Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T13:52:32.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NATURAL HISTORY, CLASSIFICATION, RECONSTRUCTED PHYLOGENY, AND GEOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF PYTHO LATREILLE (COLEOPTERA: HETEROMERA: PYTHIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Darren A. Pollock
Get access

Abstract

The classification of the nine world species of Pytho Latreille is reviewed by study of adult, larval, and pupal stages. Keys are provided for separation of species in these three life stages. Taxonomic changes (senior synonym in brackets) include synonymy of P. fallax Seidlitz 1916 [= P. niger Kirby 1837]; P. americanus Kirby 1837 [= P. planus (Olivier 1795)]; P. deplanatus Mannerheim 1843 is transferred from a junior subjective synonym of P. depressus (Linnaeus 1767) to a junior subjective synonym of P. planus (Olivier 1795). Lectotype designations are provided for the following: P. seidlitzi Blair 1925; P. nivalis Lewis 1888; P. niger Kirby 1837; P. fallax Seidlitz 1916; P. abieticola J. Sahlberg 1875; and P. americanus Kirby 1837. Eight larval stage, and 12 adult stage characters were selected for cladistic analysis. Lacking out-group material, pupal characters were not analysed. Character states were polarized using a generalized out-group composed of the three other genera of Pythinae (all monobasic). Phylogenetic analysis based on these 18 characters suggests four monophyletic species-groups: P. seidlitzi group (P. seidlitzi Blair — North America); P. kolwensis group (P. strictus LeConte – North America, P. kolwensis C. Sahlberg —Fennoscandia and the U.S.S.R., P. nivalis Lewis — Japan); P. niger group (P. niger Kirby — North America, P. abieticola J. Sahlberg — Europe, P. jezoensis Kôno — Japan); P. depressus group [P. planus (Olivier, 1795) — North America, P. depressus (Linnaeus, 1767) — Europe and the U.S.S.R.]. Larval stage synapomorphies are relatively more important in defining the species-groups than are those of the adult stage. The ancestor of Pythidae may have been associated with Coniferae as early as the Jurassic. The common ancestor of Northern Hemisphere Pythinae became isolated upon Laurasia once separation from Gondwanaland occurred near the end of the Jurassic. Two of the species-groups have similar disjunctions in North America, Europe, and Japan. The relatively eastern distributions of the North American member of each suggests that the ancestor of each species-group was Euramerican, and underwent vicariance with the opening of the North Atlantic in the Middle Cretaceous. The present distribution of both species-groups is thought to have been caused by the same vicariant event. The ancestor of the P. depressus group, which is presently circumboreal, was probably widespread and could have been Asiamerican in distribution. In the middle to late Tertiary, evidence suggests that Beringia was covered with coniferous forest, and the ancestor of the P. depressus group probably extended across this land bridge. Final separation between any North American and European/Asian species occurred in the Late Miocene or Pliocene, when a cooling climate made possible the evolution of treeless tundra in the north.

Résumé

Le classement des neufs espèces mondiales de Pytho Latreille a été révisé en étudiant les stades d'adulte, de la larve et de la pupe. Les clés sont fournies pour séparer les espèces de ces trois stades de la vie. Les changements taxinomiques (le synonyme aîné entre parenthèses) comprennent la synonymie de P. fallax Seidlitz 1916 [= P. niger Kirby 1837]; P. americanus Kirby 1837 [= P. planus (Olivier 1795)]; P. deplanatus Mannerheim 1843 à été muté d'un synonyme subjectif cadet de P. depressus (Linnaeus 1767) à un synonyme subjectif cadet de P. planus (Olivier 1795). Les nominations lectotypes sont données en ce qui concerne les suivants : P. seidlitzi Blair 1925; P. nivalis Lewis 1888; P. niger Kirby 1837; P. fallax Seidlitz 1916; P. abieticola J. Sahlberg 1875; et P. americanus Kirby 1837. Huit caractères larvaires et 12 caractères d'adultes ont été choisis pour des analyses de clades. à cause de la pénurie de matériels de groupe, les caractères des pupes n'ont pas été analysés. Les états des caractères ont été polarisés, en utilisant un groupe d'en dehors généralisé composé de trois autres genres de Pythinae (tous monobasiques). Les analyses de phylogenèse basées sur ces 18 caractères suggèrent l'existence de quatre groupes-espèce monophylétiques : le groupe P. seidlitzi (P. seidlitzi Blair en Amérique du nord); le groupe P. kolwensis (P. strictus LeConte en Amérique du nord, P. kolwensis C. Sahlberg en Finnoscandie et en l'U.R.S.S., P. nivalis Lewis au Japon); le groupe P. niger (P. niger Kirby en Amérique du nord, P. abieticola J. Sahlberg en Europe, P. jezoensis (Kôno au Japon); le groupe P. depressus [P. planus (Olivier, 1795) en Amérique du nord, P. depressus (Linnaeus, 1767) en Europe et en l'U.R.S.S.]. Les synapomorphies du stade larvaire sont relativement plus importantes pour définir les groupes-espèce que celles du stade adulte. L'ancêtre des Pythidae aurait pu être associé avec les Coniferae aussi tôt qu'au Jurassique. L'ancêtre commun des Pythinae de l'hémisphère du nord s'était isolé en Laurasie, une fois que la séparation de Gondwanalande a eu lieu vers la fin du Jurassique. Deux des groupes-espèces ont des disjonctions semblables en Amérique du nord, en Europe et au Japon. Les distributions quasi-orientales du membre nord-américain de chacun suggèrent qu'un ancêtre de chaque groupe-espèce a été Euraméricain et qu'il a subi une modification vicariante à la création de l'océan nord-atlantique à la micrétacé. La distribution actuelle des deux groupes-espèce se croît d'avoir été occasionnée par le même événement vicariant. L'ancêtre du groupe P. depressus, qui actuellement se trouve circumboréal, a été probablement fort étendu et aurait pu avoir une distribution Asiaméricaine. Du milieu à la dernière partie de la période Tertiaire, l'évidence suggère que Beringie a été couverte d'une forêt conifère et que l'ancêtre du groupe P. depressus a été trouvé tout au long de ce pont terrestre. La séparation ultérieure parmi toutes espèces nord-américaines et européennes/asiatiques a eu lieu à la dernière partie du Miocène ou au Pliocène, quand un climat refroidissant a fait possible l'évolution de tundra sans arbres au nord.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 123 , Supplement S154 , 1991 , pp. 3 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abdullah, M. 1964. A revision of the genus Pilipalpus (Coleoptera, Anthicidae: Pedilinae). Beitr. Ent. 14: 3–9.Google Scholar
Abdullah, M. 1966. The taxonomie position of the Australian Anaplopus tuberculatus, with a proposed new subfamily (Anaplopinae) of the Tenebrionidae, and including remarks on the family status of the Merycidae(Coleoptera). Ent. News 77: 143–147.Google Scholar
Allen, R.T. 1983. Distribution patterns among arthropods of the north temperate deciduous forest biota. Ann. Mo. bot. Gdn 70: 616–628.Google Scholar
Andersen, J., and Nilssen, A.C.. 1978. The food selection of Pytho depressus L. (Col., Pythidae). Norw. J. Ent. 25: 225–226.Google Scholar
Andersen, J., and Nilssen, A.C.. 1983. Intrapopulation size variation of free-living and tree-living Coleoptera. Can. Ent. 115: 1453–1464.Google Scholar
Amett, R.H. Jr., 1968. The Beetles of the United States (A Manual for Identification). The American Entomological Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Amett, R.H. Jr., 1985. American Insects. A Handbook of the Insects of America North of Mexico, van Nostrand Rheinhold Co., New York, NY.Google Scholar
Askevold, I.S. 1988. The genus Neohaemonia Székessy in North America (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Donaciinae): systematics, reconstructed phylogeny, and geographic history. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 113: 360–430.Google Scholar
Austin, E.P., and LeConte, J.L.. 1874. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Mt. Washington, N.H., by E.P. Austin; with descriptions of new species, by J.L. LeConte, M.D. Proc. Bost. Soc. nat. Hist. 16: 265–276.Google Scholar
Ball, G.E. 1963. The distribution of the species of the subgenus Cryobius (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Pterostichus) with special reference to the Bering land bridge and Pleistocene refugia, pp. 133–151in Gressitt, J.L. (Ed.), Pacific Basin Biogeography. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Bethune, C.J.S. 1872. Insects of the northern parts of British America. Compiled by the Editor from Kirby's fauna Boreali-Americana: Insecta. Can. Ent. 4: 52–57.Google Scholar
Blackburn, T. 1890. Notes on Australian Coleoptera with descriptions of new species. Part vii. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 5: 303–366.Google Scholar
Blackwelder, R.E. 1946. Fabrician genotype designations. Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 41: 72–78.Google Scholar
Blackwelder, R.E. 1947. The genotypes (of Coleoptera) fixed by Fabricius. Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 42: 51–57.Google Scholar
Blair, K.G. 1925. Further notes on the Pythidae [Coleoptera]. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 61: 209–219.Google Scholar
Blair, K.G. 1928. Pars 99: Pythidae. 56 pp. in Junk, W., and Schenkung, S. (Eds.), Coleopteroram Catalogus. Volume 17. W. Junk, Berlin and s'Gravenhage.Google Scholar
Blatchley, W.S. 1910. An Illustrated Descriptive Catalogue of the Coleoptera or Beetles (Exclusive of the Rhynchophora) Known to Occur in Indiana. Nature Publishing Co., Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
Böving, A.G., and Craighead, F.C.. 1931. An illustrated synopsis of the principal larval forms of the order Coleoptera. Entomologica am. (n.s.) 11: 1–351.Google Scholar
Bowditch, F.C. 1896. List of Mt. Washington Coleoptera. Psyche, Camb 7, Supplement 2: 1–11.Google Scholar
Brimley, C.S. 1938. The Insects of North Carolina, Being a List of the Insects of North Carolina and their Close Relatives. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Burakowski, B. 1962. Obserwacje biologiczno-morfologiczne nad Pytho kolwensis C. Sahib. (Coleoptera, Pythidae) w Polsce. Fragm. faun. 10: 173–204.Google Scholar
Burakowski, B. 1976. Coleoptera: Pythidae-Lagriidae-Alleculidae. Zeszyt 88, Rozmiazgowate-Pythidae. pp. 3–18in Mikolajczyk, W. (Ed.), Klucze do oznaczania owadów Polski. Wroclawska Drukarnia Naukowa, Warsaw.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1955. The Natural Classification of the Families of Coleoptera. N. Lloyd, London.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1966. Observations on the constitution and subfamilies of the family Melandryidae. Eos, Madr. 41: 507–513.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1975. The evolutionary history of Coleoptera, as documented by fossil and comparative evidence. Atti del X Congresso Nazionale Italiano di Entomologia: 47–90.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1980. On amphipolar distribution patterns in some cool climate groups of Coleoptera. Ent. Gener. 6: 281–292.Google Scholar
Crowson, R.A. 1981. The Biology of the Coleoptera. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Degeer, C. 1775. Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des Insectes. Band 5. Pierre Hosselberg, Stockholm.Google Scholar
DeLeon, D. 1934. An annotated list of the parasites, predators, and other associated fauna of the mountain pine beetle in western white pine and lodgepole pine. Can. Ent. 66: 51–61.Google Scholar
Donoghue, M.J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88: 172–181.Google Scholar
Emden, F.I. van. 1942. A key to the genera of larval Carabidae (Col.). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 92: 1–99.Google Scholar
Emmons, E. 1854. Agriculture of New York: Comprising an Account of the Classification, Composition, and Distribution of the Soils and Rocks, and of the Climate and Agricultural Productions of the State; Together with Descriptions of the More Common and Injurious Species of Insects. Volume 5. C. van Benthuysen, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. Tomus I, part 2, Proft., Hafniae.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema Eleutheratorum secundum ordines, genera, species, adjectis locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. Tomus I. Bibliopol. Acad., Kiliae.Google Scholar
Fauvel, A. 1889. Liste des Coléoptères communs a l'Europe et a l'Amérique du Nord, d'après le catalogue de M.J. Hamilton, avec remarques et additions. Revue Ent. 8: 92–174.Google Scholar
Füessly, J.C. 1782. Archiv des Insectengeschichte. Heft 2. H. Steiner, Zürich and Winterthur.Google Scholar
Gistel, J.N. 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs für höhere Schulen. Hoffmann, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Gistel, J.N. 1857. Achthundert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschreibene wirbellose Thiere. Vacuna 2: 513–606.Google Scholar
Goulet, H. 1977. Technique for the study of immature Coleoptera in glycerin. Coleopts Bull. 31: 381–382.Google Scholar
Grill, C. 1896. Förteckning öfver Skandinaviens, Danmarks och Finlands Coleoptera jämte deras synonymi och geografiska utbredning. Hospitals Boktryckeri, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Haack, R.A., and Slansky, F. Jr., 1987. Chapter 15. Nutritional ecology of wood-feeding Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Hymenoptera. pp. 449–486in Slansky, F. Jr., and Rodriguez, J.G. (Eds.), Nutritional Ecology of Insects, Mites, and Spiders. J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1981. Relative importance of plate movements, eustasy, and climate in controlling major biogeographical changes since the early Mesozoic. pp. 303–330in Nelson, G., and Rosen, D.E. (Eds.), Vicariance Biogeography, a Critique. Columbia-University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1889. Catalogue of the Coleoptera common to North America, northern Asia and Europe, with distribution and bibliography. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 16: 88–162.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1890. Proposed corrections of specific names to harmonize Mr. Henshaw's catalogue of the North American Coleoptera, with the generally accepted European nomenclature, with relation to the species common to the two continents. Entomologica am. 6: 41–44.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1894 a. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Alaska, with the synonymy and distribution. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 21: 1–38.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1894 b. Catalogue of the Coleoptera common to North America, northern Asia and Europe, with distribution and bibliography. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 21: 345–416.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W.D. 1978. Evolution and diversity under bark. pp. 154–175in Mound, L.A., and Waloff, N. (Eds.), Diversity of Insect Faunas (Symposia of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 9). Blackwell Scientific Publications, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hansen, V. 1945. Biller XII. Heteromerer. Larverne ved Sv. G. Larsson. Danm. Fauna 50: 1–293.Google Scholar
Hatch, M.H. 1965. Family Pythidae. pp. 84–88in The Beetles of the Pacific Northwest. Part IV: Macrodactyles, Palpicornes, and Heteromera. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Hayashi, N. 1969. On the larvae of some species of small families of Cucujoidea in Japan (Coleoptera). Insecta matsum. Suppl. 7: 1–9.Google Scholar
Hayashi, N., Fukuda, A., and Kurosa, K.. 1959. Coleoptera, pp. 392–545in Kawada, et al. (Eds.), Illustrated Insect Larvae of Japan. [In Japanese.]Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Heppner, J.B., and Lamas, G.. 1982. Acronyms for world museum collections of insects, with an emphasis on Neotropical Lepidoptera. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 28: 305–315.Google Scholar
Herbst, J.F.W. 1799. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausländischen Insekten. Der Käfer. VIII Theil. Pauli, Berlin.Google Scholar
Horn, G.H. 1872. Descriptions of some new North American Coleoptera. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 4: 143–152.Google Scholar
Horn, G.H. 1886. A review of the species described by Olivier in the “Entomologie”. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 13: 135–144.Google Scholar
Horn, G.H. 1888. Miscellaneous coleopterous studies. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 15: 26–48.Google Scholar
Horn, G.H., and LeConte, J.L.. 1883. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Smithson. misc. Collns 507.Google Scholar
Howden, A.T., and Howden, H.F.. 1981. The larva and adult biology of Rhinosimus viridiaeneus (Coleoptera: Salpingidae). Can. Ent. 113: 1055–1060.Google Scholar
Iablokoff-Khnzorian, S.M. 1985. Les Pythidae paléarctiques (Coleoptera). D. ent. Zt. (n.F.) 32: 193–229.Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 3rd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Kaszab, Z. 1969. 71. Fam. Pythidae. pp. 92–99in Freude, H., Harde, K.W., and Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Band 8 Teredilia, Heteromera, Lamellicomia. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.Google Scholar
Kavanaugh, D.H. 1972. Hennig's principles and methods of phylogenetic systematics. Biologist 54: 115–127.Google Scholar
Kavanaugh, D.H. 1978. Hennigian phylogenetics in contemporary systematics: principles, methods, and uses. Chapter 8. pp. 139–150in Romberger, J. et al. , (Eds.), Biosystematics in Agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agriculture Research [2]. Allanheld, Osmun & Co., Montclair, NJ.Google Scholar
Kiefer, H., and Moosbrugger, J.. 1942. Beitrag zur Coleopterenfauna des steirischen Ennstales und der angrenzenden Gebiete. Mitt. Münch, ent. Ges. 32: 486–536.Google Scholar
Kirby, W. 1837. Part the fourth and last. The Insects. In Richardson, J. 1837. Fauna Boreali-Americana, or the Zoology of the Northern Parts of British America: Containing Descriptions of the Objects of Natural History Collected on the Late Northern Land Expeditions, under Command of Cpt. Sir John Franklin, R.N. J. Fletcher, Norwich and London.Google Scholar
Kôno, H. 1934. Die Heteromeren von Sachalin. Insecto matsum. 9: 21–40.Google Scholar
Kôno, H. 1936. Beitrag zu den Pytho -arten Japans (Col.). Insecto matsum. 11: 35–37.Google Scholar
Kurentsov, A.I. 1976. Significance of Beringian links in Holarctic insect zoogeography, pp. 529–536in Kontrimavichus, V.L. (Ed.), Beringia in the Cenozoic Era. [Translation of Beringiia v kainozoe.] A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Latreille, P.A. 1796. Precis des charactères générique des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel. Brive, Bourdeaux.Google Scholar
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur l'ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles. Schoell, Paris.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.F. 1977. The family Pterogeniidae, with notes on the phylogeny of the Heteromera. Coleopts Bull. 31: 25–56.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.F. 1982. Coleoptera, pp. 482–553in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. Volume 2. McGraw-Hill Publ., New York, NY.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.F. 1987. Notes on the classification of some Australian Tenebrionoidea (Coleoptera). J. Austr. ent. Soc. 26: 361–362.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1850. Coleoptera, pp. 201–242in Agassiz, J.L.R. (Ed.), Lake Superior, its Physical Character, Vegetation and Animals. Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1866. New species of North American Coleoptera. Smithson. misc. Colins 6: 1–177.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1888. On the capture of a new species of Pytho in Japan. Entomologist 21: 108–109.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1895. On the Cistelidae and other heteromerous species of Japan. Ann. Nat. Hist. 15: 250–278, 422–448.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1953. Influence of Pleistocene climate changes on the insect fauna of northern Europe. Trans. IXth Int. Congr. Ent., Amsterdam 2: 145–153.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1957. The principal terms used for male and female genitalia in Coleoptera. Opusculo ent. 22: 241–256.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1969. The ground-beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 1. Opuscula ent. Suppl. 25: I–XLVIII.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1970. Survival of animals and plants on ice-free refugium during the Pleistocene glaciation. Endeavour 29: 129–134.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1979. The importance of Beringia as reflected in the present fauna, pp. 349–354in Erwin, T.L., Ball, G.E., and Whitehead, D.R. (Eds.), Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History and Classification. Dr W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1960. Catalogus Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Entomologiska Sällskapet i Lund.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. von. 1767. Systema Naturae, sive regna tria naturae systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera et species… Lugduni Batavorum, Th. Haak. Edition XII, part 2, Laur. Savii., Hafniae.Google Scholar
Maca, J., Jelinek, J., and Svec, Z.. 1984. Faunistic records from Czechoslovakia: Coleoptera. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 81: 398.Google Scholar
Maddison, W.P., Donoghue, M.J., and Maddison, D.R.. 1984. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Syst. Zool. 33: 83–103.Google Scholar
Mannerheim, C.G. 1843. Beitrag zur Kaefer-Fauna der Aleutischen Inseln, de Insel Sitkha und neu-Californiens. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mose. 16: 175–314.Google Scholar
Marshall, S.A. 1987. Systematics of Bitheca, a new genus of New World Sphaeroceridae (Diptera). Syst. Ent. 12: 355–380.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. 1931. 6000 Illustrated insects of Japan-empire. [Publishing data unknown, in Japanese.] Matthews J.V. Jr. 1979. Tertiary and Quaternary environments: historical background for an analysis of the Canadian insect fauna, pp. 310–86 in Danks H.V. (Ed.), Canada and its Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 108.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. 1980. Tertiary land bridges and their climate: Backdrop for development of the present Canadian insect fauna. Can. Ent. 112: 1089–1103.Google Scholar
Matys, E.G., and Glushkova, L.A.. 1976. Orthoptera and Cassidinae: Zoogeographie peculiarities of northeastern U.S.S.R. and the role of Beringia in the formation of recent insect faunas, pp. 546–554in Kontrimavichus, V.L. (Ed.), Beringia in the Cenozoic Era. [Translation of Beringiiavkainozoe.] A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Morgan, A.V., and Morgan, A.. 1980. Faunal assemblages and distributional shifts of Coleoptera during the Lake Pleistocene in Canada and the northern United States. Can. Ent. 112: 1105–1128.Google Scholar
Nikitsky, N.B. 1986. The family Pilipalpidae Stat. N. (Coleoptera, Heteromera), its composition and taxonomie relationships. Zool. Zh. 65: 1178–1189. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Noonan, G.R. 1986. Distribution of insects in the Northern Hemisphere: Continental drift and epicontinental seas. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 32: 80–84.Google Scholar
Nordal, I. 1987. Tabula rasa after all? Botanical evidence for ice-free refugia in Scandinavia reviewed. J. Biogeogr. 14: 377–388.Google Scholar
Olivier, A.G. 1795. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des Insectes, avec leurs caractères génériques et spécifiques, leur description, leur synonymie et leur figure enluminée. Coléoptères. Tome 3, nos. 35–65, Baudonin, Paris.Google Scholar
Paulus, H.F. 1971. Neue Pyrochroidae aus Nepal (Coleoptera, Heteromera), mit einer Diskussion der verwandtschaftlichen Verhältnisse der Familie. Z. ArbGem. öst. Ent. 23: 75–85.Google Scholar
Payne, T.L. 1983. Nature of insect and host tree interactions. Z. angew. Ent. 96: 105–109.Google Scholar
Perkins, P.D. 1980. Preventing distortion in preserved beetle pupae. Coleopts Bull. 34: 284.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. 1951. Larvae of Insects. Part II. Coleoptera, Diptera, Neuroptera, Siphonaptera, Mecoptera, Trichoptera. Edwards Bros. Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Pettersson, R.B. 1983. Pytho kolwensis C. Sahib. — en av skogsbruket hotad trädskalbagge. Natur i Norr 2: 23–29.Google Scholar
Pettersson, R.B. 1988. Barkplattbaggarna (Col. Pythidae), en ny värdfamilj for bracksteklama CyanopterusflavatorÏabr. och Meteorus corax Marsh. Natur i Norr 7(1): 64.Google Scholar
Pic, M. 1912. Descriptions ou diagnoses et notes diverses. (Suite). Échange 28: 49–51, 57–58.Google Scholar
Pic, M. 1929. Addenda et corrigenda du Coleopterorum Catalogus. Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 69: 205–208.Google Scholar
Pollock, D.A. 1988. A technique for rearing subcortical Coleoptera larvae. Coleopts Bull. 42(4): 311–312.Google Scholar
Provancher, L'Abbe L. 1877. Petite faune entomologique du Canada précédée d'un traite elementaire d'entomologie. Volume I — les Coléoptères. C. Darveau, Québec.Google Scholar
Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés. [Publ, unknown], Palermo.Google Scholar
Randall, J.W. 1838. Descriptions of new species of coleopterous insects inhabiting the state of Maine. Bost. J. nat. Hist. 2: 1–33.Google Scholar
Ring, R.A. 1981. The physiology and biochemistry of cold tolerance in Arctic insects. J. therm. Biol. 6: 219–229.Google Scholar
Ring, R.A. 1982. Freezing-tolerant insects with low supercooling points. Comp. Blochem. Physiol. A 73: 605–612.Google Scholar
Ring, R.A., and Tesar, D.. 1980. Cold-hardiness of the arctic beetle, Pytho americanus Kirby. Coleoptera, Pythidae (Salpingidae). J. Insect Physiol. 26: 763–774.Google Scholar
Ring, R.A., and Tesar, D.. 1981. Adaptations to cold in Canadian Arctic insects. Cryobiology 18: 199–211.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J.C., and MacDonald, G.M.. 1986. The patterns of post-glacial spread of white spruce. J. Biogeogr. 13: 527–540.Google Scholar
Rozen, J.G. Jr., 1959. Systematic study of the pupae of the Oedemeridae (Coleoptera). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 52: 299–303.Google Scholar
Saalas, U. 1917. Die Fichtenkäfer Finnlands. Studien über die Entwicklungsstadien, Lebensweise, und geographische Verbreitung der an Picea excelsa Link, lebenden Coleopteren nebst einer Larvensbetimmungsta-belle. I. Allgemeiner Teil und Spezieller Teil 1. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Justantama, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Sahlberg, C.R. 1833. Dissertatio entomologica Insecta Fennica enumerans. Band 1. P. 29. J.C. Frenckel, Aboae.Google Scholar
Sahlberg, J. 1875. Ueber die Finnischen arten der Käfer- Gattung Pytho und deren Larven. Dt. ent. Z. 19: 219–224 [and Dt. ent. Z. 20: 380, figs. 18–20 (1876)].Google Scholar
Sahlberg, C.R. 1892. Meddelanden från Sällskapets sammanträden (den 7 Februari 1891). Meddn Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 18: 143–265.Google Scholar
Schoenfeldt, H. von. 1891. Catalog der Coleopteren von Japan. Jb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 44: 237–274.Google Scholar
Seidlitz, G. von. 1916, 1917. Die letzten Familien der Heteromeren. űr. ent. Z. 1916: 113–128, 397–498; 1917: 65–116.Google Scholar
Sharp, D., and Muir, F.A.G.. 1912. The comparative anatomy of the male genital tube in Coleoptera. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. part III 1912: 477–642.Google Scholar
Shpeley, D. 1986. Genera of the subtribe Metallicina and classification, reconstructed phylogeny and geographical history of the species of Euproctinus Leng and Mutchler (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Lebiini). Quaest. Ent. 22: 261–349.Google Scholar
Silfverberg, H. (Ed.). 1979. Enumeratio coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Helsingfors Entomologiska Bytesförening, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Smith, D.B., and Sears, M.K.. 1982. Mandibular structure and feeding habits of three morphologically similar coleopterous larvae: Cucujus clavipes (Cucujidae), Dendroides canadensis (Pyrochroidae), and Pytho depressus (Salpingidae). Can. Ent. 114: 173–175.Google Scholar
Smith, J.B. 1910. Annual report of the New Jersey State Museum including a report of the insects of New Jersey. 1909. MacCrellish & Quigley, Trenton, NJ.Google Scholar
Spilman, T.J. 1952. The male genitalia of the Nearctic Salpingidae. Coleopts Bull. 6: 9–13.Google Scholar
Spilman, T.J. 1954. Generic names of the Salpingidae and their type species (Coleoptera). J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 44: 85–94.Google Scholar
Stork, N.E. 1980. A scanning electron microscope study of tarsal adhesive setae in the Coleoptera. J. Linn. Soc. 68: 173–306.Google Scholar
Tanner, V.M. 1927. A preliminary study of the genitalia of female Coleoptera. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 53: 5–50.Google Scholar
Watrous, L.E., and Wheeler, Q.D.. 1981. The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 30: 1–11.Google Scholar
Watt, J.C. 1974. A revised subfamily classification of Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera). N.Z. J. Zool. 1: 381–452.Google Scholar
Watt, J.C. 1987. The family and subfamily classification and New Zealand genera of Pythidae and Scraptiidae (Coleoptera). Syst. Ent. 12: 111–136.Google Scholar
Westwood, J.O. 1839. An Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Q.D. 1986. Revision of the genera of Lymexylidae (Coleoptera: Cucujiformia). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 183: 113–210.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D.R. 1972. Classification, phylogeny, and zoogeography of Schizogenius Putzeys (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Scantini). Quaest. Ent. 8: 131–348.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D.R. 1973. Late-Wisconsin vegetational changes in unglaciated eastern North America. Quaternary Res. 3: 621–631.Google Scholar
Wickham, H.F. 1899. The Coleoptera of Canada. XXXI. The Pythidae of Ontario and Quebec. Can. Ent. 31: 57–61.Google Scholar
Wickham, H.F. 1913. Fossil Coleoptera from the Wilson ranch near Florissant, Colorado. Bull. Labs nat. Hist. St. Univ. Ia. 6: 3–29.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. J. Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Yanovskiy, V.M.,andDmitrienko, V.K.. 1983. Forest beetles (Coleoptera) of the Sayanoshushenskoe state reserve. Ent. Rev. 62: 43–51.Google Scholar
Young, D.K. 1975. A revision of the family Pyrochroidae (Coleoptera: Heteromera) for North America based on the larvae, pupae, and adults. Contr. Am. ent. Inst. 11: 1–39.Google Scholar
Young, D.K. 1976. The systematic position of Sphalma quadricollis Horn (Col: Salpingidae: Pythini) as clarified by discovery of its larva. Coleopts Bull. 30: 227–232.Google Scholar
Young, D.K. 1985. The true larva of Lecontia discicollis and change in the systematic position of the genus (Coleoptera: Boridae). Great Lakes Ent. 18: 97–101.Google Scholar
Zachariassen, K.E. 1977. Effects of glycerol in freeze-tolerant Pytho depressus L. (Col., Pythidae). Norw. J. Ent. 24: 25–29.Google Scholar
Zachariassen, K.E. 1979. The mechanism of the cryoprotective effect of glycerol in beetles tolerant to freezing. J. Insect Physiol. 25: 29–32.Google Scholar
Zachariassen, K.E. 1980. The role of polyols and nucleating agents in cold-hardy beetles. J. Comp. Physiol. B 140: 227–234.Google Scholar