Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:16:44.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CLASSIFICATION, RECONSTRUCTED PHYLOGENY, AND GEOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD MEMBERS OF PLATEUMARIS THOMSON, 1859 (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE: DONACIINAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Ingolf S. Askevold
Get access

Abstract

North American members of the genus Plateumaris Thomson, 1859, are revised; 17 species are recognized and 23 taxonomic changes are made in their classification. Plateumaris balli and P. schaefferi are described as new species. Names elevated from subspecies to species rank are P. robusta (Schaeffer) and P. frosti (Schaeffer); P. aurifera (LeConte) is revalidated, removed from junior synonymy with P. wallisi (Schaeffer); Donacia idola Hatch is considered a junior subjective synonym of P. dubia (Schaeffer); D. pyritosa LeConte is considered a junior subjective synonym of P. pusilla (Say); an altered species concept is transferred to P. flavipes (Kirby), with D. wallisi Schaeffer as a new junior subjective synonym, and P. flavipes of authors is correctly named P. shoemakeri (Schaeffer); D. longicollis Schaeffer and D. vermiculata Schaeffer are considered new junior subjective synonyms of P. neomexicana (Schaeffer); D. flavipennis Mannerheim is considered a junior subjective synonym of P. germari (Mannerheim); D. rufa Say (not D. rufa of authors) is transferred to Plateumaris from Donacia, with an altered species concept applied to it, and D. affinis Kirby, D. sulcicollis Lacordaire, D. chalcea Lacordaire, D. kirbyi Lacordaire, and D. jucunda LeConte are considered new junior subjective synonyms of P. rufa (Say). The taxon previously considered D. nitida Germar (sensu Schaeffer) is redescribed as P. schaefferi; P. nitida (Germar) is a valid, different species, with D. emarginata Kirby, D. juncina Couper, and D. pacifica Schaeffer considered new junior subjective synonyms of P. nitida. Neotypes are designated for Donacia pusilla Say, Donacia rufa Say, Donacia metallica Ahrens and Donacia nana Melsheimer; lectotypes are designated for all other names, where necessary.Among Palaearctic taxa, Plateumaris morimotoi Kimoto and P. hirashimai Kimoto are considered new junior subjective synonyms of P. weisei Duvivier, and P. sachalinensis Medvedev, P. orientalis Shavrov and Donacia mongolica Semenov are considered probable junior subjective synonyms of P. weisei; P. sulcifrons Weise and P. affinis (Kunze) and its synonyms are considered new junior subjective synonyms of P. rustica (Kunze); P. caucasica Zaitsev is considered a probable junior subjective synonym of P. roscida Weise; P. discolor (Panzer) (and its synonyms) and P. lacordairii (Perris) are considered junior subjective synonyms of P. sericea (L.); new P. obsoleta Jacobson and P. socia Chen are considered probable junior subjective synonyms of P. sericea.Based on phylogenetic analysis, five species groups are recognized, the P. braccata group (two species), P. rufa group (five species), P. pusilla group (eight species), P. shoemakeri group (four species), and P. nitida group (seven species). The current subgeneric classification of Plateumaris is rejected. Characters hitherto used for subgenera of Plateumaris are shown to be either plesiomorphic or widely distributed among unrelated taxa; the relatively minor structural differences do not merit use of a subgeneric classification. Juliusina Reitter is a junior objective synonym of Plateumaris Thomson.Based on fossil and chorological data, the geographic history of donaciines in general and of Plateumaris in particular is deduced to be so old as to obscure correlations of more recent phylogenetic divergences with specific geologic events. The geographic history of even the most highly derived donaciine groups extends well into the Cretaceous. Therefore, explanations are speculative beyond the generality that donaciines have a long geologic history.

Résumé

Les membres nord-américains du genre Plateumaris Thomson, 1859, ont passé en révision : 17 espèces ont été reconnues et 23 modifications taxinomiques ont été effectuées. Plateumaris belli et P. schaefferi ont été signalés comme espèces nouvelles. Des noms ont été élevés au rang d'espèce à partir de celui de sous-espèce, à savoir : P. robusta (Schaeffer) et P. frosti (Schaeffer); P. aurifera (LeConte), révalorisé et enlevé de synonymie cadette avec P. wallisi (Schaeffer); Donacia iodola Harch, reconnu comme synonyme subjectif cadet de P. dubia (Schaeffer); D. pyritosa LeConte, aussi reconnu comme synonyme subjectif cadet de P. pusilla (Say); P. flavipes (Kirby) a reçu une idée modifiée d'espèce, ayant D. wallisi Schaeffer comme synonyme cadet nouveau, et P. flavipes d'autres auteurs étant correctement appelé P. shoemakeri (Schaeffer); D. longicollis Schaeffer et D. vermiculata Schaeffer, considérés des nouveaux synonymes subjectifs cadets de P. neomexicana (Schaeffer); D. flavipennis Mannerheim, considéré un synonyme subjectif cadet de P. germari (Mannerheim); D. rufa Say (non D. rufa d'autres auterus) transféré à Plateumaris de Donicia avec une idée modifiée d'espèce, et avec D. affinis Kirby, D. sulcicollis Lacordaire, D. kirbyi Lacordaire et D. jucunda LeConte considérés comme nouveaux synonymes subjectifs cadets de P. rufa (Say). Le taxon considéré auparavant comme D. nitida Germar (sensu Schaeffer) a été décrit à nouveau comme P. schaefferi; P. nitida (Germar) est une différente espèce valide, avec D. emarginata Kirby, D. juncina Coupar et D. pacifica Schaeffer considérés de nouveaux synonymes subjectifs cadets de P. nitida. Les néotypes ont été nommés pour Donacia pusilla Say, Donacia rufa Say, Donacia metallica Ahrens et Donacia nana Melsheimer; les lectotypes ont été donnés pour tous les autres noms où nécessaire.

Parmi les taxa paléarctiques, Plateumaris morimotoi Kimoto et P. hirashimai Kimoto sont considérés comme synonymes subjectifs cadets de P. weisei Duvivier, pendant que P. sachalinensis Medvedev, P. orientalis Shavrov et Donacia mongolica Semenov sont reconnus comme synonymes subjectifs cadets probables de P. weisei; P. sulcifrons Weise ainsi que P. affinis (Kunze) et ses synonymes sont considérés comme synonymes subjectifs cadets de P. rustica (Kunze); P. caucasica Zaitsev est considéré un synonyme subjectif cadet probable de P. roscida Weise; P. discolor (Panzer) (et ses synonymes) et P. lacordairii (Perris) de P. sericea (L.); et P. obsoleta Jacobson et P. socia Chen de P. sericea.

Cinq groupes-espèces ont été reconnus d'une base d'analyse phylogénétique, à savoir : le groupe P. braccata (deux espèces); le groupe P. rufa (cinq espèces); le groupe P. pusilla (huit espèces); le groupe P. shoemakeri (quatre espèces); et le groupe P. nitida (sept espèces). La classification actuelle de sous-genres de Plateumaris a été rejetée. Les caractéristiques utilisées autrefois en ce qui concerne les sous-genres de Plateumaris ont été démontrées soit d'être plésiomorphiques soit d'être largement distribuées parmi des taxa non-reliés; les différences structurales minimes ne méritent pas l'utilisation d'une classification sous-genre. Juliusana Reitter est un synonyme objectif cadet de Plateumaris Thomson.

Basée sur les données des fossiles et de chorologies, l'histoire géographique des Donaciinae en général et de Plateumaris en particulier est déduite d'être assez vieille pour cacher les corrélations de divergences phylogénétiques récentes avec les événements géologiques particuliers. L'histoire géographique même des groupes de Donaciinae le plus évolués s'étend bien dans le Crétacé. Ainsi, les explications sont conjecturales au-delà de la généralité que les Donaciinae ont une histoire géologique étendue. [Traduit par la rédaction]

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 123 , Supplement S157 , 1991 , pp. 5 - 175
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

REFERENCES

Ahrens, A. 1810. Beiträge zu einer Monographie der Rohrkäfer. Neue Schriften der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Halle 1: 9–48.Google Scholar
Allen, R.T. 1983. Distribution patterns among arthropods of the North Temperate deciduous forest biota. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 70: 616–628.Google Scholar
Anderson, R.S. 1988. The Curculionidae of the Queen Charlotte Islands (Insecta: Coleoptera). Can. J. Zool. 66: 2406–2414.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1985. Atlas of the Japanese Donaciinae (Guide for identification of the fossil donaciine beetles). Fossil Insect Research Group for the Nojiri-ko Excavation. Osaka Mus. Nat. Hist. 182 pp. [In Japanese.]Google Scholar
Amett, R.H. 1968. The Beetles of the United States. (A Manual for Identification). American Entomological Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. xii + 1112 pp.Google Scholar
Ashlock, P.D. 1974. The uses of cladistics. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 81–99.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1987 a. The identity of Donacia cuprea Kirby, 1837 and Donacia quadricollis Say, 1827, with a taxonomic revision of members of the Donacia subtilis Kunze-group (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Donaciinae). Can. Ent. 119: 629–645.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1987 b. The identity of Donacia caerulea Olivier, 1795 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Donaciinae). Coleopts. Bull. 41: 345–349.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1988. The genus Neohaemonia Székessy in North America (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Donaciinae): Systematics, reconstructed phylogeny and geographic history. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 113: 360–430.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1990 a. Classification, reconstructed phylogeny and geographic history of the New World members of Plateumaris Thomson, 1859, and phylogeny and reclassification of the genera of Donaciinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. xxxv + 638 pp.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1990 b. Classification of Tertiary fossil Donaciinae of North America and their implications about evolution of the Donaciinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can. J. Zool. 68: 2135–2145.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1990 c. Reconstructed phylogeny and reclassification of the genera of Donaciinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Quaest. ent. 26: 601–664, 668, 669.Google Scholar
Axelrod, D.I. 1986. Cenozoic history of some western America pines. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 73: 565–641.Google Scholar
Axelrod, D.I., and Raven, P.H.. 1985. Origins of the Cordilleran flora. J. Biogeogr. 12: 21–17.Google Scholar
Ball, I.R. 1976. Nature and formulation of biogeographical hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 24: 407–130.Google Scholar
Balsbaugh, E.U. Jr., and Hays, K.L.. 1972. The Leaf Beetles of Alabama. Bull. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. 441: 2–223.Google Scholar
Balthasar, V. 1934. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Palaearktischen Donaciini. Ent. NachrBl. 8: 128–130.Google Scholar
Bayer, L.J., and Brockman, H.J.. 1975. Curculionidae and Chrysomelidae found in aquatic habitats in Wisconsin. Great Lakes Ent. 8: 219–226.Google Scholar
Becker, E.C. 1974. Designation of lectotypes for 13 species of Coleoptera described by Couper in 1864 and 1865. Ann. ent. Soc. Qué. 19: 62–73.Google Scholar
Beller, S., and Hatch, M.H.. 1932. Coleoptera of Washington: Chrysomelidae. Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 1: 65–144 + 1 plate.Google Scholar
Blatchley, W.S. 1910. An Illustrated Descriptive Catalogue of the Coleoptera or Beetles (exclusive of the Rhynchophora) Known to Occur in Indiana. Nature Publ. Co., Indianapolis, IN. 1386 pp.Google Scholar
Borkent, A. 1979. Systematics and bionomics of the species of the subgenus Schadonophasma Dyar and Shannon (Chaoborus, Chaoboridae). Quaest. ent. 15: 122–255.Google Scholar
Borowiec, L. 1984. Zoogeographical study on Donaciinae of the world (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Polskie Pismo Ent. 53: 433–518.Google Scholar
Borowiec, L. 1987. The genera of seed-beetles (Coleoptera, Bruchidae). Polskie Pismo Ent. 57: 3–207.Google Scholar
Briggs, J.C. 1989. The historic biogeography of India: Isolation or contact? Syst. Zool. 38: 322–332.Google Scholar
Brigham, W.U. 1982. Chrysomelidae. pp 10.112–10.136in Brigham, A.R., Brigham, W.U., and Guilka, A. (Eds.), Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL. 837 pp.Google Scholar
Brivio, C., and Balsbaugh, E.U. Jr., 1984. New genitalic characters for distinguishing Donacia subtilis Kunze and D. fulgens LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Coleopts. Bull. 38: 305–311.Google Scholar
Brown, W.J. 1951. The American species of Phratora Chev. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can. Ent. 83: 121–130.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. 1972. Phylogenetics and biogeography. Syst. Zool. 21: 69–79.Google Scholar
Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M., and Stefañska, J.. 1990. Chrzaszcze Coleoptera. Stonkowate – Chrysomelidae, cześé I. Katalog Fauny Polski. Catalogus faunae Poloniae. cześé XXIII, tom 16. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsawa. 279 pp.Google Scholar
Chen, S.H. 1941. Notes on donaciine beetles. Sinensia 12: 1–17.Google Scholar
Clark, C. 1986. Homoplastic — an appropriate choice. Syst. Zool. 35: 142–143.Google Scholar
Clark, H. 1866. A Catalogue of Phytophaga (Coleoptera, Pseudotetramera). Appendix. Williams & Norgate, London and Edinburgh. 1 + 88 pp.Google Scholar
Clavareau, H. 1913. Sagrinae, Donaciinae and Criocerinae. In Junk, W., and Schenkung, S. (Eds.). Coleoptm. Cat. 51: 1–103.Google Scholar
Coope, G.R. 1970. Interpretations of Quaternary insect fossils. A. Rev. Ent. 15: 97–120.Google Scholar
Coope, G.R. 1979. Late Cenozoic fossil Coleoptera: Evolution, biogeography, and ecology. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10: 247–267.Google Scholar
Couper, W. 1864. Paper V. List of Coleoptera and Diptera taken at Quebec, and other parts of Lower Canada. Trans. Libr. Hist. Soc. Que. N.S., Part 2. Session of 1863–64: 75–93.Google Scholar
Crotch, G.R. 1873. Materials for the study of the Phytophaga of the United States. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Phil. 25: 19–83.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1945. A revision of the chrysomelid group Sagrinae (Coleoptera). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Land. 97: 75–115.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1960. The phylogeny of Coleoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 5: 111–134.Google Scholar
Danks, H.V., and Foottit, R.G.. 1989. Insects of the boreal zone of Canada. Can. Ent. 121: 625–690.Google Scholar
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue de la Collection de Coléoptères de M. le Comte Dejean. Troisième édition, Paris, xiv + 503 pp.Google Scholar
DeJong, R. 1980. Some tools for evolutionary phylogenetic studies. Z. Syst. Evol. 18: 1–23.Google Scholar
Dietz, R.S., and Holden, J.C.. 1970. Reconstruction of Pangea: Breakup and dispersion of continents, Permian to Present. J. Geophys. Res. 75: 4939–4956.Google Scholar
Downes, A.J., and Kavanaugh, D.H.. 1988. Origins of the North American insect fauna. Introduction and commentary. pp. 1–11in Downes, A.J., and Kavanaugh, D.H. (Eds.), Origin of the North American Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 144.Google Scholar
Duvivier, A. 1885. Quatre Phytophages nouveaux. Annls. Soc. ent. Belg. 29(C.R.): CXVI–CXIX. [Reference not seen.]Google Scholar
Eberhard, W.E. 1985. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 244 pp.Google Scholar
Elias, S.A. 1985. Paleoenvironmental interpretations of Holocene insect fossil assemblages from four high-altitude sites in the front range, Colorado, U.S.A. Arctic Alpine Res. 17: 31–48.Google Scholar
Elias, S.A., Short, S.K., and Clark, P.U.. 1986. Paleoenvironmental interpretations of the late Holocene, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, U.S.A. Rev. Paléobiologie 5: 127–142.Google Scholar
Freitag, R. 1969. A revision of the species of the genus Evarthrus LeConte (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaest. ent. 5: 89–212.Google Scholar
Germar, E.F. 1811. II. Nachträge zu Ahrens Monographie der Rohrkäfer. Neue Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Halle I: 26–38.Google Scholar
Gistel, J.N.F.X. 1857. Achthundert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschriebene wirbellose Thiere. Vacuna 2: 513–606. [Also published separately, Straubing, Schorner, 1857. 8: 94 pp, under the title “Vacuna oder die Geheimnisse aus der organischen und leblosen Welt.” The former is usually cited.]Google Scholar
Goecke, H. 1937. Bemerkungen zu Plateumaris Weisei Duvivier (Col. Chrys.). (7. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Donaciinen). Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstage von Professor Dr. Embrik Strand (Riga) 2: 371–372 + plate 26.Google Scholar
Goecke, H. 1943. Monographie der Schilfkäfer II. Die fossilen Funde und ihre Bestimmung (13. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Donaciinen). Nova Acta Leopoldina (N.F.) 12: 339–380 + 1 plate.Google Scholar
Goecke, H. 1957. [untitled, taxonomie notes 1576–1578]. Ent. Bl. Biol. Syst. Käfer. 53: 124–125.Google Scholar
Goecke, H. 1960 a. Monographie der Schilfkäfer III. Die Gattungen und Arten der Donaciinae (Col. Chrys.) und Ihre Verbreitung. Ent. Bl. Biol. Syst. Käfer. 56: 1–19.Google Scholar
Goecke, H. 1960 b. Zur Gattungsystematik der Donaciinae (Col.Chrys.) 19. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Donaciinae. Ent. Bl. Biol. Syst. Käfer 56: 164–165.Google Scholar
Gressitt, J.L., and Kimoto, S.. 1961. The Chrysomelidae (Coleopt.) of China and Korea. Part 1. Pacif Insects Monogr. 1: 1–299.Google Scholar
Gruev, B., and Tomov, V.. 1984. Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae. Part 1. Orsodacninae, Zeugophorinae, Donaciinae, Criocerinae, Clytrinae, Cryptocephalinae, Lamprosomatinae, Eumolpinae. Fauna Blg. 13: 1–218. [In Bulgarian.]Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1981. Relative importance of plate movements, eustasy, and climate in controlling major biogeographical changes since the Early Mesozoic. pp. 303–330in Nelson, G., and Rosen, D.E. (Eds.), Vicariance Biogeography. A Critique. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. xvi + 593 pp.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. 1983. Cretaceous and Cenozoic history of the Northern Continents. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 70: 440–458.Google Scholar
Hardwick, D.F. 1950. Preparation of slide mounts of Lepidopterous genitalia. Can. Ent. 82: 231–235.Google Scholar
Harusawa, K. 1985. Armature of internal sac of aedeagus. pp. 120–125 in Anonymous (Eds.), loc. cit.Google Scholar
Hatch, M.H. 1938. A new species of Donacia from Washington. Pan-Pacif Ent. 14: 110–112.Google Scholar
Hatch, M.H. 1971. The Beetles of the Pacific Northwest Part V. Rhipiceroidea, Sternoxi, Phytophaga, Rhynchophora, and Lamellicornia. Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. Vol. 16. xiv + 662 pp.Google Scholar
Haupt, H. 1956. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der eozänen Arthropodenfauna des Geiseltales. Nova Acta Leopoldina (N.F.) 18. 90 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1965. Phylogenetic Systematics. A. Rev. Ent. 10: 97–116.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. 263 pp.Google Scholar
Heppner, J.B., and Lamas, G.. 1982. Acronyms for world museum collections of insects, with an emphasis on Neotropical Lepidoptera. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 28: 305–315.Google Scholar
Horn, W., and Kahle, I.. 1935. Über entomologische Sammlungen (Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entomo-Museologie) Teil I. Sonderdr. Ent. Beih., Berlin-Dahlem 2: 1–160, plates I–XVI.Google Scholar
Horn, W., and Kahle, I.. 1936. Über entomologische Sammlungen (Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entomo-Museologie), Teil II. loc. cit. 3: 161–296, plates XVII–XXVI.Google Scholar
Horn, W., and Kahle, I.. 1937. Über entomologische Sammlungen (Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entomo-Museologie), Teil III. loc. cit. 4: VI + 297–536, plates XXVII–XXXVIII.Google Scholar
Humphries, C.J., and Parenti, L.R.. 1986. Cladistic Biogeogr. Oxford Monographs on Biogeography No. 2., Clarendon Press, Oxford, xii + 98 pp.Google Scholar
Iablokoff-Khnzorian, S.M. 1966. Considérations sur l'édéage des Chrysomelidae et son importance phylogénique. L'Entomologiste 22: 115–137.Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. xx + 338 pp.Google Scholar
Jacobson, G.G. 1892. Analytische Übersicht der bekannten Donacia- und Plateumaris-Arten der Alten Welt. Horae Soc. ent. Ross. 26: 412–437.Google Scholar
Jacobson, G.G. 1894. Adnotationes de Chrysomelidis nonnullis novis vel parum cognitis. Horae Soc. ent. Ross. 28: 242–245.Google Scholar
Jacoby, M. 1884. Beschreibung neuer Phytophagen. Stett. ent. Zeit. 45: 126–128.Google Scholar
Jacoby, M. 1885. Descriptions of phytophagous Coleoptera of Japan, obtained by George Lewis during 1880 and 1881, I. Proc. R. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1885: 190–211, 1 plate. [Reference not seen]Google Scholar
Jacoby, M., and Clavareau, H., 1904. Coleoptera Phytophaga Fam. Donacidae. In Wytsman, P., Genera Insectorum 21: 1–14, 1 plate.Google Scholar
Jaeger, E.C. 1955. A source book of biological names and terms. 3rd Edition, fourth printing. Charles C. Thomas, Publ. Springfield, IL. xxxv + 323 pp.Google Scholar
Jolivet, P. 1970. Donaciinae. In Junk, W. (Ed.), Coleoptm. Cat. Suppl. Pars 51. Fase. 2. W.O. Steel, Gravenhage. 71 pp.Google Scholar
Karren, J.B. 1972. A revison of the subfamily Chlamisinae of America North of Mexico (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Kans. Univ. Sci. Bull. 49: 875–988.Google Scholar
Kasap, H., and Crowson, R. A.. 1980. The female reproductive organs of Bruchidae and Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Türk. Bitki Koruma Derg. 4: 85–102.Google Scholar
Kavanaugh, D.H. 1972. Hennig's principles and methods of phylogenetic systematics. The Biologist 54: 115–127.Google Scholar
Kavanaugh, D.H. 1989. The ground-beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) fauna of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Its composition, affinities, and origins, pp. 131–146in Scudder, G.G.E., and Gessler, N. (Eds.), The Outer Shores. Proceedings of the Queen Charlotte Islands First International Symposium, University of British Columbia, August 1984. 327 pp.Google Scholar
Kimoto, S. 1963. Descriptions of new species of the Chrysomelidae from Japan, with notes on some known species. Fragm. Coleopt. 3/4: 13–18. [Not seen, cited in Kimoto 1981.]Google Scholar
Kimoto, S. 1981. New or little known Japanese Donaciinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bull. Osaka Mus. Nat. Hist. 34: 23–26.Google Scholar
Kimoto, S. 1983. Revisional study on Megalopodinae, Donaciinae and Clytrinae of Japan (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ent. Rev. Japan 38: 5–23.Google Scholar
Kingsolver, J.M. 1970. A study of male genitalia in Bruchidae. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 72: 370–386.Google Scholar
Kirby, W. 1837. Part the fourth and last. The Insects. In Richardson, J., Fauna Boreali-Americana; or the Zoology of the Northern Parts of British America: containing descriptions of the objects of natural history collected on the late northern land expedition under command of Cpt.Google Scholar
Sir John Franklin R.N. Norwich, xxxix + 325 pp., + 8 plates.Google Scholar
Kolossow, J. 1930. Annotationes de quibusdam Donaciini. Coleopt. Zbl. 5: 28–29.Google Scholar
Kunze, G. 1818. I. Beiträge zur Monographie der Rohrkäfer. Neue Schriften der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Halle 2: 1–56.Google Scholar
Lacordaire, Th. 1845. Monographie des coléoptères subpentamères de la famille des phytophages. Tome 1. Mém. Soc. R. Sci. Liège. Tome 3 (pt.1). xiii + 740 pp.Google Scholar
Lafontaine, J.D., and Wood, D.M.. 1988. A Zoogeographie analysis of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera) of Beringia, and some inferences about past Beringian habitats, pp. 109–123in Downes, A.J., and Kavanaugh, D.H. (Eds.), Origin of the North American Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 144.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1850. IV, General remarks upon the Coleoptera of Lake Superior, pp. 201–242 + plate 8 in Agassiz, J.L.R. (Ed.), Lake Superior: Its Physical Character, Vegetation and Animals Compared with Those of Other and Similar Regions, with a Narrative of the Tour by J. Elliot Cabot, and Contributions by Other Scientific Gentlemen. Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, Boston, MA. x + 428 pp. + plates 1–8 + 8 unnumbered landscapes.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1851. Synopsis of the species of Donacia (Fabr.) inhabiting the United States. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 5: 310–316.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1857. No. 1. Report upon insects collected on the Survey, pp. 1–72in Report of Explorations and Surveys, to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the Direction of the Secretary of War in 1853–5. Volume XII Book II. Washington, T.H. Ford 1860.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1868. New Coleoptera collected on the Survey for the extension of the Union Pacific Railway, E.D. from Kansas to Fort Craig, New Mexico. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 2(1868–1869): 49–59.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1878. Additional descriptions of new species of Coleoptera, pp. 373–134 in Schwarz, E. A. (Ed.), The Coleoptera of Florida. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 17: 353–172.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1961. Letter from LeConte to Alexander Agassiz. Coleopts. Bull. 15: 128.Google Scholar
Leng, C.W. 1891. Revision of the Donaciae of Boreal America. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 18: 159–176.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1957 a. The principal terms used for male and female genitalia in Coleoptera. Opusc. Ent. 22: 241–256.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1957 b. The best method for killing and preserving beetles. Coleopts. Bull. 11: 95–96.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1969. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska, Taxonomist's Glossary of Part 1. Opusc. Ent., Suppl. 35: I–XLVIII.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H., and Palmén, E.. 1956. Coleoptera. In Tuxen, S.L. (Ed.), Taxonomist's Glossary of Genitalia in Insects. E. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 284 pp.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio Decima. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. 824 pp. [Photographic facsimile, published by British Museum (Natural History), 1939.]Google Scholar
Lopatin, I.K. 1984. Leaf Beetles (Chrysomelidae) of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Amerind Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, xxxiv + 416 pp. [Translation from Zhuki-Listoedy (Chrysomelidae) Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana. Nauka Publ., Leningrad.]Google Scholar
Lopatin, I.K., and Kulenova, K.Z.. 1986. Zhuky-listoedy (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) Kazakhstana: OpredelitelGoogle Scholar
Izdatekstvo <<Nauka>> Kazakhstoi, CCP 199 pp.>+Kazakhstoi,+CCP+199+pp.>Google Scholar
Maddison, W.P., Donoghue, M.J., and Maddison, D.R.. 1984. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Syst. Zool. 33: 83–103.Google Scholar
Madge, R.B. 1967. A revision of the genus Lebia Latreille in America north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaest. ent. 3: 139–242.Google Scholar
Mann, J.S., and Crowson, R.A.. 1983. Observations on the internal anatomy and classification of Donaciinae (Col., Chrysomelidae). Entomologist's Mon. Mag. 119: 17–27.Google Scholar
Mannerheim, C.G. 1843. Beitrag zur Kaefer-Fauna der Aleutischen Inslen, der Insel Sitkha und Neu-Californiens. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou 16: 175–314.Google Scholar
Mannerheim, C.G. 1852. Zweiter Beitrag zur Kaefer-Fauna der Nord-Amerikanischen Laender der russischen Reiches. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou. 25: 283–387.Google Scholar
Marx, E.J.F. 1957. A Review of the subgenus Donacia in the Western Hemisphere (Coleoptera: Donaciidae). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 112: 191–278.Google Scholar
Matthews, J.V. Jr., 1979. 2. Tertiary and Quaternary environments: Historical background for an analysis of the Canadian insect fauna. pp. 31–86in Danks, H.V. (Ed.), Canada and its Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 108. 573 pp.Google Scholar
Matthews, J.V. Jr., 1980. Tertiary land bridges and their climate: Backdrop for development of the present Canadian insect fauna. Can. Ent. 112: 1089–1103.Google Scholar
Mead, A.R. 1938. New subspecies and notes on Donacia with key to the species of the Pacific States. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 14: 113–120.Google Scholar
Medvedev, L.N. 1973. New Leaf Beetles from Palaearctic. Ent. Rev. Wash. 52: 562–568. [Translated from: Ent. Obozr. 52: 876–885.]Google Scholar
Melsheimer, F.E. 1847. Descriptions of new species of Coleoptera of the United States. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 3: 158–181.Google Scholar
Mohr, K.H. 1966. 88. Fam. Chrysomelidae. In Freude, H., Harde, K.W., and Lohse, G.A.. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld. Volume 9: 95–280.Google Scholar
Monrós, F. 1959. Los Generos de Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Opera Lilloana III: 5–337 + 3 plates.Google Scholar
Morgan, A.V. 1989. Late Pleistocene Zoogeographie shifts and new collecting records for Helophorus arcticus Brown (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) in North America. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1171–1179.Google Scholar
Morgan, A.V., and Morgan, A.. 1980. Faunal assemblages and distributional shifts of Coleoptera during the Late Pleistocene in Canada and the northern United States. Can. Ent. 112: 1105–1128.Google Scholar
Mukerji, D., and M.Bhuya, A.H.. 1937. Reproductive system of the bruchid beetles, Bruchus quadrimaculatus Fabr., and B. chinensis L. (Bruchidae - Coleoptera). J. Morph. 61: 175–214.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1949–1953. I Coleotteri della Venezia Giulia. Volume II: Coleoptera Phytophaga (Cerambycidae, Chrysomelidae, Bruchidae). Trieste, Centro Sperimentale Agrario e Forestale 4. 485 pp.Google Scholar
Neff, N.A. 1986. A rational basis for a priori character weighting. Syst. Zool. 35: 110–123.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., and Platnick, N.. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography. Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. xi + 567 pp.Google Scholar
Newman, E. 1838. Entomological Notes. Ent. Mag. V (1838). 532 pp., plates 17–18.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.E. 1986. Distribution of insects in the Northern Hemisphere: Continental Drift and Epicontinental Seas. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 32: 80–84.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.E. 1988 a. Faunal relationships between eastern North America and Europe as shown by insects, pp. 39–53in Downes, J.A., and Kavanaugh, D.H. (Eds.), Origin of the North American Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 144.Google Scholar
Noonan, G.E. 1988 b. Biogeography of North American and Mexican insects, and a critique of vicariance biogeography. Syst. Zool. 37: 366–384.Google Scholar
Nyholm, T. 1948. Zur Systematik der nordeuropäischen Donacien. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Entomology, Stockholm, pp. 156–163.Google Scholar
Olivier, A.G. 1795. Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, avec leur caractères generiques et spécifiques, leur description, leur synonymie, et leur figure enluminée. Coléoptères. Tome 4, no. 75. Paris, Baudonin.Google Scholar
Panzer, G.W.F. 1795. Entomologia germanica exhibens insecto per germaniom indigena secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adiectis synonymis, locis, observationibus. I. Eleuterata. Norimbergae, Felsecker.Google Scholar
Perris, E. 1864. Description de quelques espèces nouvelles de Coléoptères et notes diverses. Annls. Soc. ent. Fr. (4) 4: 275–303.Google Scholar
Pilny, J., and Morgan, A.V.. 1987. Paleoentomology and paleoecology of a possible Sangamonian site near Innerkip, Ontario. Quat. Res. 28: 157–174.Google Scholar
Pilny, J., Morgan, A.V., and Morgan, A.. 1987. Paleoclimatic implications of a Late Wisconsinan insect assemblage from Rostock, southwestern Ontario. Can. J. Earth Sci. 24: 617–630.Google Scholar
Platnick, N.I. 1976. Drifting spiders or continents?: Vicariance biogeography of the spider subfamily Laroniine (Araneae: Gnaphosidae). Syst. Zool. 25: 101–109.Google Scholar
Platnick, N.I., and Nelson, G.. 1978. A method of analysis for historical biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27: 1–16.Google Scholar
Powell, E.F. 1941. Relationships within the family Chrysomelidae, as indicated by the male genitalia of certain species. Am. Midl. Nat. 25: 148–195.Google Scholar
Raven, P.H., and Axelrod, D.I.. 1974. Angiosperm biogeography and past continental movements. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 61: 539–673.Google Scholar
Reitter, E. 1920. Bestimmungs-Tabelle der europäischen Donaciini, mit Berücksichtigung der Arten der paläarktischen Region. Wien. Ent. Ztg. 38: 21–13.Google Scholar
Rosen, D.E. 1978. Vicariant patterns and historical explanation in biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27: 159–188.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1824. Descriptions of Coleopterous insects collected in the late Expedition to the Rocky Mountains, performed by order of Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of War, under the command of Major Long. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Phil. 3: 403–162.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1827. Descriptions of new species of Coleopterous Insects inhabiting the United States. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Phil. 5: 237–284, 293–304.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, C. 1919. Synonymical and other notes on some species of the family Chrysomelidae and descriptions of new species. J.N.Y. ent. Soc. 27: 307–340.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, C. 1925. Revision of the new world species of the tribe Donaciini of the Coleopterous family Chrysomelidae. Brooklyn Mus. Sci. Bull. 3: 45–165.Google Scholar
Schenkung, S. 1922. Nomenclator coleopterologicus. Eine etymologische Erklärung sämtlicher Gattungs- und Artennamen der Käfer der deutschen Fauna sowie der angrenzenden Gebiete. Gustav-Fischer Verlag, Iena. iv + 249 pp.Google Scholar
Schrank, F. von Paula. 1781. Enumerano Insectorum Austriae indigenorum. August. Vindelicor., Klett. 9 + 548 pp., 4 plates. [Reference not seen.]Google Scholar
Schwert, D.P., and Ashworth, A.C.. 1988. Late Quaternary history of the northern beetle fauna of North America: A synthesis of fossil and distributional evidence, pp. 93–107 in Dowries, I.A., and Kavanaugh, D.H. (Eds.), Origin of the North American Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 144.Google Scholar
Scopoli, J.A. 1772. Annus historico naturalis. Lipsiae, Hilscher. Ann. 5, 128 pp.Google Scholar
Seeno, T.N., and Wilcox, J.A.. 1982. Leaf Beetle Genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomography 1: 1–221.Google Scholar
Semenov, A. 1895. Coleoptera asiatica nova. V. Horae Soc. ent. Ross. 29: 251–270.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A.M., and Porter, A.H.. 1989. The lock-and-key hypothesis: Evolutionary and biosystematic interpretation of insect genitalia. A. Rev. Ent. 34: 231–245.Google Scholar
Sharkey, M.I. 1989. A hypothesis-independent method of character weighting for cladistic analysis. Cladistics 5: 63–86.Google Scholar
Sharp, D., and Muir, F.. 1912. Anatomy of the male genital tube in Coleoptera. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 60: 477–742, plates 42–78.Google Scholar
Shavrov, V.B. 1948. Noviye formi i mestonakhoedeniya Donatzii (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae Subfam. Donaciinae) fauni SSSR [New forms and localities of Donaciinae (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae subfam. Donaciinae) of the SSSR fauna]. Byull. mosk. Obshch. Ispt. Prir. (Ser. Biol.) 53: 49–52.Google Scholar
Silfverberg, H. 1974. The west Palaearctic species of Galerucella Crotch and related genera (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Contributions to the study of Galerucinae 6. Notul. Ent. 54: 1–11.Google Scholar
Silfverberg, H. 1982. Revision of the group Prosmidiites (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae). Helsing Yliopiston Monistuspalvelu Painatusjaos, Helsinki. Academic Disseration, Zoological Museum.Google Scholar
Smith, E.H. 1979. Techniques for the dissection and mounting of the male (aedeagus) and female (spermatheca) genitalia of the Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera). Coleopts. Bull. 33: 93–103.Google Scholar
Suffrian, E. 1872. Synonymische Miscellaneen. Stett. Ent. Ztg. 33: 11–22.Google Scholar
Swofford, D.L. 1985. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 2.4.1. Unpublished documentation.Google Scholar
Székessy, V. 1941. Die zur Gattung Haemonia Latr. gestellten Arten aus Amerika (Coleopt, Chrysomelidae). Mitt. Münch. ent. Ges. 31: 148–154.Google Scholar
Tanner, V.M. 1927. A preliminary study of the genitalia of female Coleoptera. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 53: 5–50 + 15 plates.Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, Synoptisk Bearbetade I. Berlingska, Lund, iv + 1–161 + 1–290.Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1866. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, Synoptisk Bearbetade 8, Berlingska, Lund. 409 pp.Google Scholar
Tominaga, O., and Katsura, K.. 1984. Studies on the lapanese Donaciinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) 2. Notes on geographical diversity of Plateumaris constricticollis, with descriptions of an allied new species. Bull. Osaka Mus. nat. Hist. 37: 25–10, plate 8.Google Scholar
Torre-Bueno, J.R. de la. 1978. A Glossary of Entomology. 5th Edition. New York Entomological Society, New York, NY. ix + 336 + 9 plates + 36 pp.Google Scholar
Watrous, L.E., and Wheeler, Q.D.. 1981. The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 30: 1–11.Google Scholar
Weise, J. 1900. Beschreibungen von Chrysomeliden u. synonymische Bemerkungen. Arch. Naturgesch. 66: 267–296.Google Scholar
Weise, J. 1912. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Chrysomeliden. Arch. Naturgesch. Abt. A2 78: 76–98.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Q.D. 1986. Character weighting and cladistic analysis. Syst. Zool. 35: 102–109.Google Scholar
White, R.E. 1968. A review of the genus Cryptocephalus in America North of Mexico (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera). U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 290. 124 pp.Google Scholar
Wilcox, J. A. 1954. Leaf Beetles of Ohio, (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bull. Ohio Biol. Surv. 3: 353–506.Google Scholar
Wilcox, J. A. 1965. A synopsis of the North American Galerucinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bull. N.Y. State Mus. Sci. Serv. 40: 1–226.Google Scholar
Wilcox, J. A. 1975. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the West Indies. Vol. 8, fam. 129, Chrysomelidae. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, FL. 166 pp.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practise of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wiley, New York, NY. xv + 439 pp.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1988. Vicariance Biogeography. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19: 513–542.Google Scholar
Zaitsev, F.A. 1930. K Rasprostranyu na Kavkaze vidov Tribi Donaciini (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Bull. Mus. Georgie 5: 105–114.Google Scholar