrum with broad pterigia; very pronounced postocular lobes covering more than half of the eyes; laterally expanded mandibular lasting appendages in some species (see Figure 1b); protibiae bearing a hook-like mucro, which forms a forceps with a tuft of stiff setae; metafemora being usually wider than the profemora; and metatibial apex showing a very broad, squamose corbel. The type genus Eudiagogus Schoenherr was taxonomically revised by Warner [116] and studied by O’Brien and Kovarik [117].
The results of both combined analyses indicated that Naupactini are monophyletic and closely related to Tanymecini, but this relationship was not recovered in the separate molecular analyses. Most species in our sampling belong to the Pantomorus–Naupactus complex [29], but other genera outside this complex (e.g., Cyrtomon Schoenherr, Stenocyphus Marshall, Hadropus Schoenherr, Ericydeus Pascoe, Briarius Fischer de Waldheim) are more similar to some Eustylini (e.g., Compsus Schoenherr, Exoderces Schoenherr) [28], probably by convergence.
The Eustylini sensu Franz [18] are an exclusively Neotropical assemblage with 20 genera and approximately 325 species, Compsus being the most diverse genus (104 species). This tribe is the subject of ongoing studies by Franz and colleagues [20,118,119], who suggested that Geonemini are paraphyletic relative to Eustylini [18]. According to our analyses, Eustylini become monophyletic when the Neotropical Geonemini are included. Moreover, we corroborated that Artipus belongs to the clade Eustylini–Geonemini, and is not a Naupactini (see [28]), while Galapagonotus Anderson & Lanteri and probably also Coconotus Anderson & Lanteri (not included) belong to Eustylini [120].
On the other hand, Geonemus Schoenherr as well as other genera currently assigned to Geonemini occur in the Palaearctic region (e.g., Barynotus) and we are doubtful about their close relationship with Neotropical Geonemini. This uncertainty is supported by results based on mitogenome data [8]. We think that Geonemini are probably valid for some genera outside the Neotropics, but this issue must be addressed by specialists.
Something similar occurs with Tanymecini, whose type genus Tanymecus Germar is from the Holarctic region. The Neotropical tanymecines have been extensively studied by Howden [21,22,23,24,25], particularly Pandeleteius Schoenherr, Hadromeropsis Pierce and Airosimus Howden, which were included in our analyses and constitute a well-supported monophyletic group. Conversely, Platyaspistes Schoenherr, currently classified in the Tanymecini subtribe Piazomiina (type genus Piazomias Schoenherr from Africa and Asia) has never been found to be related to the remaining Tanymecini but rather to Vossius (Leptopiini). The larval characters of Platyaspistes studied by Marvaldi [74] concur with those of the leptopiine larvae (e.g., two alar setae) but not with those of the larvae of Piazomiina, as in Piazomias and Leptomias Faust, and other Tanymecini as in Pachnaeus Schoenherr, described by van Emden [121].
Platyaspistes includes five Chilean species distributed from the Atacama desert to Valparaiso (with one present in Argentina), and differs from the sampled Tanymecini and other Neotropical Entiminae in its tarsal claws, which are connate –as in most of the Holarctic entimines studied herein– but unequal in length. Moreover, the distal coxites of the ovipositor are strongly sclerotized and bifurcated and females show a particular type of oviposition, as observed in Platyaspistes glaucus Farhaeus [122] and in P. argentinensis Kuschel [123]. The eggs are laid between, and glued to, two adjacent surfaces of a host plant leaf which was previously folded by the female, in the same way as does Cyphometopus marmoratus (Blanchard) (currently classified in Leptopiini). The larvae emerge through a hole made by gnawing the meristem and complete their development in the soil as do other entimines [122].
Although there was not complete agreement between the results of the Bayesian and the Parsimony analyses regarding the Leptopiini, we propose to transfer Platyaspistes from Tanymecini to Leptopiini.

4.3. Palaearctic, and Australian and Oriental Entiminae

Both analyses recovered the entimine tribes mainly distributed in the Palaearctic region as a monophyletic group. In our study, every tribe represented by more than one species/genus is monophyletic, although no definite conclusions can be drawn due to insufficient taxon sampling. In general terms, we conclude that Brachyderini, Phyllobiini, Polydrusini and Sciaphylini might be closer to each other than to Otiorhynchini, Laparocerini and Peritelini.
The phylogenetic position of Drouetius is controversial. It was formerly treated as a subgenus of Laparocerus [35] and later as a separate genus [33] and was assigned to Peritelini [33,53]. Laparocerus includes about 240 flightless species and subspecies endemic to the Atlantic islands of Macaronesia (Madeira, Selvagens, and Canary Islands), except for one species from northern Africa, Morocco [36], whereas Drouetius is endemic to the Azores Islands (northern Macaronesia), thus more distant geographically.
In a Bayesian analysis based on 16SrRNA, Drouetius was closer to Peritelus Germar than to Laparocerus [33] and probably for this reason it was transferred to Peritelini. In our analyses, Drouetius is the most closely related to Celeuthetes sp. and the pair Droetius–Celeuthetes is within the same group as Laparocerus (Figure 6 and Figure 7) or as Laparocerus–Simo (Peritelini) (Figure 5). The Celeuthetini are distributed in the Oriental or Indo-Australian region, mainly diversified across islands of the Pacific (New Guinea, Molucas, Sulawesi and Lesser Sunda Islands) [124]. According to a recent phylogenetic analysis, this tribe is most likely related to other Indo-Australian entimines, e.g., Pachyrhynchini [125] and, therefore, we believe that the close relationship Droetius–Celeuthetes may not be recovered in further studies expanding the taxon sampling.
Our results support the hypothesis that the genus Drouetius is independent from Laparocerus, but reject the hypothesis that it belongs to Peritelini. Indeed, the BI tree (Figure 5) shows that the only Peritelini included in our analysis (Simo) is close to Laparocerus and not to Drouetius, and in the MP trees Simo is in an unstable position (Figure 6). A more complete taxon sampling is necessary to elucidate the correct tribal placement of Drouetius.

4.4. General Remarks

Our study provides evidence for the monophyly of several Neotropical tribes, however, the relationships among the large clades are in general weakly supported by both analyses, preventing us from drawing firm conclusions. Notwithstanding this, results suggest that the Palaearctic entimines evolved independently from the typical Neotropical ones, e.g., Entimini, Eudiagogini, Eustylini, Naupactini, Tanymecini and other tribes not included in our analysis, such as Lordopini and Anypotactini. Future research should be aimed at expanding the geographic representation of tribes/genera with disjoint distributions in both hemispheres or in different continents, as is the case highlighted by Kuschel [48] for the mainly Holarctic Polydrusini/Polydrusus occurring in southern South America. This information would be helpful to discriminate between old clades widely distributed in the past and artificial taxa defined on the basis of convergences.
The striking similarity between some derived lineages of Palaearctic and Neotropical entimines, attributed to the subfamily Brachyderinae in older classifications, e.g., Strophosoma Billberg (Brachyderini) and some species currently assigned to Symmathetes Schoenherr or Pantomorus Schoenherr (Naupactini) is most likely due to convergent evolution.
As already suggested by Kuschel [48,50,94], some South American entimines (Leptopiini and Cylydrorhinini) as well as some cyclomines (Listroderini and Aterpini) are probably closely related to those of the Australian region. These groups are expected to be ancient and to occupy a relatively basal position with respect to the typical Neotropical tribes (e.g., Entimini, Eudiagogini, Eustylini and Naupactini).
Further investigation with more complete taxon and character samplings is needed to clarify all the tribal relationships within the Entiminae–Cyclominae clade. To achieve a natural tribal classification of the Entiminae, we propose considering not only morphological and molecular evidence, but also important biological features and information on the historical biogeography of the areas they inhabit.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/10/3/95/s1: Table S1: Morphological data matrix. Table S2: Annotated structure alignment of the ribosomal markers. Figure S1: Selected Most Parsimonious tree with morphological character changes under fast optimization. Figure S2: Selected Most Parsimonious tree with morphological character changes under slow optimization. Figure S3: Bayesian tree based on molecular data only. Figure S4: Strict consensus tree of 395 MPTs from parsimony analysis of molecular data only.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.E.M. and A.A.L.; Acquisition of molecular data, V.A.P., N.R. and A.E.M.; Sequence alignment, A.E.M.; Acquisition of morphological data, A.A.L with input from M.G.d.R. and A.E.M; Formal analysis, M.G.d.R. and A.E.M.; Figure preparation, M.G.d.R.; Reference management, N.R.; Writing of initial draft, A.A.L; and Writing, revising and editing, A.A.L., A.E.M. and M.G.d.R.

Funding

This research received financial funding from the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET, Argentina) through research grants (PIP 6766, PIP 00162, CONICET-IBOL 2318/11); from the National Agency of Promotion of Science (ANPCyT, Argentina) through grants PICT2011-2573, PICT 2016-2798, and PICT 2016-0739; and from the Universidad Nacional de La Plata UNLP (Grant 11/N852).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the following colleagues who generously helped us to obtain/identify ethanol preserved specimens for the molecular work: Roberto Caldara, Antonio Machado, Sam Brown, Bruno de Medeiros, Jhon César Neita-Moreno, Federico Ocampo, Erick Yabar-Landa, Gustavo Flores, Sergio Roig-Juñent, Paula Posadas, and Esteban Abadie. We are very thankful to M. Silvia Ferrer (IADIZA, Mendoza) and Luciana Caeiro (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba) for assisting with questions regarding molecular lab techniques, and to Paulina Hernández (Museo de La Plata) for her help in the technical work with the photographs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Thompson, R.T. Observations on the morphology and classification of weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionoidea) with a key to major groups. J. Nat. Hist. 1992, 26, 835–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Lyal, C.H.C. A World Catalogue of Families and Genera of Curculionoidea: (Insecta: Coleoptera) Excepting Scolytidae and Platypodidae; Entomopraxis. D.C.P.: Barcelona, Spain, 1999; pp. 1–315. ISBN 978-84-605-9994-4. [Google Scholar]
  3. Marvaldi, A.E.; Lanteri, A.A.; del Río, M.G.; Oberprieler, R.G. 3.7.5. Entiminae Schoenherr, 1823. In Handbook of Zoology. Coleoptera, Beetles. Morphology and Systematics; Leschen, R.A., Beutel, R.G., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MI, USA, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 503–522. [Google Scholar]
  4. Marvaldi, A.E. Higher Level Phylogeny of Curculionidae (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) based mainly on Larval Characters, with Special Reference to Broad-Nosed Weevils. Cladistics 1997, 13, 285–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hundsdoerfer, A.K.; Rheinheimer, J.; Wink, M. Towards the phylogeny of the Curculionoidea (Coleoptera): Reconstructions from mitochondrial and nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Zool. Anz. 2009, 248, 9–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McKenna, D.D.; Sequeira, A.S.; Marvaldi, A.E.; Farrell, B.D. Temporal lags and overlap in the diversification of weevils and flowering plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 7083–7088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Gillett, C.P.; Crampton-Platt, A.; Timmermans, M.J.; Jordal, B.H.; Emerson, B.C.; Vogler, A.P. Bulk de novo mitogenome assembly from pooled total DNA elucidates the phylogeny of weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 31, 2223–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Gillett, C.P.; Lyal, C.H.; Vogler, A.P.; Emerson, B.C. Statistical Evaluation of Monophyly in the ‘Broad-Nosed Weevils’ through Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis Combining Mitochondrial Genome and Single-Locus Sequences (Curculionidae: Entiminae, Cyclominae, and Hyperinae). Diversity 2018, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gunter, N.L.; Oberprieler, R.G.; Cameron, S.L. Molecular phylogenetics of Australian weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea): Exploring relationships in a hyperdiverse lineage through comparison of independent analyses. Austral Entomol. 2016, 55, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shin, S.; Clarke, D.J.; Lemmon, A.R.; Moriarty Lemmon, E.; Aitken, A.L.; Haddad, S.; Farrell, B.D.; Marvaldi, A.E.; Oberprieler, R.G.; McKenna, D.D. Phylogenomic Data Yield New and Robust Insights into the Phylogeny and Evolution of Weevils. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Haran, J.; Timmermans, M.J.; Vogler, A.P. Mitogenome sequences stabilize the phylogenetics of weevils (Curculionoidea) and establish the monophyly of larval ectophagy. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2013, 67, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Oberprieler, R.G. 3.7.4 Cyclominae Schoenherr, 1826. In Handbook of Zoology. Coleoptera, Beetles. Morphology and Systematics; Leschen, R.A., Beutel, R.G., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MI, USA, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 483–502. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gaiger, F. Systematic revision and cladistic analysis of the genus Rhigus Schoenherr, 1823 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2001, 45, 43–85. [Google Scholar]
  14. Vanin, S.A.; Gaiger, F. A cladistic analysis of the genera of the tribe Entimini (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), with description of a new genus and species from the Amazonian region. Zootaxa 2005, 1053, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gaiger, F.; Vanin, S.A. On the utility of female genitalia in the systematics of Curculionidae: Examples from Entimini and Hylobiina (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 2008, 44, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Franz, N.M. Redescriptions of critical type species in the Eustylini Lacordaire (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae). J. Nat. Hist. 2010, 44, 41–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Franz, N.M. Revision and phylogeny of the Caribbean weevil genus Apotomoderes Dejean, 1834 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). ZooKeys 2010, 49, 33–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Franz, N.M. Phylogenetic reassessment of the Exophthalmus genus complex (Curculionidae: Entiminae: Eustylini, Geonemini). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2012, 164, 510–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Girón, J.C.; Franz, N.M. Revision, phylogeny and historical biogeography of the genus Apodrosus Marshall, 1922 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae). Insect Syst. Evol. 2010, 41, 339–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Girón, J.C.; Franz, N.M. Phylogenetic assessment of the Caribbean weevil genus Lachnopus Schoenherr (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae). Invertebr. Syst. 2012, 26, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Howden, A.T. The Pandeleteius subgenus Exmenetypus Voss in Central America (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Tanymecini). Coleopt. Bull. 1974, 28, 7–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. Howden, A.T. Revision of the New World genus Hadromeropsis Pierce (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Tanymecini). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 1982, 19, 1–180. [Google Scholar]
  23. Howden, A.T. Revision of the Mesoamerican species of Airosimus Howden (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Coleopt. Bull. 1993, 47, 249–267. [Google Scholar]
  24. Howden, A.T. The species of Pandeleteius Schoenherr of coastal Chile and Peru (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Zootaxa 2008, 1773, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
  25. Howden, A.T. On some species of Pandeleteius Schoenherr, 1834, in South America south of the tenth parallel (Coleoptera, Curculionidae: Entiminae: Tanymecini). Zootaxa 2011, 2977, 50–60. [Google Scholar]
  26. Scataglini, M.A.; Lanteri, A.A.; Confalonieri, V.A. Phylogeny of the Pantomorus–Naupactus complex based on morphological and molecular data (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Cladistics 2005, 21, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rosas, M.V.; Morrone, J.J.; del Río, M.G.; Lanteri, A.A. Phylogenetic analysis of the Pantomorus-Naupactus complex (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae) from North and Central America. Zootaxa 2011, 2780, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lanteri, A.A.; del Río, M.G. Phylogeny of the tribe Naupactini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) based on morphological characters. Syst. Entomol. 2017, 42, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. del Río, M.G.; Rodriguero, M.S.; Confalonieri, V.A.; Lanteri, A.A. Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analysis of Naupactus Dejean (Curculionidae: Entiminae) and Allied Genera: The Dilemma of Classification. Diversity 2018, 10, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Velazquez De Castro, A.J.; Alonso-Zarazaga, M.Á.; Outerelo, R. Systematics of Sitonini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae), with a hypothesis on the evolution of feeding habits. Syst. Entomol. 2007, 32, 312–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Korotyaev, B.A.; Meleshko, J.Y. On the systematics of the weevil genus Polydrusus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zoosyst. Ross. 1997, 6, 275–286. [Google Scholar]
  32. Morimoto, K.; Kojima, H.; Miyakawa, S. The Insects of Japan. Vol. 3. Curculionoidea: General Introduction and Curculionidae: Entiminae (Part 1), Phyllobiini, Polydrusini and Cuphicerini (Coleoptera); Entomological Society of Japan, Touka Shobo Co. Ltd.: Fukuoka, Japan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  33. Machado, A. El género Drouetius Méquignon, 1942 stat. prom., de las islas Azores (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). Graellsia 2009, 65, 19–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Machado, A. Revisión de los antiguos Lichenophagus (= Laparocerus) de la Macaronesia (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). Bol. SEA 2015, 57, 93–141. [Google Scholar]
  35. Machado, A.; Lopez, M.; Almeida, T.; Hernandez, M. Mitochondrial DNA phylogenetic analysis of the genus Laparocerus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). I. The Madeiran clade. Zool. Scr. 2008, 37, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Machado, A.; Rodríguez-Expósito, E.; López, M.; Hernández, M. Phylogenetic analysis of the genus Laparocerus, with comments on colonisation and diversification in Macaronesia (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). ZooKeys 2017, 1651, 1–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Yunakov, N.N. Species of the Subgenus Pseudocryphiphorus, Genus Otiorhynchus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), in the Fauna of the Crimea. Entomol. Rev. 2003, 83, 221–229. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yunakov, N.N. On the taxonomy of the weevil genus Parameira Seidl. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). Zool. Zhurnal 2004, 83, 1284–1289. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yunakov, N.N.; Korotyaev, B.A. On the systematics of the weevil genus Araxia Khnzorian with descriptions of new taxa from Transcaucasia, Turkey, and Turkmenistan (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae). Insect Syst. Evol. 2008, 39, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yunakov, N.N.; Klass, K.D. Contribution to the taxonomy and nomenclature of Entiminae from the Palearctic region and South Africa (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Beitr. Entomol. 2012, 62, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oberprieler, R. Revision of the Tanyrhynchini of continental Africa (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) I. Introduction and review of the genera, revision of the genus Brachytrachelus Schönherr and description of Afroleptops gen. nov. Entomol. Mem. Dep. Agric. Water Supply Repub. S. Afr. 1988, 71, 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oberprieler, R.G. Systematic position and composition of the tribes Tanyrhynchini and Myorhinini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 1995, 14, 155–167. [Google Scholar]
  43. Thompson, R.T. Revision of the genus Catasarcus Schonherr (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Entomol. 1968, 22, 357–454. [Google Scholar]
  44. Posadas, P.E. Los Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) de la Tierra del Fuego e Islas Malvinas. Ph.D. Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  45. Elgueta, M. Geosphaeropterus, nuevo género de Tropiphorini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) de Chile, con descripción de tres nuevas especies. Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Chile 2013, 62, 203–217. [Google Scholar]
  46. Brown, S.D.J. Taxonomy and Evolution of Endemic New Zealand Broad-Nosed Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae). Ph.D. Thesis, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  47. Borovec, R. Revision of the Palaearctic supraspecific taxa of the tribe Trachyphloeini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae). Klapalekiana 2009, 45, 1–97. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kuschel, G. Terrestrial zoology in southern Chile. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1960, 152, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kuschel, G. The Curculionidae of Gough Island and the relationships of the weevil fauna of the Tristan da Cunha group. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. 1962, 173, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kuschel, G. Biogeography and ecology of South American Coleoptera. In Biogeography and Ecology of South America; Fittkau, E.J., Illies, J., Klinge, H., Schwabe, G.H., Eds.; Monographiae Biologicae; Springer: The Hague, Switzerland, 1969; pp. 709–722. [Google Scholar]
  51. Morrone, J.J.; Roig-Juñent, S. Synopsis and cladistics of the American Aterpini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Cyclominae). Insect Syst. Evol. 2000, 30, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Morrone, J.J. The subtribes and genera of the tribe Listroderini (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Cyclominae): Phylogenetic analysis with systematic and biogeographical accounts. ZooKeys 2013, 273, 15–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Barrios, H.; Borovec, R.; Bouchard, P.; Caldara, R.; Colonnelli, E.; Gültekin, L.; Hlaváč, P.; Korotyaev, B.; Lyal, C.H. Cooperative catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Curculionoidea. Monogr. Electrón. SEA 2017, 8, 1–729. [Google Scholar]
  54. Grebennikov, V.V. Neglected Trichalophus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): DNA barcode and phylogeography of high-altitude flightless weevils rediscovered in Southwest China. Bonn. Zool. Bull. 2016, 64, 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pullen, K.R.; Jennings, D.; Oberprieler, R.G. Annotated catalogue of Australian weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Zootaxa 2014, 3896, 1–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Morrone, J.J. Biogeographical regionalisation of the world: A reappraisal. Aust. Syst. Bot. 2015, 28, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kuschel, G. Nuevos Brachyderinae y Magdalinae chilenos (Coleoptera Curculionidae). Arthropoda 1950, 1, 181–195. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kuschel, G. The Curculionidae of the Cordillera Chileno-Argentina (1a. parte) (Aporte 13 Coleoptera Curculionidae). Rev. Chil. Entomol. 1952, 2, 271–273. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sunnucks, P.; Hales, D.F. Numerous transposed sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I-II in aphids of the genus Sitobion (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Mol. Biol. Evol. 1996, 13, 510–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Duckett, C.N.; Gillespie, J.J.; Kjer, K.M. Relationships among the subfamilies of Chrysomelidae inferred from small subunit ribosomal DNA and morphology with special emphasis on the relationship among the flea beetles and the Galerucinae. In New Developments in the Biology of Chrysomelidae; Jolivet, P., Santiago-Blay, J.A., Schmitt, M., Eds.; SPB Academic Publishing BV.: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  61. Brown, S.D.J.; Armstrong, K.F.; Cruickshank, R.H. Molecular phylogenetics of a South Pacific sap beetle species complex (Carpophilus spp., Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 64, 428–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Filatov, D.A. ProSeq: A software for preparation and evolutionary analysis of DNA sequence data sets. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2002, 2, 621–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kjer, K.M.; Roshan, U.; Gillespie, J.J. Structural and evolutionary considerations for multiple sequence alignment of RNA, and the challenges for algorithms that ignore them. In Sequence Alignment: Methods, Models, Concepts, and Strategies; Rosenberg, M.S., Ed.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009; 337p. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gillespie, J.J.; Johnston, J.S.; Cannone, J.J.; Gutell, R.R. Characteristics of the nuclear (18S, 58 S, 28S and 5S) and mitochondrial (12S and 16S) rRNA genes of Apis mellifera (Insecta: Hymenoptera): Structure, organization, and retrotransposable elements. Insect Mol. Biol. 2006, 15, 657–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Marvaldi, A.E.; Duckett, C.N.; Kjer, K.M.; Gillespie, J.J. Structural alignment of 18S and 28S rDNA sequences provides insights into phylogeny of Phytophaga (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea and Chrysomeloidea). Zool. Scr. 2009, 38, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Swofford, D.L. PAUP* Phylogeny Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods); Version 40b10; Sinauer Assoc. Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  67. Halanych, K.M.; Lutz, R.A.; Vrijenhoek, R.C. Evolutionary origins and age of vestimentiferan tube-worms. Cah. Biol. Mar. 1998, 39, 355–358. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sequeira, A.S.; Lanteri, A.A.; Scataglini, M.A.; Confalonieri, V.A.; Farrell, B.D. Are flightless Galapaganus weevils older than the Galápagos Islands they inhabit? Heredity 2000, 85, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Dowton, M.; Austin, A.D. Phylogenetic relationships among the microgastroid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Combined analysis of 16S and 28S rDNA genes and morphological data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1998, 10, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Whiting, M.F.; Carpenter, J.C.; Wheeler, Q.D.; Wheeler, W.C. The Strepsiptera problem: Phylogeny of the holometabolous insect orders inferred from 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA sequences and morphology. Syst. Biol. 1997, 46, 1–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Folmer, O.; Black, M.; Hoeh, W.; Lutz, R.; Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 1994, 3, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Simon, C.; Frati, F.; Beckenbach, A.; Crespi, B.; Liu, H.; Flook, P. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1994, 87, 651–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lanteri, A.A.; O’Brien, C.W. Taxonomic revision and cladistic analysis of Atrichonotus Buchanan (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 1990, 116, 697–725. [Google Scholar]
  74. Marvaldi, A.E. Larvae of South American Entimini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and phylogenetics implications of certain characters. Rev. Chil. Entomol. 1998, 25, 21–44. [Google Scholar]
  75. Marvaldi, A.E. Larvae of South American Rhytirrhininae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Coleopt. Bull. 1998, 52, 71–89. [Google Scholar]
  76. Morrone, J.J.; Diaz, N.B.; Loiacono, M.S. Comparative morphology of mouthparts in the tribe Listroderini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Elytron 1992, 6, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  77. Marvaldi, A.E.; Lanteri, A.A. Key to higher taxa of South American weevils based on adult characters (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 2005, 78, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Buchanan, L.L.F. The Species of Pantomorus of America North of Mexico; U.S. Department Agriculture: Washinton, DC, USA, 1939; Volume 341, pp. 1–39.
  79. Marvaldi, A.E. Larvae of Entiminae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): Tribal diagnoses and phylogenetic key, with a proposal about natural groups within Entimini. Insect Syst. Evol. 1998, 29, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bouckaert, R.; Heled, J.; Kühnert, D.; Vaughan, T.; Wu, C.H.; Xie, D.; Suchard, M.A.; Drummond, A.J. BEAST 2: A Software Platform for Bayesian Evolutionary Analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1002537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Miller, M.A.; Pfeiffe, W.; Schwartz, T. Creating the CIPRES Science Gate way for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
  82. Darriba, D.; Taboada, G.L.; Doallo, R.; Posada, D. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  84. Drumond, A.J.; Rambaut, A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Rambaut, A. FigTree v. 1.3.1. Computer Program and Documentation Distributed by the Author, 2006–2012. Available online: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/ (accessed on 21 December 2017).
  86. Goloboff, P.A.; Catalano, S. TNT version 1.5, including full implementation of phylogenetic morphometrics. Cladistics 2016, 32, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Felsenstein, J. Confidence Limits on Phylogenies: An Approach Using the Bootstrap. Evolution 1985, 39, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Kluge, A.G.; Farris, J.S. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst. Biol. 1969, 18, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Farris, J.S. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics 1989, 5, 417–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nixon, K.C. WinClada, ver. 1.00.08; Nixon, K.C.: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  91. Oberprieler, R. A reclassification of the weevil subfamily Cyclominae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 2010, 2515, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  92. Meregalli, M.; Germann, C.; Bernasconi, M.V.; Cervella, P. Phylogeny of the Genus Dichotrachelus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Cyclominae). Diversity 2018, 10, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ashworth, A.C.; Kuschel, G. Fossil weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) from latitude 85° S Antarctica. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2003, 191, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kuschel, G. La subfamilia Aterpinae en América. Rev Chil. Entomol. 1951, 1, 205–244. [Google Scholar]
  95. Morrone, J.J. Distributional pattern of South American Aterpini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 1996, 55, 131–141. [Google Scholar]
  96. Posadas, P.; Morrone, J.J. Biogeografía histórica de la familia Curculionidae (Coleoptera) en las subregiones Subantártica y Chilena Central. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 2003, 62, 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  97. Kuschel, G. Los “Curculionidae” del extremo Norte de Chile (Coleoptera, Curcul. Ap. 6). Acta Zool. Lilloana 1949, 8, 5–54. [Google Scholar]
  98. Kuschel, G. Entomology of the Aucklands and other islands south of New Zealand: (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pac. Insects Monogr. 1971, 27, 225–259. [Google Scholar]
  99. Morrone, J.J. Distributional patterns of species of Rhytirrhinini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and the historical relationships of the Andean provinces. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1994, 4, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Morrone, J.J. Cladistics of the new world genera of Listroderina (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Rhytirrhinini). Cladistics 1997, 13, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Posadas, P. A preliminar overview of species composition and geographical distribution of Malvinian weevils (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Zootaxa 2008, 1704, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  102. Posadas, P. Species composition and geographic distribution of Fuegian Curculionidae (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Zootaxa 2012, 3303, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  103. Morrone, J.J.; Loiácono, M.S. Revision of the genus Rhigopsidius Heller (Insecta, Coleoptera, Curculionidae: Rhytirrhininae). Entomol. Abh 1992, 54, 129–139. [Google Scholar]
  104. Hustache, A. Contribution à l’étude des Curculionides de la République Argentine. An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Bernard. Rivadavia 1926, 34, 155–261. [Google Scholar]
  105. Schenkling, S.; Marshall, G.A.K. Coleopterorum Catalogus; Schenkling, S., Ed.; W. Junk: Berlín, Germany, 1931; Volume 28, Pars 114. Curculionidae: Eremninae, pp. 3–39; Leptopinae, pp. 1–83; Tanyrrhinchinae, pp. 1–10; Cylydrorrhininae, pp. 1–23; Thecesterninae (Suppl.), p. 1; Rhytitthininae (Suppl.), pp. 1–4; Ryparosominae (Suppl.) p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  106. Voss, E. Curculionidae (Col.). In Beiträge zur Fauna Perus; Titschack, E., Ed.; Gustav Fischer Verlag: Jena, Germany, 1954; Volume 4, pp. 163–376. [Google Scholar]
  107. Kuschel, G. Nuevos Cylydrorhininae de la Patagonia (Col. Curculionoidea, Aporte 18). Investig. Zool. Chil. 1958, 4, 231–252. [Google Scholar]
  108. Kuschel, G. Revisión de los Premnotrypini y adiciones a los Bagoini (Aporte 17 sobre Coleoptera Curculionoidea). Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Chile 1956, 26, 187–235. [Google Scholar]
  109. Alcázar, J.; Cisneros, F. Taxonomy and bionomics of the Andean potato weevil complex: Premnotrypes spp. and related genera. CIP Program Rep. 1997, 98, 141–151. [Google Scholar]
  110. Elgueta, M. Descripción de una nueva especie de Hybreoleptops Kuschel 1949 y comentarios sobre otros representantes del género (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Chile 2012, 61, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  111. Pérez, M.E.; Posadas, P. Cladistics and redescription of Hybreoleptops Kuschel (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae) with the description of two new species from the Central Chilean subregion. J. Nat. Hist. 2006, 40, 1775–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Perrin, H.; Sanchez-Ruiz, M. Sur l’identité du genre Ctenolobus Desbrochers des Loges, 1892 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Bull. Société Entomol. Fr. 2010, 115, 479–483. [Google Scholar]
  113. del Río, M.G.; Morrone, J.J.; Lanteri, A.A. Evolutionary biogeography of South American weevils of the tribe Naupactini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Biogeogr. 2015, 42, 1293–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Vaurie, P. Revision of the genus Entimus with notes on other genera of Entimini (Coleoptera Curculionidae). Rev. Chil. Entomol. 1952, 1, 147–171. [Google Scholar]
  115. Vanin, S.A. Revision of Phaedropus Schoenherr with notes on the male genitalia of Entimini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Leptopiinae). Coleopt. Bull. 1983, 37, 283–298. [Google Scholar]
  116. Warner, R.E. The genus Eudiagogus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Leptopiinae), with two new species on the weed Sesbania (Leguminosae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 1979, 81, 304–320. [Google Scholar]
  117. O’Brien, C.W.; Kovarik, P.W. A new species of Eudiagogus Schoenherr from South America (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Coleopt. Bull. 2000, 54, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Girón, J.C.; O’Brien, C.W.; Rose-Smyth, M.C. On the West Indian weevil genus Lachnopus Schönherr, 1840 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae): Descriptions of six new species, a proposal for species-groups, and an annotated checklist. Zootaxa 2018, 4423, 1–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zhang, G.; Basharat, U.; Matzke, N.; Franz, N.M. Model selection in statistical historical biogeography of Neotropical insects—The Exophthalmus genus complex (Curculionidae: Entiminae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2017, 109, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Anderson, R.S.; Lanteri, A.A. New genera and species of weevils from the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, and Cocos Island, Costa Rica (Coleoptera; Curculionidae; Entiminae; Entimini). Am. Mus. Novit. 2000, 3299, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Van Emden, F.I. On the taxonomy of Rhynchophora larvae: Adelognatha and Alophinae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1952, 122, 651–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Jackson, S.D. Observaciones sobre la biologia de Platyaspistes glaucus Fahraeus, 1840 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Rev. Chil. Entomol. 1987, 15, 85–87. [Google Scholar]
  123. Marvaldi, A.E. Eggs and oviposition habits in Entimini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Coleopt. Bull. 1999, 53, 115–126. [Google Scholar]
  124. Marshall, G.A.K. The Otiorrhynchine Curculionidae of the Tribe Celeuthetini (Col.); Trustees of the British Museum: London, UK, 1956; pp. 1–134. [Google Scholar]
  125. Toussaint, E.F.; Tänzler, R.; Rahmadi, C.; Balke, M.; Riedel, A. Biogeography of Australasian flightless weevils (Curculionidae, Celeuthetini) suggests permeability of Lydekker’s and Wallace’s Lines. Zool. Scr. 2015, 44, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 10 00095 g001 550
Figure 1. Morphology of adults, head and rostrum: (a) Strangaliodes niger, frontal view; (b) Pororhynchus labeonis, frontal view; (c) Premnotrypes latithorax, lateral view; (d) Hoplopactus lateralis, frontal view; (e) Aegorhinus vitulus, lateral view; and (f) Listroderes costirostris, lateral view. Arrows indicate characters and character states (between parentheses).
Figure 1. Morphology of adults, head and rostrum: (a) Strangaliodes niger, frontal view; (b) Pororhynchus labeonis, frontal view; (c) Premnotrypes latithorax, lateral view; (d) Hoplopactus lateralis, frontal view; (e) Aegorhinus vitulus, lateral view; and (f) Listroderes costirostris, lateral view. Arrows indicate characters and character states (between parentheses).
Diversity 10 00095 g001
Diversity 10 00095 g002 550
Figure 2. Morphology of adults, head and rostrum: (a) Pantomorus postfasciatus, lateral view; (b) Simo hirticornis, lateral view; (c) Galapagonotus cuneiformis, lateral view; (d) Platyaspistes argentinensis, lateral view; (e) Entimus sastrei (teneral adult), frontal view; and (f) Naupactus xanthographus, ventral view. Arrows indicate characters and character states (between parentheses).
Figure 2. Morphology of adults, head and rostrum: (a) Pantomorus postfasciatus, lateral view; (b) Simo hirticornis, lateral view; (c) Galapagonotus cuneiformis, lateral view; (d) Platyaspistes argentinensis, lateral view; (e) Entimus sastrei (teneral adult), frontal view; and (f) Naupactus xanthographus, ventral view. Arrows indicate characters and character states (between parentheses).
Diversity 10 00095 g002
Diversity 10 00095 g003 550
Figure 3. Morphology of adults, habitus: (a) Symmathetes setulosus, dorsal view; (b) Phyllobius viridicollis, dorsal view; (c) Eusomus ovulum, dorsal view; (d) Rhigopsidius piercei, dorsal view; (e) Premnotrypes latithorax, lateral view; and (f) Strangaliodes niger, lateral view. Arrows indicate characters and character states (between parentheses).
Figure 3. Morphology of adults, habitus: (a) Symmathetes setulosus, dorsal view; (b) Phyllobius viridicollis, dorsal view; (c) Eusomus ovulum, dorsal view; (d) Rhigopsidius piercei, dorsal view; (e) Premnotrypes latithorax, lateral view; and (f) Strangaliodes niger, lateral view. Arrows indicate characters and character states (between parentheses).
Diversity 10 00095 g003
Diversity 10 00095 g004 550
Figure 4. Morphology of adults, occipital sutures and tarsal claws. Head and rostrum, ventral view, position of occipital sutures (character 16): (a) longitudinal (16.0); (b) transversal (16.1); (c) reduced to a fovea (16.2). Tarsal claws (character 53): (d) free, widely separated (53.0); (e) free, moderately separated (53.1); (f) connate, claws of equal length (53.2); and (g) connate, claws of different length (53.2).
Figure 4. Morphology of adults, occipital sutures and tarsal claws. Head and rostrum, ventral view, position of occipital sutures (character 16): (a) longitudinal (16.0); (b) transversal (16.1); (c) reduced to a fovea (16.2). Tarsal claws (character 53): (d) free, widely separated (53.0); (e) free, moderately separated (53.1); (f) connate, claws of equal length (53.2); and (g) connate, claws of different length (53.2).
Diversity 10 00095 g004
Diversity 10 00095 g005 550
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of Entiminae resulting from partitioned Bayesian analysis (MCC) of DNA sequences from four markers and morphological data (see Section 2 Material and Methods). Posterior probability values indicated above branches. Clades discussed in the text are indicated in red (I, II, and A–D).
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of Entiminae resulting from partitioned Bayesian analysis (MCC) of DNA sequences from four markers and morphological data (see Section 2 Material and Methods). Posterior probability values indicated above branches. Clades discussed in the text are indicated in red (I, II, and A–D).
Diversity 10 00095 g005
Diversity 10 00095 g006 550
Figure 6. Strict consensus tree of four most parsimonious trees of Entiminae resulting from Maximum Parsimony analysis of DNA sequences from four markers and morphological data (see Material and Methods). Bootstrap values from the combined molecular and morphological data are indicated above branches and Bootstrap values from the separate molecular data are indicated below branches. Tribes are indicated in different colors. Clades recovered in the Bayesian tree are indicated in red.
Figure 6. Strict consensus tree of four most parsimonious trees of Entiminae resulting from Maximum Parsimony analysis of DNA sequences from four markers and morphological data (see Material and Methods). Bootstrap values from the combined molecular and morphological data are indicated above branches and Bootstrap values from the separate molecular data are indicated below branches. Tribes are indicated in different colors. Clades recovered in the Bayesian tree are indicated in red.
Diversity 10 00095 g006
Diversity 10 00095 g007 550
Figure 7. Most parsimonious tree of Entiminae, selected from the four MPTs obtained after combined parsimony analysis. Morphological unambiguous character changes are indicated at branches, with numbers above and below corresponding to character and state, respectively; unique changes are in black and homoplastic changes in white. The most important clades are illustrated and highlighted with boxes and their main biogeographic areas are indicated.
Figure 7. Most parsimonious tree of Entiminae, selected from the four MPTs obtained after combined parsimony analysis. Morphological unambiguous character changes are indicated at branches, with numbers above and below corresponding to character and state, respectively; unique changes are in black and homoplastic changes in white. The most important clades are illustrated and highlighted with boxes and their main biogeographic areas are indicated.
Diversity 10 00095 g007
Table
Table 1. Studied taxa, geographical sources and GenBank accession numbers. Codes in boldface indicate the new sequences produced for this study. * Tribes of Outgroups, in Cyclominae.
Table 1. Studied taxa, geographical sources and GenBank accession numbers. Codes in boldface indicate the new sequences produced for this study. * Tribes of Outgroups, in Cyclominae.
TribeSpeciesAcronymsLocalityAccesion Codes
18S28S16SCOI-5P
*AterpiniAegorhinus silvicola KuschelCYC_Aegorhinus_silArgentina, Neuquén, San Martín de los AndesMH746278MH746328MH746378MH734198
Aegorhinus vitulus (Fabricius)CYC_Aegorhinus_vitArgentina, Tierra del Fuego, UshuaiaMH746279-MH746379MH734199
*ListroderiniListroderes victus GermainCYC_Listroderes_vicChile, Cartagena, El Tabo, coastal dunesMH746280MH746329MH746380MH734200
Rhigopsidius piercei HellerCYC_Rhigopsidius_pieArgentina, JujuyMH746281MH746330MH746381MH734201
CylydrorhininiCaneorhinus biangulatus (Champion)CYL_Caneorhinus_biaGenBank source (Arg. Falklands Is.)--EF213994-
Cylydrorhinus caudiculatus (Fairmaire)CYL_Cylydrorhinus_cauGenBank source (Arg. Falklans Is.)--EF214094-
Cylydrorhinus chilensis (Blanchard)CYL_Cylydrorhinus_chiArgentina, La Rioja, Dto. VinchinaMH746286MH746335-MH734202
Cylydrorhinus aff. patagonicus (Kuschel)CYL_Cylydrorhinus_patArgentina, Jujuy, Dto. SusquesMH746287MH746336MH746385MH734203
PremnotrypiniPremnotrypes latithorax (Pierce)PRE_Premnotrypes_latPerú, CuzcoMH746316MH746365MH746416MH734204
LeptopiiniCatasarcus impresipennis (Boisduval)LEP_Catasarcus_impGenBank source (Australia)-KF016401KF016266-
Catasarcus sp.LEP_Catasarcus_spGenBank source (Australia)FJ867744FJ867671AJ495489FJ867847
Cecyropa sp.LEP_Cecyropa_spNew Zealand, Waikuku Beach, Surf ClubMH746322MH746371-MH734205
Irenimus sp.LEP_Irenimus_spNew Zealand, Ahuriri Scenic Reserve, Port Hills, ChristchurchMH746324MH746373MH746422MH734206
Strangaliodes deserticola KuschelLEP_Strangaliodes_desChile, AtacamaMH746325MH746374-MH734207
Strangaliodes sp. (aff. deserticola)LEP_Strangaliodes_spChile, Pichilemos-MH746375MH746423MH734208
Strangaliodes niger (Blanchard)LEP_Strangaliodes_nigArgentina, San JuanMH746326MH746376MH746424MH734209
Vossius nebulosus (Gyllenhal)LEP_Vossius_nebArgentina, Misiones, on way to Salto Tabai, close to Jardín AmericaMH746323MH746372-MH734210
EntiminiEntimus sp.ENT_Entimus_spBrazil, Rio de Janeiro, Coastal RestingasMH746327MH746377MH746425MH734211
EudiagoginiEudiagogus rosenschoeldi FahraeusEUD_Eudiagogus_rosGenBank source (United States of America)AF250081---
Pororhynchus aff. albolateralis HustacheEUD_Pororhynchus_albArgentina, San Juan, near TeltecaMH746288MH746337MH746387MH734212
EustyliniCompsus sp.EUS_Compsus_spGenBank source (South America)-KT350862-KT350650
Diaprepes abbreviatus (Linnaeus)EUS_Diaprepes_abbGenBank source (Central America)AY157729KT350865CN475651HQ891432
Galapagonotus cuneiformis WaterhouseGalapagonotus_cunEcuador, Islas Galápagos, San Cristóbal, El JuncoMH746282MH746331MH746386-
Oxyderces bimaculatus (Hustache)EUS_Oxyderces_bimArgentina, Corrientes, EmpedradoMH746289MH746338MH746388MH734213
GeoneminiArtipus sp.GEO_Artipus sp.GenBank source (Caribbean)-KT350859KP253881HQ891428
Epicaerus spGEO_Epicaerus_spUnited States of AmericaMH746290MH746339MH746389MH734214
Lachnopus sp.GEO_Lachnopus_spGenBank source (Caribbean)AF389052KT350910-HQ891465
NaupactiniAtrichonotus taeniatulus (Berg)NAU_Atrichonotus_taeArgentina, Mendoza, GuaymallénMH746296MH746345MH746395MH537919
Hoplopactus lateralis ArrowNAU_Hoplopactus_latBrazil, San PabloMH746297MH746346MH746396MH537920
Litostylus sp.NAU_Litostylus_spGenBank source (Caribbean)-KT350916-HQ891470
Naupactus auricinctus BohemanNAU_Naupactus_ aurBrazil, San PabloMH746298MH746347MH746397MH537921
Naupactus aff chloraspis ErichsonNAU_Naupactus_chlBrazil, BahiaMH746299MH746348MH746398MH734215
Naupactus aff faldermanni BohemanNAU_Naupactus_ faldBrazil, Mato GrossoMH746300MH746350MH746399-
Naupactus leucoloma BohemanNAU_Naupactus_leuArgentina, MendozaMH746301MH746349MH746400MH537922
Naupactus aff peruvianus HustacheNAU_Naupactus_ perPerú, Cuzco, Dto. Machu Pichu, Puerta Ciudad AntiguaMH746302MH746351MH746401-
Naupactus sulphurifer PascoeNAU_Naupactus_sulArgentina, Mendoza, Reserva Divisadero LargoMH746303MH746352MH746402-
Naupactus tarsalis BohemanNAU_Naupactus_tarArgentina, Formosa, Dto. Matacos, 20 Km Ing. JuárezMH746304MH746353MH746403-
Naupactus viridisquamosus BohemanNAU_Naupactus_virBrazil, Mato GrossoMH746305MH746354MH746404
Naupactus xanthographus (Germar)NAU_Naupactus_xanArgentina, Mendoza [except 16S, Buenos Aires, La Plata]FJ867775FJ867695MH746405NC0180354
Pantomorus ruizi (Brèthes)NAU_Pantomorus_ruiArgentina, Chubut, Trelew INTAMH746306MH746355MH746407MH537925
Symmathetes setarius (Boheman)NAU_Symmathetes_setaBrazil, Mato GrossoMH746308MH746357MH746408MH537923
Symmathetes setulosus HustacheNAU_Symmathetes_setuArgentina, Catamarca, Las Esquinas, Dpto. Valle ViejoMH746307MH746356MH746406MH537924
TanymeciniAirosimus jacobi (Hustache)TAN_Airosimus_jacArgentina, Misiones, Urugua-iMH746318MH746367MH746418MH734216
Hadromeropsis aff. pallida HowdenTAN_Hadromeropsis_palArgentina, Entre Ríos, CerritoMH746319MH746368MH746419MH734217
Pandeleteius platensis BrèthesTAN_Pandeleteius_plaArgentina, Mendoza, Reserva ÑacuñánMH746320MH746369MH746420MH734218
Pandeleteius sp.TAN_Pandeleteius_spGenBank source (United States of America)-HQ891475-HQ891475
Platyaspistes argentinensis KuschelTAN_Platyaspistes_argArgentina, San Juan, Dto. Sarmiento-Pedernal, Camino de los BerrosMH746321MH746370MH746421MH734219
BrachyderiniBrachyderes incanus LinnaeusBRA_Brachyderes_incGenBank source (Europe)-KX551463AJ495503KJ962877
Caulostrophus subsulcatus (Boheman)BRA_Caulostrophus_subItaly, Genova, Voltri, FiorinoMH746283MH746332MH746382MH734220
Strophosoma (Strophosoma) melanogrammum (Forster)BRA_Strophosoma_ melItaly, Vercelli, Val Sesia, Monte TovoMH746284MH746333MH746383MH734221
LaparoceriniLaparocerus (Atlantis) noctivagans WollastonLAP_Laparocerus_nocPortugal, Madeira, RabaçalMH746293MH746341MH746391MH734222
Laparocerus (Fernandezius) subcalvus WollastonLAP_Laparocerus_subSpain, Islas Canarias, Isla El Hierro, NE San AndrésMH746292MH746344MH746394-
Laparocerus (Guanchotrox) canariensis BohemanLAP_Laparocerus_canSpain, Islas Canarias, Isla de Tenerife, El PortilloMH746294MH746342MH746392MH734223
Laparocerus (Laparocerus) morio BohemanLAP_Laparocerus_morPortugal, Madeira, Encumeada,MH746295MH746343MH746393MH734224
OtiorhynchiniDodecastichus mastix OlivierOTI_Dodecastichus_masItaly, Pescara, La MaiellettaMH746309MH746358MH746409MH734225
Otiorhynchus (Dorymerus) sulcatus FabriciusOTI_Otiorhynchus_sulGenBank source (Europe)AF250084KU041875AJ495482/
JN163969		KJ962464
Otiorhynchus (Metopiorrhynchus) teretirostris StierlingOTI_Otiorhynchus_terItaly, Vercelli, Val Sesia, Monte TovoMH746310MH746359MH746410MH734226
Otiorhynchus (Provadilus) alpicola BohemanOTI_Otiorhynchus_alpItaly, Pescara, La MaiellettaMH746311MH746360MH746411MH734227
PeriteliniDrouetius azoricus parallelirostris MachadoPER_Drouetius_azoPortugal, Islas Azores, Isla Terceira, Angra, Monte BrazilMH746291MH746340MH746390MH734228
Simo hirticornis HerbstPER_Simo_hirItaly, Lecco, Lombardia, Lagi di AnnoneMH746312MH746361MH746412MH734229
PhyllobiiniPhyllobius (Parnemoicus) viridicollis FabriciusPHY_Phyllobius_virItaly, Verona, Monti Lessini, Monte CastelbertoMH746313MH746362MH746413MH734230
PolydrusiniLiophloeus (Liophloeus) tessulatus O.F. MüllerPOL_Liophloeus_tesItaly, Como, Lombardia, Piano del TivanoMH746314MH746363MH746414MH734231
Polydrusus (Eurodrusus) cervinus LinnaeusPOL_Polydrusus_cerGenBank source (Europe)-HQ883568AJ495494HQ883653
Polydrusus (Eurodrusus) confluens StephensPOL_Polydrusus_conItaly, Como, Lombardia, Piano del TivanoMH746315MH746364MH746415MH734232
SciaphiliniEusomus ovulum GermarSCI_Eusomus_ovuItaly, Milan, Zelo Buon Persico, Fiume Adda [except COI, GenBank source]MH746317MH746366MH746417MH734233
Sciaphilus asperatus BonsdorffSCI_Sciaphilus_aspGenBank source (Europe)JN619105-AJ495502KJ962310
CeleuthetiniCeleuthetes sp.CEL_Celeuthetes_spVanuatu, Efate, Tagabe, Agr. Research Stn, Port VilaMH746285MH746334MH746384MH734234
- means “unavailable”.
Table
Table 2. List of primers used for PCR amplification and sequencing of the markers used in the phylogenetic analyses of Entiminae.
Table 2. List of primers used for PCR amplification and sequencing of the markers used in the phylogenetic analyses of Entiminae.
MarkerPrimerSequence (5′ > 3′)SenseReference
18S ECTG GTT GAT CCT GCC ACG TF[67]
R1138CGC CTT CGA ACC TCT AACR[68]
F1094GGA TCG TCG CAA GAC GGA CAG AAGF[68]
PTAA TGA TCC TTC CGC AGG TTC ACC TR[67]
18S a07ATT AAA GTT GTT GCG GTTF[60]
18S b25TCT TTG GCA AAT GCT TTC GCR[60]
V7V9upTCC GAT AAC GAA CGA GAC TCF[60]
V7V9dwnGTT ACG ACT TTT ACT TCC TCR[60]
28SS3660GAG AGT TMA ASA GTA CGT GAA ACF[69]
A335TCG GAR GGA ACC AGC TAC TAR[70]
16S N13398CGC CTG TTT AWC AAA AAC ATF[5]
J12887CTC CGG TYT GAA CTC AGA TCA AGTR[5]
COILCOGGT CAA CAA ATC ATA AAG ATA TTG GF[71]
HCOTAA ACT TCA GGG TGA CCA AAA ATC AR[71]
A3014TCC AAT GCA CTA ATC TGC CAT ATT AR[72]
Table
Table 3. List of the 70 morphological characters, character states and codes.
Table 3. List of the 70 morphological characters, character states and codes.
1Rostrum, length: more than 1.25 × as long as wide (minimum width, measured across apex without scrobes) (0) (Figure 1a); about as long as wide (slightly longer to slightly shorter) (1) (Figure 1b).
2Rostrum, anterior portion of epistome: not raised and not projecting beyond anterior margin of rostrum (0); raised and projecting beyond anterior margin of rostrum (1) (Figure 1c).
3Rostrum, outline of apex: slightly emarginated (0) (Figure 1a); V-shaped (1) (Figure 1b).
4Rostrum, posterior part of epistome: denuded (0); covered with vestiture different from that of posterior part of rostrum (1) (Figure 5 in [28]).
5Rostrum, expansion at apex (including pterigia): rostrum distinctly expanded at apex, ahead of antennal insertion (0) (Figure 1b); not to slightly expanded apex (sides subparallel or convergent towards apex) (1) (Figure 1d).
6Rostrum, dorsal surface: impressed or flat (0) (Figure 1e); convex (1) (Figure 1c).
7Rostrum, groove along midline: absent or indistinct (0); present (1) (Figure 1d).
8Rostrum unicarinate or tricarinate (with central and lateral longitudinal carinae): not unicarinate or tricarinate (0); unicarinate or tricarinate (1) (Figure 1f).
9Rostrum bicarinate (with pair of dorso-lateral carinae): not bicarinate (0); bicarinate (1) (Figure 1d).
10Rostrum, scrobes in dorsal view: completely exposed, visible along their whole length (0) (Figure 3b); not completely exposed, only apical part partially visible (1) (Figure 3a).
11Rostrum, sulcus along pterigia in lateral view: absent to slight (0); deep (1).
12Rostrum, curvature of scrobes in lateral view: strongly curved ventrad of head (0) (Figure 1e); curved downwards and passing below eyes (1) (Figure 2a); slightly curved and orientated towards eyes (2) (Figure 2b).
13Rostrum, scrobes in lateral view: well-defined and slightly widened posteriad (0) (Figure 2a); vaguely defined, shallow and very widened posteriad (1) (Figure 2b).
14Rostrum, anteocular impression: longitudinal, latero-dorsal (0) (Figure 1 in [14]); triangular, lateral (1) (Figure 5 in [14]); indistinct (2).
15Rostrum, transversal sulcus between rostrum and head (ventral view): present (0); indistinct (1).
16Rostrum, occipital sutures (ventral view): longitudinal, curved, usually connected with lower edge of eye (0) (Figure 4a); transversal relative to longitudinal axis of rostrum, not connected with lower edge of eye (1) (Figure 4b); reduced to a fovea (2) (Figure 4c).
17Mouthparts, inner side on mandibles: with two or more teeth (0) (Figures 1 and 2 [76]); with a single tooth on distal end or lacking tooth (1) (Figures 7 and 8 in [18])
18Mouthparts, scar or lasting appendage on apical surface of mandibles: absent (0); present (1) (Figure 1b and Figure 2e).
19Mouthparts, prementum relative to maxillae: prementum incompletely concealing maxillae (phanerognathous condition) (0); prementum completely concealing maxillae (adelognathous condition) (1) (Figure 2f) (Figure 4d,e in [77]).
20Mouthparts, long setae on prementum: absent (0) (Figure 2f); present (1) (Figures 9 and 10 in [18]).
21Head, transversal furrow or impression between rostrum and forehead (dorsal view): present (0) (Figure 1c); absent (1).
22Head, width of forehead relative to minimum width of rostrum (without pterigia): forehead wider than rostrum (0); forehead about same width to narrower than rostrum (1).
23Head, orientation of setae behind forehead (vertex): setae anteriorly oriented (0); posteriorly oriented (1).
24Head, superciliar arches: absent (0); present (1) (Figure 1e).
25Head, circumocular sulcus: absent (0); present (1) (Figure 1e).
26Head, large fovea on forehead: present (0); absent or very small (1).
27Head, shape and position of eyes: rounded to slightly oval, oriented antero-posteriad (Figure 2b) (0); oval, oriented dorso-ventrad (1) (Figure 1f).
28Head, convexity of eyes: flat (slightly protruding) (0) (Figure 1b); convex (protruding) (1) (Figure 1d); conical (strongly protruding) (2) (Figure 3a).
29Eyes, position relative to anterior margin of pronotum: slightly separated from pronotum (by 1× or less than 1X the diameter of eyes) (0) (Figure 3c); largely separated from pronotum (by 1× of more than 1× the diameter of eyes) (1) (Figure 3b).
30Antennae, shape and width of scape: clavate to spatulate, broad (0) (Figure 2b); clavate to capitate, slender (1) (Figure 3c).
31Antennae, curvature of scape: straight (0) (Figure 1a); curved (1) (Figure 3b).
32Antennae, scape in resting position: passing below eyes (0); passing across dorsal half of eyes or over eyes (1) (Figure 2c).
33Antennae, length of scape: not reaching anterior margin of eyes (0); exceeding anterior margin of eye, but not exceeding anterior margin of pronotum (1); largely exceeding anterior margin of pronotum (2).
34Antennae, relative length of funicle antennomeres 1 and 2: funicle antennomere 2 slightly shorter than 1 or both subequal (0); funicle antennomer 2 longer than 1 (1).
35Antennae, length/ width ratio of funicle antennomeres 4–7: wider than long (0); about as long as wide (1); distinctly longer than wide (2).
36Pronotum, postocular lobes: absent (0); present, not covering eyes (1) (Figure 1e); present, covering eyes (2) (Figure 1c).
37Pronotum, long vibrissae on lateral margins: absent (0); present (1) (Figure 2d).
38Pronotum, shape: subcylindrical to subconical, not impressed behind anterior margin (0); subhexagonal, impressed behind anterior margin (1) (Figure 3d).
39Pronotum, basal margin: not constricted (0); strongly constricted (1) (Figure 3d in [28]).
40Prosternum, channel to accommodate the rostrum in repose: absent (0); present (1).
41Scutellum, shape: subtriangular (0); quadrate to rounded (1); suboval to subrectangular (longitudinal) (2) (Figure 3d); subcircular (3).
42Elytra, striae 9 and 10: closer to each other on posterior 2/3 (0) (Figure 3f); equally separated along their extension (1) (Figure 3e); closer to each other on anterior 1/3 (2).
43Elytra, outline of apex: entire (0); bifid (1) (Figure 3a,d in [28]).
44Procoxae, position relative to anterior and posterior margins of prosternum: about equally close to both margins of prosternum (0); distinctly closer to anterior margin (1).
45Femora, large tooth on ventral edge: absent (0); present on all femora (1) (Figure 3c).
46Femora, width of profemora relative to width of metafemora: profemora about as wide as metafemora (0); 1.25–1.5× as wide as metafemora (1); more than 1.5× as wide as metafemora (2); narrower than metafemora (3) (Figures 2a and 3a,d,e in [28]).
47Tibiae, mucro on protibiae: reduce to indistinct (0) (Figure 3b); moderate to large, not forming forceps with tuft of stiff setae (1) (Figure 3a); large, forming forceps with tuft of stiff setae (2).
48Tibiae, line of denticles along inner edge: absent in all tibiae (0); present at least on protibiae (1) (Figure 3a).
49Tibiae, spurs at metatibial apex: present (0); absent (1).
50Tibiae, true corbel at metatibial apex: absent (metatibial apex simple or corbel open); present (1) (Figures 5A, 5B–D in [3]).
51Tibiae, false corbel (inner flange or corbel semi-enclosed): absent (0); present (1) (Figure 5E,F in [3]).
52Tibiae, dorsal comb at metatibial apex (corbel ascending): absent (0); present (1) (Figures A–B and E–J in [78]).
53Tarsal claws: free, widely separated (0) (Figure 4d); free, moderately separated (1) (Figure 4e); connate (2) (Figure 4f–g).
54Metepisternum and metepisteral-metasternal suture: metepisternum wide, suture complete (0) (Figure 3f); metepisternum narrow, suture complete (1); metepisternum indistinct, suture incomplete, partially fused with metasternum (2) (Figure 3e).
55Metasternum, length relative to metacoxae: about 2X as long as metacoxae (0); 1–2× as long as metacoxae (1) (Figure 3f); less than 1× as long as metacoxae (2) (Figure 3e).
56Venter, convexity of ventrites: flat to slightly convex (0); ventrites 1 and 2 more convex than remaining ventrites (Figure 3e) (1); ventrites 1–4 very convex (2).
57Venter, separation between metacoxae: equal to slightly narrower than width of each metacoxa (0); much wider than width of each metacoxae (1).
58Venter, length of ventrite 2 relative to ventrites 3 + 4 (female): longer than 3+ 4 (0); about as long as to slightly shorter than 3 + 4 (1).
59Female genitalia, shape of plate of sternite VIII: subtriangular (0); not subtriangular (1). (Figure 6a–g in [28])
60Female genitalia, length of apodeme of sternite VIII: about as long as plate (0); distinctly longer than plate (1).
61Female genitalia, distal gonocoxites and styli: gonocoxites membranous to slightly sclerotized, styli present (0); gonocoxites strongly sclerotized, styli absent (1) (Figure 7c,d in [28])
62Female genitalia, pair of baculi along ovipositor: absent (0); present (1) (Figure 7b–e in [28]).
63Larva, length and shape of antennal sensorium: longer than wide, subconical (0) (Figure 53 [75]; wider than long, cushion like (1) (Figure 2 in [74]).
64Larva, shape of antennal sensorium in apical view: subcircular (0) (Figure 10 in [4]); elliptical (1) (Figure 13 in [4]).
65Larva, number of ventral setae on maxillary mala: five (0) (Figure 56 in [75]); four (1) (Figures 7, 52, and 74 in [74]).
66Larva, shape of posterior extension of premental sclerite of labium: acute at apex (0) (Figure 28 in [4]); truncate at apex (1) (Figures 33 and 34 in [4]).
67Larva, accessory teeth on intermediate portion of mandibular cutting-edge: present (0) (Figure 20 in [4]); absent (1) (Figure 6 in [79]).
68Larva, mandibular scrobe: sclerotized, similar to the rest of mandible (0) (Figure 55 in [75]); slightly sclerotized, paler than the rest of mandible (1) (Figure 6 in [79]).
69Larva, labral rods: subparallel (0)(Figures 3–5 in [79]); divergent in their distal half (1) (Figures 1 and 2 in [79]); U-shaped (2) (Figures 50 and 60 in [74]).
70Larva, number of setae on alar area: two (0) (Figure 9 in [74]); one (1) (Figure 7 in [79]).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marvaldi, A.E.; Del Río, M.G.; Pereyra, V.A.; Rocamundi, N.; Lanteri, A.A. A Combined Molecular and Morphological Approach to Explore the Higher Phylogeny of Entimine Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with Special Reference to South American Taxa. Diversity 2018, 10, 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030095

AMA Style

Marvaldi AE, Del Río MG, Pereyra VA, Rocamundi N, Lanteri AA. A Combined Molecular and Morphological Approach to Explore the Higher Phylogeny of Entimine Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with Special Reference to South American Taxa. Diversity. 2018; 10(3):95. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030095

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marvaldi, Adriana E., María Guadalupe Del Río, Vanina A. Pereyra, Nicolás Rocamundi, and Analía A. Lanteri. 2018. "A Combined Molecular and Morphological Approach to Explore the Higher Phylogeny of Entimine Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with Special Reference to South American Taxa" Diversity 10, no. 3: 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030095

APA Style

Marvaldi, A. E., Del Río, M. G., Pereyra, V. A., Rocamundi, N., & Lanteri, A. A. (2018). A Combined Molecular and Morphological Approach to Explore the Higher Phylogeny of Entimine Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with Special Reference to South American Taxa. Diversity, 10(3), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030095

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop