Phylogenetic Systematics of Odonata


© Günter Bechly, Böblingen, 2007


Home Introduction System Literature Cladogram Index Homepage


Phylogenetic Systematics of Zygoptera / Euzygoptera




Euzygoptera BECHLY, 1996

Comment: concerning potential conflicting evidence against the monophyly of Euzygoptera see remarks under Caloptera and Hemiphlebiidae.



Lestomorpha BECHLY, 1996

Comment: according to TILLYARD (1928) Hemiphlebia shares with all Lestidae a very similar and derived type of elongated larval prehensile mask: the lateral lobes ("palps") with two large marginal horn-like projections (terminal hooks) and a shorter and serrated median projection, and a movable hook that is supplied with setae. But this is more probably a convergence of Hemiphlebia and Lestidae since Chorismagrionidae, Perilestidae and Synlestidae have a very different type of mask with only two or three acute endhooks and no setae at all.



Hemiphlebiidae TILLYARD, 1926

(Type genus: Hemiphlebia SELYS, 1868.)

Comment: Hemiphlebia shares with Chorismagrion two unique symplesiomorphies within extant Zygoptera: the basally open discoidal cell in forewings (a parallel reversal is very unlikely!), and the presence of a suture between vertex and occiput (also retained in some Synlestidae and "Megapodagrionidae"). Some of the mentioned autapomorphies of Hemiphlebiidae could be rather autapomorphies of the extant genus Hemiphlebia. Many of the alleged plesiomorphies of Hemiphlebia are better explained as autapomorphic reversals or reductions that are correlated with the miniaturisation of the insect. A previously unrecognized, but indeed extremely rare, plesiomorphic behaviour within Zygoptera is the position of the female in the pairing wheel, with the legs grabbing the male abdomen like in Anisoptera, while in all other extant Zygoptera the female legs are usually free in the air or on the ground.
TRUEMAN (1999) argued that the open forewing discoidal cell could be an autapomorphic reversal (convergent to Chorismagrion), because a few specimens have this cell closed, which is interpreted by this author as a putative atavism. However, this variability could as well be interpreted as derived, similar to the fossil † Liassophlebiidae († Heterophlebioptera), confirming the high likelihood of a multiple convergent (or parallel) closure of the forewing discoidal cell, as soon as the hindwing discoidal cell was closed. Consequently, the variability in Hemiphlebia is no evidence for either hypothesis.



Lestiformia BECHLY, 1996



Cretacoenagrionidae BECHLY, 1996

(Type genus: † Cretacoenagrion JARZEMBOWSKI, 1990.)

Comment: the attribution of † Cretacoenagrion to Lestomorpha rather than Coenagrionidae is based on the most parsimonious interpretation of the character pattern. Even though there are no strong synapomorphies with Lestomorpha and Lestiformia known at all, the suggested position requires the fewest number of character gains or reversals. For example the plesiomorphic presence of an open discoidal cell and a lestine oblique vein would contradict any position within Coenagrionomorpha. Phenetically the wing venation of this fossil taxon is nearly identical to the extant genus Chorismagrion, only differing in the plesiomorphic straight course of MP.


Eulestiformia BECHLY, 1996



Chorismagrionidae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Chorismagrion MORTON, 1914.)

Comment: it cannot be excluded that Chorismagrionidae is rather the sistergroup of Perilestidae because of the mentioned potential synapomorphies. This was already suggested by FRASER (1957), but would of course imply that the closed discoidal cell was independantly acquired in Perilestidae which is by no means unlikely since this character has evolved several times within Zygoptera and Epiproctophora anyway.



Lestida BECHLY, 1996



Perilestidae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Perilestes HAGEN in SELYS, 1862.)



Nubiolestinae BECHLY, 1996

(Type genus: Nubiolestes FRASER, 1945 nom. subst. pro Eolestes FRASER, 1944 which is an jun. obj. syn. and homonoym of Eolestes SCHMIDT, 1943 and a homonym of Eolestes COCKERELL, 1940; = Camerunolestes SCHMIDT, 1958 nom. subst. pro Eolestes SCHMIDT, 1943, nec Eolestes COCKERELL, 1940.)



Perilestinae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Perilestes HAGEN in SELYS, 1862.)



Lestodea BECHLY, 1996



Synlestidae TILLYARD, 1917

(Type genus: Synlestes SELYS, 1868.)



Lestinoidea CALVERT, 1901

(Type genus: Lestes [LEACH] [1815]; = Puella BRULLÉ, 1832, jun. subj. syn.; = Anapates CHARPENTIER, 1840, jun. subj. syn.; = Anapetes PINHEY, 1980, incorr. subseq. spell.)

Comment: the suprafamily name Lestoidea has an identical spelling as the older generic name Lestoidea TILLYARD, 1913. Therefore, Fraser (1957) introduced the replacement name Lestinoidea which is not in accordance with the present rules of zoological nomenclature since genus-group names do not compete with family-group names for synonymy or homonymy. Nevertheless I preliminarily followed the suggestion of Fraser to avoid misunderstandings.



Megalestidae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Megalestes SELYS, 1862.)



Lestidae CALVERT, 1901

(Type genus: Lestes [LEACH] [1815]; = Puella BRULLÉ, 1832, jun. subj. syn.; = Anapates CHARPENTIER, 1840, jun. subj. syn.; = Anapetes PINHEY, 1980, incorr. subseq. spell.)



Sympecmatinae FRASER, 1951

(Type genus: Sympecma SELYS, 1840, nec BURMEISTER, 1839; = Sympycna CHARPENTIER, 1840, jun. obj. syn.; = Sympegma ST. QUENTIN, 1970, incorr. subseq. spell.)

Comment: the genus Ceylonolestes is certainly not a synonym of Indolestes since it shares with Austrolestes the derived Coenagrion-like imaginal body coloration which is unique within Lestomorpha. Indolestes and Sympecma could be sistergroups, too, as is indicated by the dull brown body coloration of adults.



Lestinae CALVERT, 1901

(Type genus: Lestes [LEACH] [1815]; = Puella BRULLÉ, 1832, jun. subj. syn.; = Anapates CHARPENTIER, 1840, jun. subj. syn.; = Anapetes PINHEY, 1980, incorr. subseq. spell.)

Comment: the position of Archilestes and Orolestes is somewhat enigmatic, since they are in two characters more plesiomorphic than all other Lestidae, while they agree in two derived characters with Lestinae. This homoplasy suggests that the referring characters have to be regarded as rather weak evidence. Nevertheless "Lestes" macrostigma and Chalcolestes viridis indeed seem to be very basal representatives of Lestinae, while Archilestes and Orolestes are either highly derived Lestinae, or the sistergroup of all other Lestidae. In the latter case it could be necessary to establish a separate subfamily Archilestinae or Orolestinae.



Coenagrionomorpha BECHLY, 1996



Hypolestidae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Hypolestes GUNDLACH, 1888, nec Hypolestes HAGEN, 1868, nomen nudum; = Ortholestes CALVERT, 1891, jun. subj. syn.)



Heteragrioninae RACENIS, 1959

(Type genus: Heteragrion SELYS, 1862.)



Philogeniinae RACENIS, 1959

(Type genus: Philogenia SELYS, 1862.)



Hypolestinae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Hypolestes GUNDLACH, 1888, nec Hypolestes HAGEN, 1868, nomen nudum; = Ortholestes CALVERT, 1891, jun. subj. syn.)



Philosinini KENNEDY, 1925

(Type genus: Philosina RIS, 1917.)



Hypolestini TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Hypolestes GUNDLACH, 1888, nec Hypolestes HAGEN, 1868, nomen nudum; = Ortholestes CALVERT, 1891, jun. subj. syn.)



Lestoideini MUNZ, 1919

(Type genus: Lestoidea TILLYARD, 1913.)



Megapodagrionidae CALVERT, 1913

(Type genus: Megapodagrion SELYS, 1885.)

Comment: this group could well be a paraphyletic in the present composition since the characteristical gills are only known from very few species and might thus represent a synapomorphy for a more subordinate group.



Argiolestinae FRASER, 1957

(Type genus: Argiolestes SELYS, 1862.)

Comment: maybe paraphyletic, since some genera have derived similarities with Platystictidae, e.g. Burmargiolestes and especially Protolestes.



Megapodagrioninae CALVERT, 1913

(Type genus: Megapodagrion SELYS, 1885.)



Coenagrioniformia BECHLY, 1996



Platystictidae LAIDLAW, 1924

(Type genus: Platysticta SELYS, 1860.)

Comment: KENNEDY (1919) mentions some similarities in the wing venation and the male genitalia between Platystictidae and basal Pseudostigmatidae which he interpreted as evidence of a common ancestry, but which are of uncertain polarity and uncertain homology. The striking similarities with certain Protoneuridae are without doubt convergences as is clearly demonstrated by the plesiomorphic type of the larval mask.



Palaemneminae TILLYARD & FRASER, 1938

(Type genus: Palaemnema SELYS, 1860.)



Sinostictinae WILSON, 1997

(Type genus: Sinosticta WILSON, 1997.)

Comment: this new subfamily was erected by WILSON (1997) for Sinosticta ogatai from Hong Kong that was previously classified in the genus Drepanosticta. This species is the only "Old World" Platystictidae that retained a long vein MP just like the Palaemnematinae in the "New World".



Platystictinae LAIDLAW, 1924

(Type genus: Platysticta SELYS, 1860.)



Coenagrionida BECHLY, 1996



Pseudostigmatoidea KIRBY, 1890

(Type genus: Pseudostigma SELYS, 1860.)



Coryphagrionidae PINHEY, 1962

(Type genus: Coryphagrion MORTON, 1924.)



Pseudostigmatidae KIRBY, 1890

(Type genus: Pseudostigma SELYS, 1860.)



Mecistogastrinae BECHLY, 1996

(Type genus: Mecistogaster RAMBUR, 1842.)



Pseudostigmatinae KIRBY, 1890

(Type genus: Pseudostigma SELYS, 1860.)

Comment: the larvae of Mecistogaster are lacking the tarsal pulvilli that are present in the larvae of Pseudostigma and Megaloprepus, but the polarity of this character is not yet known.



Pseudostigmatini KIRBY, 1890

(Type genus: Pseudostigma SELYS, 1860.)



Megaloprepini BECHLY, 1996

(Type genus: Megaloprepus RAMBUR, 1842.)



Anomismina BECHLY, 1996

(Type genus: Anomisma MCLACHLAN, 1877.)



Megaloprepina BECHLY, 1996

(Type genus: Megaloprepus RAMBUR, 1842.)



Coenagrionodea BECHLY, 1996



Coenagrionidae KIRBY, 1890

(Type genus: Coenagrion KIRBY, 1890 nom. subst. pro Agrion [LEACH] [1815], nec Agrion FABRICIUS, 1775.)

Comment: although probably monophyletic, there is some weak conflicting evidence from the morphology of the larval mask, suggesting that Argiinae might be the sistergroup of all remaining Coenagrionodea, and genera like Acanthagrion, Aeolagrion and Ceriagrion could be closer related to Platycnemidoidea because of the pattern of premental setae. If this taxon should indeed be monophyletic it could be retransfered to superfamily rank (Coenagrionoidea) to allow a future phylogenetic systematisation of the current subfamilies.



Argiinae TILLYARD, 1917

(Type genus: Argia RAMBUR, 1842.)



Coenagrioninae KIRBY, 1890

(Type genus: Coenagrion KIRBY, 1890 nom. subst. pro Agrion [LEACH] [1815], nec Agrion FABRICIUS, 1775.)



Agriocnemidinae FRASER, 1957

(Type genus: Agriocnemis SELYS, 1869 or 1877, a case for ICZN according to BRIDGES, 1994.)



Ischnurinae FRASER, 1957

(Type genus: Ischnura CHARPENTIER, 1840.)

Comment: to remove the homonymy with the scorpion family Ischnuridae SIMON, 1879 a conservation as the correct spelling Ischnurainae FRASER, 1957 was proposed as CASE 3120 to the ICZN by FET & BECHLY, 2000.



Leptobasinae DAVIES & TOBIN, 1984

(Type genus: Leptobasis SELYS, 1877.)



Pseudagrioninae TILLYARD, 1917

(Type genus: Pseudagrion SELYS, 1876.)



Platycnemidoidea JACOBSON & BIANCHI, 1905

(Type genus: Platycnemis BURMEISTER, 1839, nec CHARPENTIER, 1840).)



"Platycnemididae" JACOBSON & BIANCHI, 1905

(Type genus: Platycnemis BURMEISTER, 1839, nec CHARPENTIER, 1840.)



"Calicnemidinae" FRASER, 1957

(Type genus: Calicnemia STRAND, 1928; = Calicnemis SELYS, 1863, jun. obj. syn.)



Platycnemidinae JACOBSON & BIANCHI, 1905

(Type genus: Platycnemis BURMEISTER, 1839, nec CHARPENTIER, 1840.)



Protoneuridae JACOBSON & BIANCHI, 1905

(Type genus: Protoneura SELYS, 1857.)



"Protoneurinae" JACOBSON & BIANCHI, 1905

(Type genus: Protoneura SELYS, 1857.)

Comment: the genera Chlorocnemis and Proneura have uniquely retained a short free portion of CuA and therefore could represent the sistergroup of all remaining Protoneuridae. A partly free AA is only retained in all Caconeurinae, many Disparoneurinae and a few Protoneurinae, while in the other genera and in all Isostictinae there are no vestiges of AA and CuA at all.



Isostictinae FRASER, 1955

(Type genus: Isosticta SELYS, 1885.)



Eoprotoneurini CARLE & WIGHTON, 1990

(Type genus: † Eoprotoneura CARLE & WIGHTON, 1990.)



Isostictini FRASER, 1955

(Type genus: Isosticta SELYS, 1885.)





Last Update: 10th August, 2007

© Günter Bechly, Böblingen, 2007