Cassidinae

About: Cassidinae is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 435 publications have been published within this topic receiving 2692 citations. The topic is also known as: tortoise beetles & leaf-mining beetles.

Recalibrated Tree of Leaf Beetles (Chrysomelidae) Indicates Independent Diversification of Angiosperms and Their Insect Herbivores

Abstract: Background The great diversity of the “Phytophaga” (weevils, longhorn beetles and leaf beetles) has been attributed to their co-radiation with the angiosperms based on matching age estimates for both groups, but phylogenetic information and molecular clock calibrations remain insufficient for this conclusion. Methodology A phylogenetic analysis of the leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) was conducted based on three partial ribosomal gene markers (mitochondrial rrnL, nuclear small and large subunit rRNA) including over 3000 bp for 167 taxa representing most major chrysomelid lineages and outgroups. Molecular clock calibrations and confidence intervals were based on paleontological data from the oldest (K-T boundary) leaf beetle fossil, ancient feeding traces ascribed to hispoid Cassidinae, and the vicariant split of Nearctic and Palearctic members of the Timarchini. Principal Findings The origin of the Chrysomelidae was dated to 73–79 Mya (confidence interval 63–86 Mya), and most subfamilies were post-Cretaceous, consistent with the ages of all confirmed body fossils. Two major monocot feeding chrysomelid lineages formed widely separated clades, demonstrating independent colonization of this ancient (early Cretaceous) angiosperm lineage. Conclusions Previous calibrations proposing a much older origin of Chrysomelidae were not supported. Therefore, chrysomelid beetles likely radiated long after the origin of their host lineages and their diversification was driven by repeated radiaton on a pre-existing diverse resource, rather than ancient host associations.

Biology and phylogeny of the Cassidinae Gyllenhal sensu lato (tortoise and leaf-mining beetles) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Abstract: A parsimony analysis was undertaken to test subfamily and tribal group concepts of Cassidinae (ca. 2000 genera, ca. 6000 species). An integrated account of their biology was synthesized from the primary literature. A detailed morphological study of adults, using Hemisphaerota palmarum Boheman as a model, formed the basis for evaluating characters previously utilized and for defining novel characters. The data matrix comprised 210 characters (from adults and immature stages, ecology and behavior), 6 outgroups, and 98 ingroup exemplar species (representing 94 genera and 39 of the 43 recognized cassidine tribes). Results support the monophyly of Cassidinae and place it as sister to Galerucinae. The classical Hispinae s.str. is paraphyletic whereas the classical Cassidinae s.str. is monophyletic if some Imatidiine genera are included. Four tribes—Aproidini, Delocraniini, Hemisphaerotini, and Notosacanthini—are well supported by many autapomorphies. Multiple genera were sampled to test the monophyly o...

Multilocus ribosomal RNA phylogeny of the leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae)

Abstract: Basal relationships in the Chrysomelidae (leaf beetles) were investigated using two nuclear (small and partial large subunits) and mitochondrial (partial large subunit) rRNA (≈ 3000 bp total) for 167 taxa covering most major lineages and relevant outgroups. Separate and combined data analyses were performed under parsimony and model-based tree building algorithms from dynamic (direct optimization) and static (Clustal and BLAST) sequence alignments. The performance of methods differed widely and recovery of well established nodes was erratic, in particular when using single gene partitions, but showed a slight advantage for Bayesian inferences and one of the fast likelihood algorithms (PHYML) over others. Direct optimization greatly gained from simultaneous analysis and provided a valuable hypothesis of chrysomelid relationships. The BLAST-based alignment, which removes poorly aligned sequence segments, in combination with likelihood and Bayesian analyses, resulted in highly defensible trees obtained in much shorter time than direct optimization, and hence is a viable alternative when data sets grow. The main taxonomic findings include the recognition of three major lineages of Chrysomelidae, including a basal “sagrine” clade (Criocerinae, Donaciinae, Bruchinae), which was sister to the “eumolpine” (Spilopyrinae, Eumolpinae, Cryptocephalinae, Cassidinae) plus “chrysomeline” (Chrysomelinae, Galerucinae) clades. The analyses support a broad definition of subfamilies (i.e., merging previously separated subfamilies) in the case of Cassidinae (cassidines + hispines) and Cryptocephalinae (chlamisines + cryptocephalines + clytrines), whereas two subfamilies, Chrysomelinae and Eumolpinae, were paraphyletic. The surprising separation of monocot feeding Cassidinae (associated with the eumolpine clade) from the other major monocot feeding groups in the sagrine clade was well supported. The study highlights the need for thorough taxon sampling, and reveals that morphological data affected by convergence had a great impact when combined with molecular data in previous phylogenetic analyses of Chrysomelidae. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.

Biology and phylogeny of the Cassidinae Gyllenhal sensu lato (tortoise and leaf-mining beetles) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) ; Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 305

Abstract: Abstract A parsimony analysis was undertaken to test subfamily and tribal group concepts of Cassidinae (ca. 2000 genera, ca. 6000 species). An integrated account of their biology was synthesized from the primary literature. A detailed morphological study of adults, using Hemisphaerota palmarum Boheman as a model, formed the basis for evaluating characters previously utilized and for defining novel characters. The data matrix comprised 210 characters (from adults and immature stages, ecology and behavior), 6 outgroups, and 98 ingroup exemplar species (representing 94 genera and 39 of the 43 recognized cassidine tribes). Results support the monophyly of Cassidinae and place it as sister to Galerucinae. The classical Hispinae s.str. is paraphyletic whereas the classical Cassidinae s.str. is monophyletic if some Imatidiine genera are included. Four tribes—Aproidini, Delocraniini, Hemisphaerotini, and Notosacanthini—are well supported by many autapomorphies. Multiple genera were sampled to test the monophyly of 14 cassidine tribes. Seven were recovered as monophyletic: Anisoderini, Cassidini, Dorynotini, Eugenysini, Hispini, Omocerini, and Spilophorini. Relationships and character support of all cassidine tribes are discussed and compared with phylogenies proposed by Borowiec (1995) and Hsiao and Windsor (1999). The biological account and these phylogenetic results provide an opportunity for identifying some general trends and major innovations in the evolutionary history of Cassidinae. The alteration of the adult head from prognathy to hypognathy and the compaction of the body, legs, and various elytral-locking mechanisms are recurrent themes in adult morphology. Maternal care may have arisen once or twice. Seven trophic guilds are defined here for Cassidine larvae. They arise from two large radiations of leaf-mining and exophagous-feeding, a minor radiation in cryptic rolled-leaf feeding, and small generic and sub-generic specializations in stem mining, leaf scraping, petalophagy, and leaf-shelter chewers. Fecal shield construction and retention appear to be correlated with innovations in life history and in larval and pupal morphology, and they may have played an important role in cassidine diversification.