Lophocaterinae Crowson, 1964, 1802

Kolibac, Jiri, 2013, Trogossitidae: A review of the beetle family, with a catalogue and keys, ZooKeys 366, pp. 1-194 : 101-102

Subfamily Lophocaterinae Crowson, 1964

Lophocaterinae Crowson, R. A. 1964a: 297 ().

Lophocateridae Barron, J. R. 1971: 11, 12 (syn. = Peltinae ). Burakowski, B. et al. 1986: 119 ( Lophocateridae ). Crowson, R. A. 1970: Hunt, T. et al. 2007: 1915 (molecular phylogeny). Klausnitzer, B. 1996: 145. Kolibáč, J. 2006: 125 (diagno sis). Kolibáč, J. & Zaitsev, A. A. (2010): 55 (subfamily status suggested). Lawrence, J. F. & Newton, A. F., Jr. 1995: 868 (Kirby, W. 1837: 104 is considered the author of the family rank name). Ślipiński, S. A. 1992: 442 ( Lophocaterinae Crowson, 1964).

Remarks.

The subfamily Lophocaterinae was established by Crowson (1964a) in Trogossitidae (minus Peltidae ) and later re-classified at family rank ( Crowson 1970). As Crowson remarked ( 1970: 9), " the group is very distinct from Peltidae in larval structure, but not easily separable from that family by skeletal characters of the adults; the larvae show apparent affinities to Trogossitidae [...], from which Lophocateridae are easily separable by characters of the adults. " This is exactly the reason why taxonomists sometimes consider lophocaterins (the tribe cluster Decamerini - Lophocaterini - Ancyronini in this context) relatives of Peltinae , and sometimes Trogossitinae . The results of my two character analyses are also uncertain. In Kolibáč (2006), lophocaterins are unambiguously determined as a sister group of Peltinae but the improved analysis ( Kolibáč 2008) is not so definitive. The second analysis resulted in 48 most parsimonious trees of which 16 supported a sister relationship between the lophocaterins and Trogossitinae but 32 trees supported a relationship with Peltinae . Further, molecular analyses published by Hunt et al. (2007), Bocáková et al. (2011) and Gunter et al. (2013) show closer relationships between a number of representatives of Peltinae and the lophocaterins than the latter and Trogossitinae . We may therefore consider the sister relationship Lophocaterinae - Peltinae more probable than Lophocaterinae - Trogossitinae . However, it is better to use subfamily rank for all three monophyletic clades to avoid a peltine polyphyly. This has already been explained by Kolibáč and Zaitsev (2010) in detail: " There are three monophyletic branches in modern morphological analyses of Trogossitidae : (1) the subfamily Trogossitinae , (2) the tribe cluster Decamerini - Lophocaterini - Ancyronini , and (3) the subfamily Peltinae sensu stricto ( Peltini -? Phloiophilini - Colydiopeltini - Thymalini ). A sister relation of the lophocaterine cluster and Peltinae s.str. as recognized by Kolibáč (2006) and Hunt et al. (2007) was called into question by Kolibáč (2008) and by results of the present communication. Therefore, to rule out the potential polyphyly of Peltinae s.lat. (sensu Kolibáč 2006), we recommend to refer [sic] the tribe cluster Decamerini - Lophocaterini - Ancyronini again [sic] as the separate subfamily Lophocaterinae as aforementioned [sic] by Kolibáč (2008: 125). "

Key to tribes of Lophocaterinae

1	Tarsal claws with denticle. Larva: median process between urogomphi absent	Decamerini
-	Tarsal claws without denticle. Larva: median process between urogomphi present	2
2	Penicillus mostly composed of tuft of long setae. Frontoclypeal suture absent or weak and straight	Ancyronini
-	Penicillus membranous or composed of short, fine setae. Frontoclypeal suture conspicuous, mostly broadly emarginate	Lophocaterini