Page 201 - Proceedings of the State Natural History Museum. Issue 37 (Lviv, 2021)

200 Zamoroka A. M.

genus, not a subgenus. However, it is impossible to determine the taxonomic position of
Neoplagionotus Kasatkin, 2005, as species of this genus remain unsequenced. The internal
phylogeny of the genus Plagionotus s.str. indicates the presence of at least two separate
evolutionary branches: 1) West Palearctic Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758) and
Plagionotus detritus (Linnaeus, 1758); 2) Far Eastern Plagionotus pulcher Blessig, 1872 and
Plagionotus christophi (Kraatz, 1879).
Megacyllene. The genus Megacyllene is monophyletic. Moreover, its terminal taxon is
Placosternus crinicornis (Chevrolat, 1860). Hoping separated the genus Placosternus from
the Cyllene Newman, 1840 on the basis of a number of morphological features, which include
unspined antennae; face morphology; strongly tapered elytra with acutely spined apices [28].
Based on the results of the current molecular analysis, I consider Placosternus is synonymous
of Megacyllene.
Rhaphuma. The phylogeny of the genus Rhaphuma, which has about 223 species,
remains completely unclear. In the current study, suitable sequences were used for only three
species, including Rhaphuma xenisca, Rhaphuma gracilipes and Rhaphuma elongata. As a
result, I discovered complete polyphyly of the genus – each of the species, included in the
analysis, is a separate evolutionary branch. It is currently not possible to establish intrageneric
phylogenetic relations within Rhaphuma. Therefore, more detailed studies with sequencing
of a significant number of species will be required in the future.
Demonax. The phylogeny of the genus Demonax remains unclear. Lee & Lee indicate
polyphyly of Demonax [39]. The current results also indicate polyphyly of Demonax based
on only four species that were included in the analysis. They divided in separate clades as
follows: 1) Demonax notabilis; 2) Demonax substitutus + Demonax bidenticornis; 3)
Demonax transilis. The genus needs a deep and comprehensive revision.
Chlorophorus. Lee & Lee found Chlorophorus polyphyly, despite the fact that only three
species were included in their study [39]. They showed that Chlorophorus diadema, is a
separate clade from the rest of Chlorophorus. My results, based on the analysis of sequences
of 15 species, clearly demonstrate that the genus Chlorophorus is completely polyphyletic.
Chlorophorus consists of at least four independent clades: 1) Chlorophorus annularis +
Chlorophorus varius + Chlorophorus anticemaculatus + Chlorophorus annulatus; 2)
Chlorophorus sartor; 3) Chlorophorus diadema; 4) Chlorophorus herbstii (Brahm, 1790) +
Chlorophorus muscosus (Bates, 1873) + (Chlorophorus glabromaculatus (Goeze, 1777) +
Chlorophorus figuratus (Scopoli, 1763)) + (Chlorophorus quinquefasciatus (Castelnau &
Gory, 1841) + Chlorophorus miwai Gressitt, 1936 + Chlorophorus japonicus (Chevrolat,
1863) + Chlorophorus simillimus (Kraatz, 1879) + Chlorophorus motschulskyi (Ganglbauer,
1887)). These results are very different from the proposed by Özdikmen [53] division of
Chlorophorus into 5 subgenera: 1) subenus Chlorophorus s. str. (Chlorophorus annularis);
2) subenus Immaculatus Özdikmen, 2011 (Chlorophorus kanoi Hayashi, 1963); 3) subenus
Humeromaculatus Özdikmen, 2011 (Chlorophorus sartor) 4) subenus Perderomaculatus
Özdikmen, 2011 (Chlorophorus figuratus), 5) subenus Crassofasciatus Özdikmen, 2011
(Callidium trifasciatum Fabricius, 1781). Molecular data do not confirm this division based
on morphological features used by Özdikmen [53].
The first clade on my phylogenetic tree includes type species Chlorophorus annularis,
thus I consider it as a genus Chlorophorus s. str. Based on the current results Chlorophorus
s. str. is a basal clade in Chlorophorina, subtrib. nov. The second clade of Chlorophorus
sartor is sister to Rhaphuma gracilipes and should be separated into genus