TABLE 1 in Molecular systematics, higher-rank classification and Gondwanan origins of Cryptocephalinae leaf beetles

TABLE 1 Most recent higher-rank classifications of the Cryptocephalinae followed in contemporaneous literature and proposals derived from the PhD thesis of Dr. Chris A. M. Reid (1990), which have not found application in mainstream classification of the subfamily Seeno & Wilcox 1982 aReid 1990Chamorro 2014 bCryptocephalinaeCryptocephalini cCryptocephaliniAchenopini dCryptocephalina?AchaenopinaCryptocephaliniCryptocephalinaCryptocephalinaMonachini (pars)CryptocephalinaMonachulinaMonachini (pars)“Ditropidina”eMonachulinaMonachini (pars)“Coenobiina”eMonachulinaStylosominiStylosominaStylosominaPachybrachiniPachybrachiniPachybrachinaChlamisinaeChlamisiniFulcidaciniClytrinaeClytriniClytriniClytriniClytrinaClytrinaMegalostominiMegalostominaMegalostominaBabiiniBabiinaBabiinaArateini fBabiinaArateinaIschiopachiniBabiinaIschiopachinaEoclytrini gEoclytrina hEoclytrina a Representative example of traditional classification fundamentally established on the traditional views of Chapuis (1874) and Clavareau (1913), with limited posterior additions (e.g. Moldenke, 1981 for Clytrinae). b This classification merely represents a one-step downgrade of ranks in the traditional classification, and it is the one in use, explicitly endorsed by other recent works covering the higher classification of the subfamily, for example Bouchard et al. (2011), Agrain et al. (2017), and others. c Apart from the names reported here, the subtribe “Platycolaspina” was also proposed by Reid (1990) to include several genera previously placed in the Eumolpinae and Stylosomini of the traditional classification together with the genus Semelvillea Reid, 1991b. d Sample not available: monotypic tribe, with eleven species in the South African genus Achenops Suffrian, 1857 (Schöller, 2013, 2014). e Names proposed in an unpublished PhD thesis and not available under ICZN articles 8.1.2, 8.5.3 and 8.5.1. The intellectual property and right to make them available lies on the author who recognized these clades and they will be used only informally in this work (denoted by quotation marks) for simplicity and to facilitate cross-referencing with Reid (1990) and their eventual formalization. f Sample not available: monotypic tribe, with two species in the Brazilian and Argentinian genus Aratea Lacordaire, 1848 (Agrain et al., 2017; Moldenke, 1981). g Sample not available:Established as a monotypic and monospecific tribe by Monrós (1958), the genus Eoclytra Monrós, 1958 was revised and synonymized with the South African and Namibian genus Diapericera Lacordaire, 1848 of the Clytrina, which includes four species (Erber & Medvedev, 2003). Nonetheless, Erber and Medvedev (2003) chose to change the placement of Diapericera to Eoclytrini. h Reid (1990) could not study Eoclytra, and for this reason cautiously respected Monrós‘ (1958) decision on this subtribe, but doing so after exposing his conviction about the clear placement of this genus in Clytrina.