CANOPIDAE Amyot and Serville

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 : 968

CANOPIDAE Amyot and Serville

Historical: This exclusively Neotropical taxon, containing a single genus and eight species, was most recently revised by McAtee and Malloch (1928). Its

association with the Scutelleridae , as proposed by Gapud (1991), was discussed in Schuh and Slater (1995), who continued to maintain the family status of the group. The two defining characters for the group, presence of a prosternal sulcus and strongly laminate prosternal carinae, are shared with two other families of Pentatomoidea , the Megarididae , and Corimelaenidae , a situation that has resulting in ambiguity concerning its relationships with other members of the Pentatomoidea .

Analytical result: The position of the monogeneric Canopidae in our morphological analyses ( Figs 42–44 ) shows little agreement with that derived from combined molecular analysis ( Figs 45 and 46 ) and total evidence analysis of both 52 ( Figs 51 and 52 ) and 92 taxa

( Figs 53–55 ). Canopus is allied with Megaris and the Plataspididae in the first and with the phloeid–cydnid–dinidorid–tessaratomid clade in the last three. Although Canopus resembles Megaris Stål and members of the

Plataspididae in body form and the expansion of the scutellum, our phylogenetic results indicate that these similarities are almost certainly superficial, as most past classifications have implied. The biology of the group is novel within the Pentatomoidea and uncommon in the Heteroptera more broadly, showing an apparently obligate association with fungi. We continue to maintain family status for Canopus , in light of the somewhat ambiguous nature of relationships in the present analyses.

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.

Figs 45–48. 45. One of two trees derived from analysis of combined molecular data with 1: 1 indel ⁄transition–transversion cost ratio. 46. Single tree derived from analysis of combined molecular data with 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 47. Single tree derived from analysis of ~500 bp of 16S rRNA data using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 48. Single tree derived from analysis of ~1800 bp of 18S rRNA using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio.

Figs 49–52. 49. Single tree derived from analysis of ~470 bp of 28S rRNA using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 50. Single tree derived from analysis of ~1100 bp of COI mtDNA using 1: 1 indel ⁄transition–transversion cost ratio. 51. Total evidence analysis with POY of 52- taxon data set using 1: 1 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio. 52. Total evidence analysis with POY of 52-taxon data set using 2: 2 indel ⁄ transition–transversion cost ratio.

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.

Fig. 55. One of three trees from total evidence analysis with POY of 92-taxon data set using 2: 2 indel ⁄transition–transversion cost ratio, which had the lowest MRI value. Bremer support values are shown.