Timing the radiations of leaf beetles: Hispines on gingers from latest cretaceous to recent

Science

Volumn 289, Issue 5477, 2000, Pages 291-295

  Wilf, Peter ^a,b   Labandeira, Conrad C ^b,d   Kress, W John ^b   Staines, Charles L ^c   Windsor, Donald M ^e   Allen, Ashley L ^b   Johnson, Kirk R ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^d Bldg 142   (United States)

^e SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^f Denver Museum Natural History   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE RADIATION; BEETLE; CRETACEOUS; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; BEETLE; BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; EVOLUTION; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOSSILS; GINGER; PHYLOGENY; PLANT LEAVES; PLANTS, MEDICINAL;

ANIMALIA; CASSIDINAE; CHRYSOMELIDAE; COLEOPTERA; INSECTA; INVERTEBRATA; MAGNOLIOPHYTA; ZINGIBER OFFICINALE;

EID: 0034647703     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5477.291     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. D. R. Strong Jr., J. Lawton, R. Southwood, Insects on Plants (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1964); N. E. Stork, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35, 321 (1988); L. M. Schoonhoven, T. Jermy, J. J. A. van Loon, Insect-Plant Biology (Chapman & Hall, London, 1998); P. D. Coley, Science 284, 2098 (1999).
2. D. R. Strong Jr., J. Lawton, R. Southwood, Insects on Plants (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1964); N. E. Stork, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35, 321 (1988); L. M. Schoonhoven, T. Jermy, J. J. A. van Loon, Insect-Plant Biology (Chapman & Hall, London, 1998); P. D. Coley, Science 284, 2098 (1999).
3. D. R. Strong Jr., J. Lawton, R. Southwood, Insects on Plants (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1964); N. E. Stork, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35, 321 (1988); L. M. Schoonhoven, T. Jermy, J. J. A. van Loon, Insect-Plant Biology (Chapman & Hall, London, 1998); P. D. Coley, Science 284, 2098 (1999).
4. D. R. Strong Jr., J. Lawton, R. Southwood, Insects on Plants (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1964); N. E. Stork, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35, 321 (1988); L. M. Schoonhoven, T. Jermy, J. J. A. van Loon, Insect-Plant Biology (Chapman & Hall, London, 1998); P. D. Coley, Science 284, 2098 (1999).
5. C. C. Labandeira, D. L. Dilcher, D. R. Davis, D. L. Wagner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 12278 (1994).
6. F. Schaarschmidt and V. Wilde, Cour. Forschungsinst. Senckenberg 85, 205 (1986).
7. V. B. Call and W. D. Tidwell, Am. J. Bot. 75, 104 (abstr.) (1988).
8. P. S. Herendeen and P. R. Crane, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 1-21.
9. P. H. Jolivet and T. J. Hawkeswood, Host-Plants of the Chrysomelidae of the World (Backhuys, Leiden, Netherlands, 1995).
10. B. D. Farrell, Science 281, 555 (1998).
11. D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 58, 573 (1977).
12. _, Biotropica 9, 156 (1977).
13. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
14. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
15. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
16. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
17. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
18. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
19. _ and M. D. Wang, Evolution 31, 854 (1977); R. P. Seifert and F. H. Seifert, Biotropica 11, 51 (1979); M. J. Auerbach and D. R. Strong Jr., Ecol. Monogr. 51, 63 (1981); D. R. Strong Jr., Ecology 63, 1039 (1982); Ecol. Entomol. 7, 217 (1982); E. D. McCoy, Biotropica 16, 10 (1984); Biotropica 17, 326 (1985).
20. D. A. Gage and D. R. Strong Jr., Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 9, 79 (1981).
21. C. L. Staines, Rev. Biol. Trop. Spec. Publ. 3, 1 (1996).
22. We follow the practice of merging the Hispinae and Cassidinae into one subfamily, the Hispinae [R. A. Crowson, The Natural Classification of the Families of Coleoptera (Lloyd, London, 1955)]. The rolled-leaf hispines belong to two closely related tribes, Cephaloleiini and Arescini, whose flattened, moisture-dependent larvae possess numerous derived characters that readily separate them from other Hispinae and Chrysomelidae [S. Maulik, Proc. Zool. Soc. London A 1931, 1137 (1931); Proc. Zool. Soc. London A 107, 129 (1937)]. In the New World, where they occur exclusively today, almost all species of Cephaloleia (202 species) and the four genera of Arescini (17 species) feed on Zingiberales. The best studied association of rolled-leaf hispines is with Heliconia; the only families of Zingiberales not colonized today by rolled-leaf hispines are the Musaceae and Cannaceae (9).
23. P. H. Jolivet, Biologie des Coléoptères Chrysomélides (Boubée, Paris, 1997).
24. C. A. M. Reid, in Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson, J. Pakaluk and S. A. Slipinski, Eds. (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 1995), pp. 559-631.
25. J. S. Mann and R. A. Crowson, J. Nat. Hist. 15, 727 (1981).
26. T. H. Hsiao and D. M. Windsor, in Advances in Chrysomelidae Biology, M. L. Cox, Ed. (Backhuys, Leiden, Netherlands, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 39-50.
27. According to (6), 78% of Hispinae with host-plant associations feed on monocots, exclusive of "cassidoids." Of the basal groups of Chrysomelidae that consume angiosperms, all are primarily associated with dicots (6), and only a small minority of species are associated with monocots (6). The preceding, in combination with other morphological and molecular evidence (7, 15), indicates that monocot feeding is a derived habit within the group comprising Hispinae and their close relatives (Fig. 2).
28. G. O. Poinar Jr., in Advances in Chrysomelidae Biology, M. L. Cox, Ed. (Backhuys, Leiden, Netherlands, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
29. S. Lidgard and P. R. Crane, Nature 331, 344 (1988); R. Lupia, S. Lidgard, P. R. Crane, Paleobiology 25, 305 (1999).
30. S. Lidgard and P. R. Crane, Nature 331, 344 (1988); R. Lupia, S. Lidgard, P. R. Crane, Paleobiology 25, 305 (1999).
31. S. L. Wing and L. D. Boucher, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 26, 379 (1998).
32. S. Magallón, P. R. Crane, P. S. Herendeen, Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 86, 297 (1999).
33. L. J. Hickey, Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 150, 1 (1977).
34. _ and R. K. Peterson, Can. J. Bot. 56, 1136 (1978).
35. E. Knobloch, Vestn. Ustred. Ustavu Geol. 54, 297 (1979); H. W. Meyer and S. R. Manchester, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. 141, 1 (1997).
36. E. Knobloch, Vestn. Ustred. Ustavu Geol. 54, 297 (1979); H. W. Meyer and S. R. Manchester, Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. 141, 1 (1997).
37. P. Wilf, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 112, 292 (2000).
38. _ and C. C. Labandeira, Science 284, 2153 (1999).
39. The Cretaceous material is from Denver Museum of Natural History (DMNH) locality (loc.) 2092, 46°22′45″N, 103°56′52″W, with an estimated age of 66.2 million years (Ma) [J. F. Hicks, K. R. Johnson, L. Tauxe, D. Clark, J. D. Obradovich, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Progr. 31, 71 (1999)]. Wyoming specimens are from two stratigraphic levels. Those from National Museum of Natural History (USNM) loc. 41352, 41°54′33″N, 107°59′40″W, belong to the Sourdough flora of (26), with an estimated age of 53 Ma (26). The specimen from USNM loc. 41362, 42°02′01″N, 108°09′37″W, is in the upper Niland Tongue of the Wasatch Formation, with an estimated age of 51.7 Ma (26). The Golden Valley Formation specimen is from USNM loc. 14048, 46°50′N, 102°58′W, upper Camels Butte Member (early Eocene), collected by L. J. Hickey (23). Estimated mean annual temperatures are ∼14.5°, >20°, and ∼18°C for the relevant portions of the Hell Creek [K. R. Johnson and P. Wilf, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Progr. 29, 432 (1996)], Wasatch (26), and Golden Valley (23) formations, respectively.
40. Genus: Cephaloleichnites, gen. nov., subfamily Hispinae. Genotypical species: Cephaloleichnites strongi, sp. nov. Generic diagnosis: The genus pertains to fossil traces of insect feeding consisting of linear strips, each confined entirely within the space between adjacent parallel veins such that leaf-tissue strata between parallel veins are removed and only the upper epidermis typically remains (Fig. 1). Strips are bordered by dark reaction tissue of the host plant Terminations of strips are usually asymmetrically rounded. The average strip length is 2.1 mm (σ = 0.83 mm, minimum = 0.81 mm, maximum = 6.3 mm, n = 279). Eocene strip lengths are shorter (mean of 1.9 mm for the Wasatch Formation, n = 209; mean of 2.0 mm for the Golden Valley Formation, n = 42) than those from the Cretaceous (mean of 3.5 mm, n = 28). Strips are occasionally single (Fig. 1E), nearly always consecutive, and characterized by series of strips occupying adjacent pairs of parallel veins so as to form a continuous and en échelon damage field. Single strips and consecutive strips can co-occur on a single specimen (USNM 498168), as they do on modern examples (Fig. 1D). The series of end points of consecutive strips is very roughly linear, resulting in an overall squarish or otherwise quadrilateral feeding feature that has a ragged irregular margin. The angle of the feature's margin to the parallel veins of the host plant is typically perpendicular but can be angled up to 30° from perpendicular. The maximum number of consecutive strips found is 34, on the holotype. Specles diagnosis: Diagnosis is the same as that for the genus, because of monotypy. Repository: All type and referred material is housed in the paleobotanical type collections of the USNM (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution) and the DMNH. Holotype: USNM 498174 (Fig. 1C). Type locality: USNM loc. 41352. Referred material: DMNH 19957, 19959, and 19960 (DMNH loc. 2092); USNM 498168 (USNM loc. 41362), 498169 through 498173 (USNM loc. 41352), and 509718 (USNM loc. 14048). Etymology: Cephaloleia Chevrolat is the only extant genus of rolled-leaf Hispinae known to feed on Zingiberaceae today (9), although both rolled-leaf tribes, the Cephaloleiini and the Arescini, generate similar leaf damage on other Zingiberales [ichnos: trail, track (Greek); strongi: named for D. R. Strong Jr., for his seminal papers on the modern analog association]. Discussion: The fossil and modern damage are equivalent, and only the rolled-leaf hispines are known to produce the relevant damage patterns on living Zingiberales. Cephaloleichnites indicates a probable tribal affinity but not a formal tribal classification. C. strongi in all probability spatiotemporally represents more than one larval beetle species. Feeding is accomplished by "scraping the ventrally-directed, scoop-shaped, toothed mouthparts reciprocally across the plant surface" (9, p. 158). Adult hispines leave similar damage on the same hosts as larvae, but the margin of the damage field typically is more smooth (9). The fossil damage was first noted in table 1 of (27, p. 2154) as "strip-feeding between secondary veins (Zingiberopsis)." This ichnotaxonomic description is provided for by W. D. L. Ride and others [W. D. L. Ride et al., Eds., International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, ed. 4, 1999), article 1.2.1].
41. J. X. Becerra, Science 276, 253 (1997); D. J. Futuyma and S. S. McCafferty, Evolution 44, 1885 (1990); B. Meurer-Grimes and G. Tavakilian, Bot. Rev. 63, 356 (1997); A. Kopf et al., Evolution 52, 517 (1998).
42. J. X. Becerra, Science 276, 253 (1997); D. J. Futuyma and S. S. McCafferty, Evolution 44, 1885 (1990); B. Meurer-Grimes and G. Tavakilian, Bot. Rev. 63, 356 (1997); A. Kopf et al., Evolution 52, 517 (1998).
43. J. X. Becerra, Science 276, 253 (1997); D. J. Futuyma and S. S. McCafferty, Evolution 44, 1885 (1990); B. Meurer-Grimes and G. Tavakilian, Bot. Rev. 63, 356 (1997); A. Kopf et al., Evolution 52, 517 (1998).
44. J. X. Becerra, Science 276, 253 (1997); D. J. Futuyma and S. S. McCafferty, Evolution 44, 1885 (1990); B. Meurer-Grimes and G. Tavakilian, Bot. Rev. 63, 356 (1997); A. Kopf et al., Evolution 52, 517 (1998).
45. V. L. M. Mendonça, C. L. A. Oliveira, A. A. Craveiro, V. S. Rao, M. C Fonteles, Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 86, 93 (1991); K. S. Ngo and G. D. Brown, Phytochemistry 47, 1117 (1998).
46. V. L. M. Mendonça, C. L. A. Oliveira, A. A. Craveiro, V. S. Rao, M. C Fonteles, Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 86, 93 (1991); K. S. Ngo and G. D. Brown, Phytochemistry 47, 1117 (1998).
47. K. R. Johnson and L. J. Hickey, in Global Catastrophes in Earth History: An Interdisciplinary Conference on Impacts, Volcanism, and Mass Mortality, V. L. Sharpton and P. D. Ward, Eds. (Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, 1990), pp. 433-444.
48. C. H. Lear, H. Elderfield, P. A. Wilson, Science 287, 269 (2000).
49. D. J. Futuyma and C. Mitter, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 351, 1361 (1996); T. H. Hsiao and J. M. Pasteels, in Advances in Chrysomelidae Biology, M. L. Cox, Ed. (Backhuys, Leiden, Netherlands, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 321-342.
50. D. J. Futuyma and C. Mitter, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 351, 1361 (1996); T. H. Hsiao and J. M. Pasteels, in Advances in Chrysomelidae Biology, M. L. Cox, Ed. (Backhuys, Leiden, Netherlands, 1999), vol. 1, pp. 321-342.
51. A. T. Peterson, J. Soberón, V. Sánchez-Cordero, Science 285, 1265 (1999).
52. M. E. Collinson and H. J. Gregor, Tertiary Res. 9, 67 (1988); J. A. Santiago-Blay, in Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae, P. H. Jolivet, M. L. Cox, E. Petitpierre, Eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1994), pp. 1-68; G. O. Poinar Jr. and R. Poinar, The Amber Forest (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999); S. B. Archibald and R. W. Mathewes, Can. J. Zool., in press); and other sources. Fossil hispine damage reported here (yellow squares in Fig. 2) is placed on the Cephaloleiini branch for convenience, although the Arescini cannot be excluded as a remote possibility for these ancient feeders.
53. M. E. Collinson and H. J. Gregor, Tertiary Res. 9, 67 (1988); J. A. Santiago-Blay, in Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae, P. H. Jolivet, M. L. Cox, E. Petitpierre, Eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1994), pp. 1-68; G. O. Poinar Jr. and R. Poinar, The Amber Forest (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999); S. B. Archibald and R. W. Mathewes, Can. J. Zool., in press); and other sources. Fossil hispine damage reported here (yellow squares in Fig. 2) is placed on the Cephaloleiini branch for convenience, although the Arescini cannot be excluded as a remote possibility for these ancient feeders.
54. M. E. Collinson and H. J. Gregor, Tertiary Res. 9, 67 (1988); J. A. Santiago-Blay, in Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae, P. H. Jolivet, M. L. Cox, E. Petitpierre, Eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1994), pp. 1-68; G. O. Poinar Jr. and R. Poinar, The Amber Forest (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999); S. B. Archibald and R. W. Mathewes, Can. J. Zool., in press); and other sources. Fossil hispine damage reported here (yellow squares in Fig. 2) is placed on the Cephaloleiini branch for convenience, although the Arescini cannot be excluded as a remote possibility for these ancient feeders.
55. M. E. Collinson and H. J. Gregor, Tertiary Res. 9, 67 (1988); J. A. Santiago-Blay, in Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae, P. H. Jolivet, M. L. Cox, E. Petitpierre, Eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1994), pp. 1-68; G. O. Poinar Jr. and R. Poinar, The Amber Forest (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999); S. B. Archibald and R. W. Mathewes, Can. J. Zool., in press); and other sources. Fossil hispine damage reported here (yellow squares in Fig. 2) is placed on the Cephaloleiini branch for convenience, although the Arescini cannot be excluded as a remote possibility for these ancient feeders.
56. The phylogeny is based on (7) for subfamilial relationships and on (17) and work by I. S. Askevold [Can. J. Zool. 68, 2135 (1990)] for hispine and donaciine tribal groupings, respectively. Resolution of subfamilial relationships is based on morphological and molecular data, donaciine relationships are based on morphological data only, and hispine relationships are based on molecular data only.
57. M. Schmitt, Zool. Beitr. 29, 35 (1985); K. Suzuki, in Chrysomelidae Biology, P. H. Jolivet and M. L. Cox, Eds. (SPB Academic, Amsterdam, 1996), vol. 1, pp. 3-54; (6, 15, 16, 42).
58. M. Schmitt, Zool. Beitr. 29, 35 (1985); K. Suzuki, in Chrysomelidae Biology, P. H. Jolivet and M. L. Cox, Eds. (SPB Academic, Amsterdam, 1996), vol. 1, pp. 3-54; (6, 15, 16, 42).
59. W. J. Kress, L. M. Prince, W. J. Hahn, E. A. Zimmer, unpublished data.
60. M. W. Chase et al., in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 109-138; J. I. Davis, Syst. Bot. 20, 503 (1995); D. Stevenson and H. Loconte, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 543-578; T. J. Givnish, T. M. Evans, J. C. Pires, K. J. Sytsma, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12, 360 (1999).
61. M. W. Chase et al., in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 109-138; J. I. Davis, Syst. Bot. 20, 503 (1995); D. Stevenson and H. Loconte, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 543-578; T. J. Givnish, T. M. Evans, J. C. Pires, K. J. Sytsma, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12, 360 (1999).
62. M. W. Chase et al., in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 109-138; J. I. Davis, Syst. Bot. 20, 503 (1995); D. Stevenson and H. Loconte, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 543-578; T. J. Givnish, T. M. Evans, J. C. Pires, K. J. Sytsma, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12, 360 (1999).
63. M. W. Chase et al., in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 109-138; J. I. Davis, Syst. Bot. 20, 503 (1995); D. Stevenson and H. Loconte, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 543-578; T. J. Givnish, T. M. Evans, J. C. Pires, K. J. Sytsma, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12, 360 (1999).
64. Although there is agreement concerning the composition of the major lineages of monocots, some uncertainty still exists as to the exact topology of the Liliales, Asparagales, Dioscoreales, Pandanales, Triuridales, and Petrosaviales. "Poales and allies" includes the cattails, pineapples, sedges, rushes, grasses, and relatives. The clade from the Proteales consumed by Donaciini and Plateumarini is the Nelumbonaceae, which are aquatic.
65. L. Borowiec, in Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson, J. Pakaluk and S. A. Slipinski, Eds. (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 1995), pp. 541-558; D. M. Windsor, unpublished data; C. L. Staines, unpublished data.
66. L. Borowiec, in Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson, J. Pakaluk and S. A. Slipinski, Eds. (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 1995), pp. 541-558; D. M. Windsor, unpublished data; C. L. Staines, unpublished data.
67. L. Borowiec, in Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson, J. Pakaluk and S. A. Slipinski, Eds. (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 1995), pp. 541-558; D. M. Windsor, unpublished data; C. L. Staines, unpublished data.
68. L. G. E. Kalshoven, Tijdschr. Entomol. 100, 5 (1957).
69. P. H. Jolivet, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon 58, 297 (1989).
70. L. Borowiec, Pol. Pismo Entomol. 57, 3 (1987).
71. W. J. Kress, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. J. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 443-460; W. J. Kress, L. M. Prince, K. J. Williams, unpublished data.
72. W. J. Kress, in Monocotyledons: Systematics and Evolution, P. J. Rudall et al., Eds. (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, 1995), pp. 443-460; W. J. Kress, L. M. Prince, K. J. Williams, unpublished data.
73. We thank W. Crepet, B. Farrell, and two anonymous colleagues for reviews; T. Baumiller, R. Burnham, D. Fisher, D. Furth, L. Hickey, R. Horwitt, and S. Wing for reviews of drafts; M. Guerra for photography (Fig. 1A); I. López for assistance with herbarium material; F. Marsh for rendering Fig. 2; and B. Miljour for assistance with Fig. 1. P.W. was supported by a Smithsonian Institution Postdoctoral Fellowship, the Smithsonian's Evolution of Terrestrial Ecosystems Program (ETE), and the Michigan Society of Fellows. C.C.L. received support from the Smithsonian Walcott Fund, and W.J.K. received support from a Smithsonian Scholarly Studies Grant. This is ETE contribution number 74.