Lamprohizinae Kazantsev, 2010

Martin, Gavin J., Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F., Branham, Marc A., Da Silveira, Luiz F. L., Lower, Sarah E., Hall, David W., Li, Xue-Yan, Lemmon, Alan R., Lemmon, Emily Moriarty & Bybee, Seth M., 2019, Higher-Level Phylogeny and Reclassification of Lampyridae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea), Insect Systematics and Diversity (AIFB) 3 (6), No. 11, pp. 1-15 : 8

Lamprohizinae Kazantsev, 2010 stat. nov.

There is strong support for a Lamprohiza + Phausis clade in all our topologies. This is supported by a high degree of morphological similarity between these two genera ( Fig. 2 ). Phausis was erected for Lampyris reticulata Say by LeConte (1852) and Lamprohiza was erected in 1853 by Motschulsky for Lampyris splendidula Linnaeus. Lamprohiza was later synonymized with Phausis by Lacordaire in 1857. In contrast, Mulsant, 1862 treated Lamprohiza as an independent genus, but in 1881 LeConte wrote ‘[ Phausis ] is not sufficiently distinct from the European Lamprohiza , and in fact the European species seems to have been naturalized in Maryland and Illinois’ and included L. splendidula within Phausis . This classification was accepted until 1964 when McDermott separated Lamprohiza from Phausis by the ‘minute appendage on the 11th antennal article’ of the latter. However, Fender (1966) treated the two genera as one in his treatment on the ‘ Phausis ’ of North America, while Miksic (1969) followed McDermott in treating them as separate genera. From a phylogenetic perspective, Stanger-Hall et al. (2007) found Phausis as sister to Photurinae + Lampyrinae , similar to our results. In 2008, Jeng found support for these genera as members of Lampyrinae , however, he noted that they differed from the traditional Lampyrinae in the ‘unmodified mandibles sensu Green (1949), dorsal abdominal spiracles, and a symmetrical aedeagal sheath.’ Our analyses, based on the type species of each genus, strongly support the rank of subfamily and we herein elevate Lamprohizini Kazantsev, 2010 to Lamprohizinae Kazantsev, 2010 stat. nov.

Diagnosis

The Lamprohizinae are distinguished from all other subfamilies with the following combination of characters, based on adult males: mandibles unmodified (i.e., not reduced in size); antennae filiform, 11-segmented, with or without terminal sensorium, if without then posterior margin of ventrite 7 with weak to strong medial projection, projection emarginate at midline; tarsal claws simple, not bifid; abdomen with seven–eight ventrites; abdominal spiracles dorsal; aedeagal sheath symmetrical.

Figures

Fig. 2. Lamprohizinae habitus images; A: Phausis reticulata dorsal; B: Phausis reticulata ventral; C: Lamprohiza delarouzei dorsal; D: Lamprohiza delarouzei ventral.