Helopina (Nabozhenko and Lobl, 2008)

Ntatsopoulos, Konstantinos, Nabozhenko, Maxim V, Jelinscaia Lagou, Loudmila, Chigray, Ivan A, Gagarina, Ludmila V, Alpagut Keskin, Nurşen, Keskin, Bekir & Papadopoulou, Anna, 2023, Beetles and lichens: tracing the origins and evolution of lichenophagy within the darkling beetle tribe Helopini (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 201 (3), pp. 1-8 : 1-8

Subtribe Helopina

Most clades within Helopina were supported by high statistical values, and the inferred relationships largely agreed with the current taxonomy, given that all sampled genera were recovered as monophyletic ( Fig. 1 ; Supporting Information, Figs S2 , S3). Two strongly supported monophyletic groups of genera were identified within Helopina , the first including Euboeus , Catomus , and Stenohelops , and the second Entomogonus , Helops , and Raiboscelis , which seem to be in accordance with the ‘catomoid’ and ‘helopioid’ lineages, respectively, as previously recognized based on the structure of male terminalia. Taxa assigned to the first group are characterized by a median lobe rounded towards the apical part, by a very long phallobase, and by short parameres almost entirely covered with elongate, asperate punctuation and short setae, whereas ‘helopioid’ species possess a median lobe acute at the apex, ossen of gradually diminished thickness towards the end, and by long parameres, only apically covered with short, spiniform bristles ( Nabozhenko 2006b). Ŋe genus Nesotes (traditionally assigned to the ‘catomoid’ group) was recovered as sister lineage to all other Helopina in the BI analysis (Fig. 1; Supporting Information Fig. S3), although its placement with regard to the other two clades remains rather uncertain given the weak bootstrap support and concordance factors in the ML analysis ( Fig. 1 ; Supporting Information, Fig. S2 ). Apart from the uncertainty regarding the placement of Nesotes , the results of our phylogenetic reconstruction within Helopina are largely in agreement with the existing morphological studies, corroborating the currently recognized intergeneric groupings within the subtribe.

Figures

Figure 1. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree reconstruction based on the concatenated dataset.Branch colours indicate subtribal groupings (yellow, Enoplopodina; red, Cylindrinotina; and blue, Helopina). Circles in nodes represent values of bootstrap support (BT), posterior probabilities (PP), gene concordance factors (gCF), and site concordance factors (sCF) as indicated in the key.Clades not recovered in the BI analysis are depicted with white PP. Beetle illustrations correspond to terminal taxa as indicated by the leưering in brackets.

Figure 2. Results of the ancestral state estimation analysis. Terminal taxa are colour-coded according to their state as illustrated in the key. Pie charts demonstrate the probability of the ancestral state at each node. In order to provide a time frame for the emergence of different ancestral modes, a time axis is also provided (based on the BEAST run calibrated by known substitution rates).A, evolution of feeding modes under the ER model. B, evolution of habitat preferences under the SYM model within the tribe Helopini.