identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D987E03B073B517D01920B9A0F0FA8.text	03D987E03B073B517D01920B9A0F0FA8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptocephalinae	<div><p>3.2 | Phylogenetic relationships of Cryptocephalinae with other subfamilies</p><p>The Cryptocephalinae were retrieved as monophyletic and statistically supported (BS = 74%–88%) in all partial analyses using at least two markers (Figures S3–S5). The relationship of this clade with outgroups showed different outcomes when using partial data: mtDNA data supported (BS = 77%) the relationship of Cryptocephalinae with an unresolved Eumolpinae and Lamprosomatinae; nuclear data added Spilopyrinae among sister lineages (BS = 85%); and protein-coding genes supported (BS = 76%) Lamprosomatinae as sister of the Cryptocephalinae, and this assemblage in a soft polytomy with Eumolpinae and Spilopyrinae (BS = 85%). The analysis using the five phylogenetic markers was the most informative, structuring and adding statistical support to the patterns hinted in partial analyses, with ML and BI trees showing nearly perfect agreement in internal relationships and their support (Figures 1 and S6): (a) Cryptocephalinae was monophyletic with maximum support; (b) Lamprosomatinae was the highly supported (BS = 86%; PP = 1.00) sister group of Cryptocephalinae, validating the hypothesis of Camptosomata; (c) Eumolpinae was the sister group of the Camptosomata with high support (BS = 81%; PP = 0.99); and (d) Spilopyrinae rooted this entire group with high support (BS = 82%; PP = 1.00).</p><p>3.3 | Molecular phylogeny of the Cryptocephalinae</p><p>Most of the above topologies and particularly the analysis of all available data showed several major lineages within Cryptocephalinae with high support (BS = 89%–100%; PP = 1.00), relatively coherent with the systematics of the group, but with uncertain relationships among them, including (Figure 2): (a) clade A, grouping Stylosomina and Cryptocephalini of the subtribes Cryptocephalina and Monachulina; (b) clade B, with the Fulcidacini; (c) clade C, with Cryptocephalini of the subtribe Pachybrachina; (d) an orphan branch with the representative of the genus Mylassa (currently in Pachybrachina); and (e) clade D, with the Clytrini . Each group showed in turn either some geographic structure and/or some taxonomic structure more or less consistent with the systematics of the subfamily. Thus, within the clade grouping most Cryptocephalini, five main supported lineages could be distinguished (BS = 73%–100%; PP = 1.00): Coenobius and allied taxa, Australopapuan Cryptocephalina, Australopapuan Monachulina, Stylosomus, and the rest of Cryptocephalina . The representatives of New and Old World Fulcidacini grouped in two highly supported (BS= 99%–100%; PP = 1.00) sister clades. Finally, the Clytrini appeared structured as a trichotomy of Old World tribe Clytrina, American Babiina % Ischiopachyna, and American Megalostomina, each group with maximum support.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987E03B073B517D01920B9A0F0FA8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús;Cardoso, Anabela	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús, Cardoso, Anabela (2021): Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles. Zoologica Scripta 50 (5): 592-615, DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12501, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12501
03D987E03B0D3B547E49963B98290817.text	03D987E03B0D3B547E49963B98290817.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mylassini Gómez-Zurita & Cardoso 2021	<div><p>4.3.1 | Mylassini, a new tribe of Cryptocephalinae</p><p>Mylassa Stål, 1857 is a small, enigmatic genus considered part of the Cryptocephalini, with eight species distributed in Chile and southern Argentina (Jerez &amp; Briones, 2010; Monrós, 1949). The genus, which displays a unique combination of morphological traits both in immature and in adult stages (Agrain et al., 2017; Jerez &amp; Briones, 2010; Monrós, 1949), has been consequently surrounded by taxonomic controversy, early since its inception. Suffrian (1863) synonymized it with Cryptocephalus, a treatment that was followed in most catalogues, as recently as in Seeno and Wilcox (1982). Other authors did not question the validity of the genus, but proposed alternative systematic arrangements either within the Cryptocephalina (Monrós, 1949) or the Pachybrachina (Jacobson, 1924; Schöller, 2000). In all our analyses, M. obliquata appeared consistently as an orphan branch stemming from the basal polytomy of Cryptocephalinae also subtending the four highly supported clades defining the tribes recognized here. Constraining Mylassa to group alternatively with each of these clades did not produce statistically significant differences in the likelihood of the respective optimal trees with the results of the unconstrained analysis (AU test: p =.128–.313). Since we could not discard sister-group relationships or a closer phylogenetic proximity of Mylassa to any of the other four tribes, a most conservative approach is treating this evolutionary lineage with the same rank as the others. Consequently, we formally propose here the new tribe Mylassini trib. n., type genus (by monotypy): Mylassa Stål, 1857, currently with eight species. Diagnosis: long filiform antennae (pectinated in one species) and weakly protruding slightly reniform eyes; posterior border of pronotum with median truncate lobe and devoid of basal margin and crenulation; lateral border of elytron lobed at basal half and surface of elytra pubescent, with ten regular rows of punctures; all femora of similar size and tibiae without apical spurs; unique type of kotpresse most similar to that of the African genus Acolastus Gerstäcker (Agrain et al., 2017; Monrós, 1949; Schöller, 2000).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987E03B0D3B547E49963B98290817	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús;Cardoso, Anabela	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús, Cardoso, Anabela (2021): Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles. Zoologica Scripta 50 (5): 592-615, DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12501, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12501
03D987E03B0C3B547D0A94A69C310ED1.text	03D987E03B0C3B547D0A94A69C310ED1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Fulcidacini	<div><p>4.3.2 | Fulcidacini</p><p>The Fulcidacini (i.e. the Chlamisinae /-ini of most studies, or warty leaf beetles; Chamorro-Lacayo &amp; Konstantinov, 2009) is a relatively small pantropical tribe of Cryptocephalinae, with some 500 species in eleven genera, most diverse in the Neotropics (Chamorro, 2014a; Chamorro-Lacayo &amp; Konstantinov, 2009; Reid, 1991a). This group had been traditionally related to the Lamprosomatinae (Achard, 1914; Chapuis, 1874; Kasap &amp; Crowson, 1976), an association grounded in part because of some putatively shared traits with the Sphaerocharitini, which were interpreted as a transitional stage between these two groups. However, Monrós (1956) challenged this view, unambiguously relating the Sphaerocharitini to Lamprosomatinae, and Reid (1990) demonstrated analytically the convergent nature of characters supporting this relationship and the alliance of Fulcidacini with other Cryptocephalinae instead. While the internal classification in this group has not been exempt of controversy (Chamorro-Lacayo &amp; Konstantinov, 2009; Karren, 1972; Monrós, 1951; Reid, 1991a), the monophyly of Fulcidacini as originally defined has never been questioned (Lacordaire, 1848; Reid, 1991a). Our sample of Fulcidacini is small, yet it represents five of the eleven currently accepted genera of Fulcidacini, including Palaearctic and some Oriental representatives of the genus Chlamisus . These data support an original claim by Reid (1991a), recognizing that there might exist a deep taxonomic split, supported by synapomorphic traits for instance in the shape of pronotum and first abdominal ventrite, between American and southeast Asian Fulcidacini, and challenging the validity of genera that are currently believed to have ranges occupying these two regions. We could not reject statistically the monophyly of Chlamisus (Table 2), but our sample only included Old World representatives of the genus. It remains imperative testing in the future whether they will cluster with New World Chlamisus or if the hypothesis of natural groups bounded by biogeographic regions holds instead.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987E03B0C3B547D0A94A69C310ED1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús;Cardoso, Anabela	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús, Cardoso, Anabela (2021): Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles. Zoologica Scripta 50 (5): 592-615, DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12501, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12501
03D987E03B0C3B547E5292FB9C530A77.text	03D987E03B0C3B547E5292FB9C530A77.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pachybrachini	<div><p>4.3.3 | Pachybrachini</p><p>The tribe Pachybrachini assembles some 700 species in eight genera, after excluding Mylassa, distributed in the Palaearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental regions, but particularly diverse in America (Chamorro, 2013, 2014a; Watts, 2005). Several morphological traits are considered synapomorphies of the group, but they generally require assuming losses and reversals in different genera, weakening the recognition of the assemblage as a natural group (Chamorro, 2013; Reid, 1990). Reid (1990) was the first to propose treating this lineage separately from Cryptocephalini and ranking it as a tribe, warning that “ Pachybrachini have always been placed in the Cryptocephalini, basically on the premise that they lack the distinguishing characters of Clytrini or Chlamisini ” (p. 188 in Reid, 1990). Our results, based on the study of three Neotropical and one Holarctic genus, fully support this view. It is early to extract conclusions from our limited sample, but based on the obtained tree topologies, it is possible to derive some interesting hypotheses such as the origin of western Palaearctic Pachybrachis, represented in our sample by two subgenera ( Chloropachys and Pachybrachis), being a modern group derived from a primitive American stock.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987E03B0C3B547E5292FB9C530A77	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús;Cardoso, Anabela	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús, Cardoso, Anabela (2021): Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles. Zoologica Scripta 50 (5): 592-615, DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12501, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12501
03D987E03B0C3B577E5296469AD30944.text	03D987E03B0C3B577E5296469AD30944.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clytrini	<div><p>4.3.4 | Clytrini</p><p>Chamorro (2014a) estimatedthatthistribeofCryptocephalinae has some 1,300 species in 62 genera, and they are distributed in all major biogeographic regions, except Oceania. This group and its boundaries have been particularly stable since it was recognized formally, originally separating Old from New World clytrines (Lacordaire's [1848] Clythrites and Babiites, respectively), but unified in the seminal work of Chapuis (1874), the basis of their classification surviving to this day. The main systematic problems affecting the tribe concern its internal classification, starting from the recognition of subtribes and ending, as will be seen, in the definition of genera. The tribe has been traditionally subdivided into groups that would fit the concept of subtribes in the current system, and depending on the authors, there could be as many as six (Agrain et al., 2017; Chamorro, 2014a; Moldenke, 1981; Seeno &amp; Wilcox, 1982) or four subtribes (Clavareau, 1913; Jacoby &amp; Clavareau, 1906; Monrós, 1953; Reid, 1990). A more radical stance was adopted by Bouchard et al. (2011), who discarded Clytrini subtribes altogether. The main difference between these classifications depends on the treatment of monotypic subtribes Arateina, Ischiopachyna and Eoclytrina, which have been variously considered as part of Babiina (the first two) and Clytrina, respectively. In any case, the latest consensus is knowingly rather conservative, despite arguments against splitting these groups, and still defends the six traditional subtribes (Chamorro, 2014a). Our taxon sampling does not allow testing neither Arateina nor Eoclytrina, but it is illustrative of the other subtribes. First of all, the phylogenetic structure of the data in coherent, strongly supported groups is consistent with the use of subtribes to assist the classification of the Clytrini . Second, these groups match two traditional subtribes, Clytrina and Megalostomina, and a third subtribe consistent with the Babiina of Monrós (1953), that is by placing in the same strongly supported clade Ischiopachys bicolor proteus, representing a putative Ischiopachyna, and five genera of Babiina .</p><p>The basis for the current generic system of Clytrini was developed by Lacordaire (1848), who abused the concept of subgenera, particularly for Old World clytrines (i.e. Clytrina), whereby genera such as Clytra were subdivided in up to 40 subgenera. This massive if tentative splitting was Lacordaire's way to describe the frailty of morphological characters used in this classification. In Lacordaire's own words, this attempt was “une tentative malheureuse pour résoudre un problème que j'ai trouvé insoluble” (p. 13 in Lacordaire, 1848). This system was thoroughly revised by Chapuis (1874) and Jacoby and Clavareau (1906) who proposed several synonymies and made an effort to distinguish smaller groups of subgenera that could be grouped as genera, but did not manage to improve the classification significantly. After these pioneering works, the general approach to the generic classification of Clytrina simply resorted to upgrading the rank of most subgenera of previous authors to genera (Clavareau, 1913; Seeno &amp; Wilcox, 1982), without a proper character-based, let alone phylogenetic assessment of their validity. Indeed, the generic classification of the tribe, and particularly the subtribe Clytrina, where traditional approaches have struggled to find suitable morphological characters to straighten it up will benefit from a deep phylogenetic study using molecular characters. Despite the low species coverage for most genera in our study, some of them, including Babia, Clytra, Smaragdina and Tituboea, showed strong statistical rejection for their monophyly. Babia is a very diverse and variable genus, split into several subgenera and distributed in the whole of the American continent (Moldenke, 1981), and our results reflect that some of these subgenera may require a rank upgrade. In turn, the other three genera are among the largest and most widely distributed genera of Clytrina (Seeno &amp; Wilcox, 1982), and they have a history of imprecise definition, based on labile characters, starting from the works of Lacordaire (1848), Chapuis (1874) and Jacoby and Clavareau (1906). Clytra and Tituboea may be affected by a similar problem as Babia, with authors unable to recognize that the assemblage of subgenera did not form natural groups. The polyphyly of Smaragdina was certainly expected, since this is a poorly characterized genus, established on plesiomorphic features and putatively related to other similarly ambiguous genera, with species exchanged between these genera depending on authors' preferences (Warchałowski, 2012). These circumstances already suggest that this is not a natural group and requires a deep analysis to disentangle the objective limits of the genus. In our study, Smaragdina appeared in three deeply divergent groups, one with species allied and remarkably similar to Chilotomina, one with Oriental species and one with the western Palaearctic S. concolor, and each lineage may need referral to a different genus. The debate around Smaragdina also established its close association or even synonymy with Aetheomorpha (Warchałowski, 2012), but this is not supported by our results. A final interesting finding worth some commentary because of its implications is the demonstration of a markedly derived position of Anomoea within Clytrina . Anomoea and Smaragdina (possibly requiring reassessment) are the only New World Clytrina and our data are compatible with a recent colonization of the Western Hemisphere from an ancestor in a Palaearctic or Oriental group.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987E03B0C3B577E5296469AD30944	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús;Cardoso, Anabela	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús, Cardoso, Anabela (2021): Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles. Zoologica Scripta 50 (5): 592-615, DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12501, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12501
03D987E03B0F3B497E49959598FE0EB7.text	03D987E03B0F3B497E49959598FE0EB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptocephalini	<div><p>4.3.5 | Cryptocephalini</p><p>With an estimate of 2,800 species, the Cryptocephalini is the largest tribe of Cryptocephalinae and the most diverse, although most species in the tribe (approximately 1,800) belong to a single genus, Cryptocephalus, out of some 45 genera (Chamorro, 2014a; Schöller, 2002). The size of Cryptocephalini has likely driven taxonomists to split it in more manageable taxonomic units, including several assemblages, fundamentally unaltered for nearly 150 years, which in the current classification correspond to the Achaenopina, Cryptocephalina, Monachulina, Pachybrachina and Stylosomina (Chamorro, 2014a; Chapuis, 1874; Clavareau, 1913; Seeno &amp; Wilcox, 1982). We already argued that Pachybrachina does not belong to this group and we have no data about Achaenopina; therefore, the discussion is limited to the other three subtribes. In previous literature, apart from recognizing the existence of these divergent lineages, the relationships among the subtribes were not explored analytically. Authors like Chapuis (1874) or Sharp (1876) effectively treated Stylosomina as sister to the artificial assemblage of Cryptocephalini and Pachybrachini, and Reid (1990) postulated that Stylosomina (and other genera he placed in a “Platycolaspina”) diverged from the assemblage that would group Cryptocephalina and Monachulina . However, our results do not endorse any of these relationships, as several divergent lineages, including the one corresponding to Stylosomina branch off the basal polytomy of the Cryptocephalini clade. Where things get relevant about the classification of Cryptocephalini concerns the two remaining traditional subtribes: Cryptocephalina and Monachulina . Our results dispute the traditional classification, with major changes mostly affecting the subtribe Monachulina, which is strongly rejected by data (AU test, p &lt;&lt;.001). Reid (1998) already mentioned that this subtribe was a polyphyletic group, an artificial assemblage of small cryptocephalines generally characterized by short antennae. His solution to this problem involved splitting the Old World representatives of Monachulina in groups he named “Coenobiina” and “Ditropidina” and transferring the New World Monachulina to Cryptocephalina (Reid, 1990) . Molecular data endorse these conclusions based on morphological evidence, albeit with a relevant difference. The Cryptocephalini clade in the molecular phylogenies shows a basal polytomy giving rise to five distinct lineages: (a) Stylosomina; (b) Coenobius and relatives, the “Coenobiina” sensu Reid (1990); (c) Ditropidus and relatives, the “Ditropidina” sensu Reid (1990); (d) Lexiphanes and Diachus (Neotropical Monachulina of the traditional classification) sister to non-Australopapuan Cryptocephalina; and (e) Australopapuan Cryptocephalina sensu Reid (1990) .</p><p>Our samples of Coenobius from the Afrotropical, Oriental and Papuan regions (the latter could be in fact Aprionota; Reid, 1990) and the Afrotropical Isnus formed a strongly supported clade, and deeply divergent from other Cryptocephalini, deserving the rank of subtribe (the “Coenobiina” predicted by Reid, 1990). This clade is characterized by numerous adult morphological synapomorphies, and it was suggested that African and Australasian lineages could form monophyletic groups (Reid, 1990). However, the lack of internal support within this clade in our analyses, which covers a vast geographic range, precludes making further taxonomic considerations, beyond questioning, perhaps, the validity of Isnus . Isnus can be distinguished from typical Coenobius by lacking the characteristic large eyes, nearly touching dorsally on frons, but this trait seems to be variable in the lineage and without taxonomic implications, since our sample of Coenobius from Southeast Asia includes other species where eyes are not close together.</p><p>Reid's (1990) cladistic analyses of morphological characters separated the group of Australopapuan Monachulina from his "Coenobiina" and, most clearly, from American Monachulina, and he distinguished this assemblage as a subtribe (“Ditropidina”). This group would include the large genus Ditropidus and several allied genera, tentatively treated as synonyms by Reid (1990), as well as the New Caledonian endemic Scaphodius and also, with some doubts, the Southeast Asian genus Adiscus . Our data do not contradict the relationship of Adiscus with the other members of this group (AU test, p =.106), and the results consistently group Australian and Papuan Ditropidus (including species assigned to Bucharis and Elaphodes from Australia) with Scaphodius as an independent lineage, divergent from other Cryptocephalini . However, this clade was resolved with moderate support (BS = 62%) in the ML tree and maximum support (PP = 1.0) in the BI trees as sister to Australopapuan genera currently in Cryptocephalina ( Aporocera, Cadmus and Melatia). Based on these results, we could advance a hypothesis clustering the two Australopapuan groups in a single new taxonomic (and biogeographic) entity, which could be referred to as the subtribe “Aporocerina” (type genus: Aporocera Saunders, 1842). However, its formalization would require a dedicated study of potential synapomorphies for this group as well as a phylogenetic study incorporating more taxa of lineages involved. It is interesting noting here that Australopapuan Cryptocephalina had been already recognized as a natural group divergent from Holarctic, Neotropical and Afrotropical Cryptocephalina as characterized by several synapomorphies (Baly, 1877; Reid, 1990; Saunders, 1845).</p><p>The previous consideration, by exclusion of the Australopapuan genera, would retain Cryptocephalina as the sum of American “ Monachulina ” and American, Palaearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental Cryptocephalina . In this association, the old Monachulina are strongly related to Nearctic and Neotropical Cryptocephalina, a relationship that had been advanced based on the study of immature stages (LeSage, 1984). This phylogenetic arrangement finds strong support (BS = 93%; PP = 1.0) in our classification and in turn challenges the inclusion of American species in the genus Cryptocephalus . New World and an eastern Palearctic species of Cryptocephalus (C. nr. perelegans from Japan) are embedded in a clade of American lineages, including Diachus and Lexiphanes (former Monachulina) and Bassareus, and this assemblage is sister (BS = 97%; PP = 1.0) to Old World Cryptocephalus and Melixanthus . The monophyly of Cryptocephalus is rejected statistically (AU test, p &lt;.001) and this generic name should be retained exclusively for Old World species, while the New World lineage of Cryptocephalus could take the name Bassareus Haldeman, 1849 . Cryptocephalus is a huge genus with some 1,800 species according to Schöller (2002), which would drop to less than 1,400 if all the American species were confirmed to belong to a different group. In the restricted interpretation of the genus presented here, it would be distributed in the Afrotropical, Oriental and Palaearctic regions, where it has been subdivided in up to nine subgenera (Schöller, 2002). Admitting that our sample is very small considering the size of the genus, it actually includes species from the three biogeographic regions, and morphological diversity compatible with several of the subgenera, and even for characters that are supposedly constant in the genus, such as some specimens having appendiculate claws (Vietnamese vouchers 2910 and 2965), when the genus is diagnosed by simple claws. Nonetheless, despite this geographic and taxonomic diversity, which may be indicative of a broad phylogenetic coverage, an interesting, unexpected result from our study was the lack of internal resolution within this group (which also included a sample of Melixanthus).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D987E03B0F3B497E49959598FE0EB7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús;Cardoso, Anabela	Gómez-Zurita, Jesús, Cardoso, Anabela (2021): Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles. Zoologica Scripta 50 (5): 592-615, DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12501, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12501
