Systematic methods, fossils, and relationships within Heteroptera (Insecta)

Abstract

Three recent papers dealing with phylogenetic relationships within the Heteroptera are discussed and analysed. A character set representing 43 taxa and 78 characters is used to test theories presented in those papers. The conclusions of Grimaldi and Engel concerning the placement of the Cretaceous fossil taxon Cretopiesma in the Piesmatidae are rejected in favour of placement in the Aradidae. The placement by Nel et al. of Protodoris from Eocene amber of the Paris Basin in the Thaumastocoridae is considered ambiguous because it has none of the diagnostic characters of that family group and is therefore regarded as incertae sedis. The arguments of Sweet concerning the elevation of the Aradoidea to infraordinal status on the basis of autapomorphies are also treated as invalid. General arguments against the use of phenetic methods in palaeontology, and ad hoc approaches under the guise of cladistics, are offered, with the conclusion that rigorous cladistic analyses are a prerequisite to testable conclusions concerning the placement of fossil and Recent taxa. © The Willi Hennig Society 2009.