Download full text (PDF 4.5 MB) - University of Nebraska State ...

4 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITYOF NEBRASKA STATE MUSEUM
habitats and areas. The modern practice of
including detailed data labels on specimens
has lead to a much better understanding of
the geographic distribution, biogeography,
habitat preferences, and phenology of Platycoelia
species. Some new species of Platycoelia
have been described over the past few
decades, but many more new species have
awaited description. It has never been explicitly
stated where all the type material for previously
described species was deposited. All of
this new information needs to be analyzed,
synthesized, and disseminated in a form that
is usable to other taxonomists, biologists, and
conservationists.
This revision provides a means of identification,
describes new species, synonymizes
some old names, makes lectotype and neotype
designations, and presents relationship
and biogeography hypotheses for the genus
Platycoelia. Ultimately, the taxonomic research
on Anoplognathini will lead to a better
understanding of southern hemispheric distributional
patterns that are commonly observed
in many groups of organisms. A
phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of
Platycoelia will also provide valuable clues to
the processes that lead to the unusually rich
amount of biodiversity found in mid-elevational
habitats along the eastern slope of the
Andes Mountains. It is my great hope that
this monograph will inspire and facilitate future
research on the systematics, biogeography,
and ecology of this fascinating group of
beetles.
Tribe Anoplognathini
Anoplognathini is one of six tribes
(Rutelini, Anomalini, Spodochlamyini,
Geniatini, Adoretini, and Anoplognathini)
currently recognized in the subfamily
Rutelinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). The
tribe Anoplognathini is endemic to the Australian
and Neotropical realms. Anoplognathines
have long been recognized as a distinct
group within the Scarabaeoidea. MacLeay
(1819) was the first to erect the family group
names Rutelinae (as Rutelidae) and Anoplognathini
(as Anoplognathidae), but each had a
very different composition from their current
concepts. MacLeay’s Rutelidae consisted of
the modern tribe Rutelini while his
Anoplognathidae consisted of the modern
Anoplognathini, Geniatini, and Apogonia
Kirby (a Melolonthinae genus). MacLeay’s
(1819) promulgation of the quinary system of
classification perhaps necessitated his erection
of the family group name Anoplognathini
(in order to get the required five groups). The
quinary system (which asserted the divine division
of living things into groups of five) was
used in the early 19th century by some authors.
The concept of the quinary system is
bizarre (to say the least) by today’s standards
in the context of evolutionary and phylogenetic
theories. It was, nonetheless, used by
some of the religious scholars who were the
predominant authors of works on natural history
prior to the middle of the 19th century.
MacLeay’s time was the dawn of insect classification,
and the methods and standards
were in a wild state of flux as authors
grappled with different ideas of the origin of
species and the overwhelming diversity of life
being discovered around the world. Mayr
(1982) has pointed out that the use of the
quinary system of classification actually originated
from MacLeay’s 1819 publication on the
scarab beetle families.
Laporte (1840) made modifications to the
“Anoplognathites” by removing and adding
some taxa to the group. Although Laporte’s
concept of the group was more similar to the
modern concept, it was still considered to be
separate from the rest of the rutelines.
Burmeister (1844) was the first to classify
Anoplognathini in the modern sense. His
“Anoplognathidae” contained all of the taxa
currently considered to be in the group and
that were known at the time. Burmeister also
classified the anoplognathines in the
“Phyllophaga Metallica” with the rest of the
taxa now considered to be in the subfamily
Rutelinae. This was the first time these
groups were considered to be more related to
each other than to other groups of scarabs.
Blanchard (1851) and Lacordaire (1856) also
made noteworthy treatments of the group
but mainly followed Burmeister’s classification
scheme. Bates (1888) doubted the validity
of using the structure of the labrum