Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:28:46.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DESCRIPTION OF LARVAE OF 17 NEARCTIC SPECIES OF HYDROPORUS CLAIRVILLE (COLEOPTERA: DYTISCIDAE: HYDROPORINAE) WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Y. Alarie
Y. Alarie
Affiliation:
Département de Sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 357
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The larvae of 17 species of Hydroporus Clairville were described and characterized; a key for their discrimination and illustrations of structural features of first- and third-instar larvae are provided. Many structural features, especially those of chaetotaxy and porotaxy of head capsule, head appendages, legs, last abdominal segment, and urogomphi, were found to be useful for taxonomic and phylogenetic comparisons. Based on 21 larval characters, the phylogenetic relationships among the five main lineages of Hydroporus (s. lat.) occurring in North America were studied. Structurally, the species of the subgenus Hydroporus (s. str.) and of the vilis species-group (H. planiusculus Fall) were found to be the most generalized taxa whereas the subgenera Neoporus Guignot and Heterosternuta Strand encompassed the species with the most derived condition. The subgenus Heterosternuta was closely related to the subgenus Neoporus and both subgenera were hypothesized to form a distinct monophyletic unit on the basis of five synapomorphies. The only representative of the oblitus species-group studied, H. paugus Fall, was related to Hydroporus (s. str.) and the vilis species-group by the shape of the siphon. This species was a very peculiar clement within Hydroporus (s. lat.) because it was the only known species of the genus without stemmaia in the first- and second-instar larvae, with stemmata greatly reduced in size in the third-instar larvae, and with a secondary dorsomedian seta on antennomere 2. The larval features of Hydroporus (s. lat.) were compared with those of Hygrotus Stephens. The comparison suggested that both genera form a monophyletic unit, that each of them is a distinct monophyletic unit, and that Hydroporus (s. lat.) is the sister-group of Hygrotus Stephens.

Résumé

Les larves de 17 espèces du genre Hydroporus Clairville sont décrites et caractérisées; une clé permettant leur identification ainsi que des illustrations de certains traits morphologiques de premiers et de troisièmes stades larvaires sont également fournies. Une grande variabilité morphologique, particulièrement dans la chétotaxie et la porotaxie de la capsule céphalique, des pièces buccales, des pattes, du dernier segment abdominal et des urogomphes s’est avérée d’une grande utilité pour la comparaison taxonomique et phylogénétique de ces espèces. Les relations phylogénétiques entre les cinq principales lignées qui composent le genre Hydroporus (s. lat.) sont analysées. Les espèces du sous-genre Hydroporus (s. str.) et du groupe à espèces vilis (H. planiusculus Fall) se sont avérées représenter la condition la plus primitive, par opposition aux sous-genres Neoporus Guignot et Heterosternuta Strand qui regroupent les espèces présentant la condition jugée la plus évoluée. Le sous-genre Heterosternuta s’est révélé étroitement lié au sous-genre Neoporus, hypothèse supportée par cinq synapomorphies. Le seul représentant du groupe à espèces oblitus ayant été étudié, H. paugus Fall, est associé au sous-genre Hydroporus (s. str.) ainsi qu’au groupe à espèces vilis par la forme du siphon. Cette espèce s’est révélée très caractéristique parmi les espèces d’Hydroporus (s. lat.) puisqu’elle est la seule ne possédant pas de stemmates au premier et deuxième stade larvaire, ayant des stemmates d’une taille très réduite au troisième stade larvaire et possédant une soie secondaire dorsomédiane sur l’antennomère 2. Sur la base des caractères larvaires, Hydroporus (s. lat.) est comparé à Hygrotus Stephens. Cette comparaison suggère que les deux genres ont une origine monophylétique, que chacun d’entre eux forme un groupe monophylétique distinct et que le genre Hydroporus (s. lat.) constituerait le groupe-consoeur du genre Hygrotus Stephens.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 123 , Issue 3 , June 1991 , pp. 627 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alarie, Y. 1989. The larvae of Laccornis Des Gozis 1914 (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae) with description of L. latens (Fall, 1937), and redescription of L. conoideus (LeConte, 1850). Coleopts. Bull. 43: 365–378.Google Scholar
Alarie, Y., and Harper, P.P.. 1990. Primary setae and pores on the last abdominal segment and the urogomphi of larval Hydroporinae (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae), with notes on other dytiscid larvae. Can. J. Zool. 68: 368–374.Google Scholar
Alarie, Y., Harper, P.P., and Maire, A.. 1989. Rearing dytiscid beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Ent. Basil. 13: 147–149.Google Scholar
Alarie, Y., Harper, P.P., and Maire, A.. 1990 a. Primary setae and pores on legs of larvae of Nearctic Hydroporinae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Quaest. ent. 26: 199–210.Google Scholar
Alarie, Y., Harper, P.P., and Roughley, R.E.. 1990 b. Description of the larvae of eleven Nearctic species of Hygrotus Stephens (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae) with an analysis of their phyletic relationships. Can. Ent. 122: 985–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ax, P. 1987. The Phylogenetic System. The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of their Phylogenesis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 340 pp.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. 1974. Manual of Basic Techniques in Insect Histology. Palmer Journal Register, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Barman, E.H. Jr, 1972. The biology and immature stages of selected species of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) of central New York State. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 207 pp.Google Scholar
Bertrand, H. 1928. Larves et nymphes des Dytiscidae, Hygrobiides et Haliplides. Encyclop. ent. 10: vi + 366 pp.Google Scholar
Bertrand, H. 1931. Notice sur les larves de la collection Meinert. Ent. Meddelser. 17: 286–305.Google Scholar
Bertrand, H. 1972. Larves et Nymphes des Coléoptères Aquatiques du Globe. F. Paillart, France. 804 pp.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J.. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. 349 pp.Google Scholar
Fall, H.C. 1923. A Revision of the North American Species of Hydroporus and Agaporus. Privately printed. 129 pp.Google Scholar
Gordon, R.D. 1969. A revision of the niger-tenebrosus group of Hydroporus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in North America. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tennessee, TN. 153 pp.Google Scholar
Gordon, R.D., and Post, R.L.. 1965. North Dakota water beetles. North Dakota Insects — Publication No. 5. Department of Entomology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 53 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1965. Phylogenetic systematics. A. Rev. Ent. 10: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, H. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. 263 pp.Google Scholar
Jeppesen, P.C. 1986. Dytiscid beetles in Greenland, with description of the three larval stages of Hydroporus melanocephalus (Marsham, 1802). Ent. Basil. 11: 67–79.Google Scholar
Larson, D.J. 1975. The predaceous water beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of Alberta: systematics, natural history and distribution. Quaest. ent. 11: 245–498.Google Scholar
Leech, H.B., and Chandler, H.P.. 1956. Aquatic Coleoptera. pp. 293–271 in Usinger, R.L. (Ed.), Aquatic Insects of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Matta, J.F. 1983. Description of the larva of Uvarus granarius with a key to the Nearctic Hydroporinae larvae. Coleopts. Bull. 37: 203–207.Google Scholar
Matta, J.F., and Peterson, D.E.. 1985. The larvae of six Nearctic Hydroporus of the subgenus Neoporus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 137: 53–60.Google Scholar
Matta, J.F., and Wolfe, G.W.. 1981. A revision of the subgenus Heterosternuta Strand of Hydroporus Clairville (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Pan-Pacific Ent. 57: 176–219.Google Scholar
Meinert, F. 1901. Vandkalvelarverne (larvae Dytiscidarum). K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. (6) 9: 341–440, 7 plates.Google Scholar
Needham, J.C., and Williamson, H.V.. 1907. Observations on the natural history of diving beetles. Am. Nat. 41: 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 1986. Larval morphology and phenology of four Fennoscandian species of Hydroporus Clairville (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), with a preliminary key to the known larvae. Aquat. Insects 8: 141–153.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 1987 a. Larval morphology of Fennoscandian Oreodytes Seidlitz (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), with notes on hydroporine leg chaetotaxy and taxonomy. Ent. Tidskr. 108: 99–108.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 1987 b. The 3rd-instar larvae of 8 Fennoscandian species of Hydroporus Clairville (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), with notes on subgeneric classification. Ent. Scand. 17: 491–502.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 1988. A review of primary setae and pores on legs of larval Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). Can. J. Zool. 66: 2283–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A.N. 1989. Larvae of northern European Hydroporus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Syst. Ent. 14: 99–115.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A.N., and Carr, R.. 1989. The third-instar larvae of Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. gyllenhalii and H. lapponum (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Ent. Tidskr. 110: 165–170.Google Scholar
Rochette, R.A. 1983 a. A new species of water beetles from California belonging to the Hydroporus vilis group (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) with comments on the male genitalia of this group. Coleopts. Bull. 37: 148–152.Google Scholar
Rochette, R.A. 1983 b. A preliminary checklist of the Hydroporus vilis group with a key to the species groups of the genus Hydroporus. Coleopts. Bull. 37: 153–158.Google Scholar
Rochette, R.A. 1983 c. Hydroporus adelardi, a new Dytiscid of the vilis group from California (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 85: 734–736.Google Scholar
Ross, H.H. 1974. Biological Systematics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA. 345 pp.Google Scholar
Spangler, P.J., and Gillespie, J.M.. 1973. The larva and pupa of the predaceous water beetle, Hygrotus sayi (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 86: 143–152.Google Scholar
Watrous, L.E., and Wheeler, Q.D., 1981. The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 30: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, C.H.S. 1970. The larvae of some Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from Delta, Manitoba. Can. Ent. 102: 716–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics. The Theory and practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 439 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, C.B. 1923. Water beetles in relation to pondfish culture with life histories of those found in fishponds at Fairport, Iowa. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 39: 231–345.Google Scholar
Wolfe, G.W. 1983. Nomenclatural changes in Hydroporini (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Can. Ent. 115: 1547–1548.Google Scholar
Wolfe, G.W. 1984. A revision of the vittatipennis species group of Hydroporus Clairville, subgenus Neoporus Guignot (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 110: 389–433.Google Scholar
Wolfe, G.W. 1985. A phylogenetic analysis of pleisiotypic hydroporine lineages with an emphasis on Laccornis Des Gozis (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 137: 132–155.Google Scholar
Wolfe, G.W. 1989. A phylogenetic investigation of Hydrovatus, Methlini and other plesiotypic Hydroporines (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Psyche (1988) 95: 327–344.Google Scholar
Wolfe, G.W., and Matta, J.F.. 1981. Notes on nomenclature and classification of Hydroporus subgenera with the description of a new genus of Hydroporini (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Pan-Pacific Ent. 57: 149–175.Google Scholar
Wolfe, G.W., and Roughley, R.E.. 1985. Description of the pupa and mature larva of Matus ovatus ovatus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) with a chaetotaxal analysis emphasizing mouthparts, legs and urogomphus. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 137: 61–79.Google Scholar
Young, F.N. 1954. The Water Beetles of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainsville, FL. ix + 238 pp.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J.R. 1982. The Deronectes of the Southwestern United States, Mexico, and Guatemala (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Coleopts. Bull. 36: 412–438.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J.R. 1985. A revision of the genus Oreodytes in North America (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 137: 99–127.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J.R., and Smith, A.H.. 1975. A survey of the Deronectes (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of Canada, the United States, and Northern Mexico. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 101: 651–722.Google Scholar