Page 200 - Proceedings of the State Natural History Museum. Issue 37 (Lviv, 2021)

Іs clytini monophyletic? The evidence from five-gene phylogenetic … 199

independent genus Xyloclytus, gen. stat. nov. with two subgenra: Xyloclytus and Ootora.
Secondly, Xylotrechus grayii represents an independent clade, which I consider as a separate
genus Spinotrechus, gen. nov. Third, all 17 remaining species included in the analysis form
a large paraphyletic clade, which I consider to be genus Xylotrechus s.str. Within the clade
there are two subclades. First of them represents a wide range of Palearctic, Oriental and
Nearctic species with very diverse morphologies. Within the clade, a group of oriental species
(Xylotrechus smei (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1836) + Xylotrechus stebbingi Gahan,
1906) is clearly distinguished, which I propose to allocate to a separate subgenus of
Fulvotrechus, subgen. nov. The grouping of Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier, 1795) and
Xylotrechus buqueti (Laporte de Castelnau & Gory, 1836) with high branch support
(SH=0.96) remains unclear and will require further research in the future. The remaining
species of subclades form a dense cluster, which I consider as a subgenus of Xylotrechus s.
str. These include, among others, representatives of the current subgenus Rusticoclytus. My
results show that Rusticoclytus is non-monophyletic: a close relationship is found between
the European Xylotrechus rusticus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Xylotrechus pantherinus (Savenius,
1825), however, the North American Xylotrechus annosus (Say, 1826) is clearly of separate
origin. I consider Rusticoclytus is synonymous of Xylotrechus s.str.
The second subclade is evolutionarily distant from the first subclade and is represented
by two groups of species: 1) Xylotrechus antilope (Schönherr, 1817) and 2) Xylotrechus
pyrrhoderus Bates, 1873 + Xylotrechus rufilius Bates, 1884 + Xylotrechus magnicollis
(Fairmaire, 1888). I consider them as a separate subgenera Hieroglyphotrechus, subgen. nov.
and Igneotrechus, subgen. nov. respectively.
Unfortunately, the determination of the taxonomic position of Kostiniclytus is impossible,
as species of this subgenus remain unsequenced.
Teratoclytus. Lee & Lee (2020) found that Teratoclytus plavilstshikovi Zajciw, 1937 (not
Zaitzev see comments in taxonomical summary) belongs to the tribe Anaglyptini. My results
completely coincide with their conclusions. I consider it expedient to transfer the genus
Teratoclytus to the tribe Anaglyptini
Cyrtoclytus. According to Lee & Lee (2020), Cyrtoclytus is polyphyletic, but my results
suggest otherwise. To finally clarify the internal phylogeny of Cyrtoclytus, a larger number
of species should be studied.
Clytus. The current study demonstrate that the genus Clytus is nonmonophyletic. At least
North American Clytus ruricola (Olivier, 1800) belongs to the common clade with
Cyrtoclytus.
Plagionotus. The current study has also resolved a number of taxonomic disputes based
on morphological classification. In particular, the data of molecular phylogeny indicate the
separation of the genus Echinocerus from the genus Plagionotus. Echinocerus is a separate
evolutionary branch. However, both Echinocerus and Plagionotus descended from the
common ancestor. In fact, my results confirm the idea of Villiers [71] and the later
conclusions of Kasatkin [31], obtained on the basis of studying the external morphological
features and anatomical structure of the endophallus of Plagionotus s.l. Kasatkin proved the
independence of the genus Echinocerus [31]. He introduced the substituting name
Paraplagionotus Kasatkin, 2005, considering Echinocerus Mulsant, 1863 the younger
homonym of Echinocerus White, 1846. Later, Alonso-Zarazaga proved the absence of the
need to establish the substituting name for Echinocerus [1]. In the light of the current results,
unlike some modern authors [52, 61], Echinocerus should be considered an independent