Trichophora, Bonnemaison, 1822

Grazia, Jocelia, Schuh, Randall T. & Wheeler, Ward C., 2008, Phylogenetic relationships of family groups in Pentatomoidea based on morphology and DNA sequences (Insecta: Heteroptera), Cladistics 24, pp. 932-976 : 963

Trichophora

Most authors have accepted this grouping since the time it was originally proposed by Tullgren (1918). Our morphological and total evidence analyses sup-

port the Trichophora as monophyletic ( Figs 42–44 , 53 and 54 ). The Pentatomoidea and Lygaeoidea (sensu Henry, 1997) are each monophyletic and form a sistergroup relationship, although our sample for the latter grouping is very small. The analysis of Wheeler et al. (1993) offered, in our view, a weak attempt to resolve relationships within the Trichophora , because it contained data insufficient to do any more than support the monophyly of the Trichophora . Rigorous tests of the theories of Henry (1997) concerning the monophyly of the Lygaeoidea and the sister-group relation-

ships of that taxon will require analysis of both morphological and molecular data for a broadly representative taxon sample.

Figures

Fig. 42. Strict consensus of 96 most parsimonious trees for full-taxon morphological data set, with unsupported nodes supressed. Length = 207; consistency index = 42; retention index = 86. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 43. Strict consensus of three trees derived from successive weighting of the results shown in Fig. 42. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 44. Strict consensus of 12 trees derived from implied weighting analysis of morphological data using PIWE. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 53. One of six trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.

Fig. 54. One of four trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 1: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. (d) Non-homoplasious; (s) homoplasious.