|
Family Vaejovidae
Genus Paravaejovis
Genus Paruroctonus
Genus Pseudouroctonus
Genus Serradigitus
Genus Smeringurus
Genus Syntropis
Genus Uroctonites
Genus Uroctonus
Genus Vaejovis
Genus Vejovoidus
Diversity
Endemism
Taxonomy
Phylogeny
Biogeography
 |
Phylogeny
Cladogram of the Vaejovidae (Stockwell,1992)
Until recently, the monophyly of Vaejovidae, as
redefined by Stockwell (1992), was undisputed (Stockwell 1989; Sissom 2000;
Coddington et al. 2004). The recent transferal of Uroctonus from
Vaejovidae to subfamily Uroctoninae of Chactidae by Soleglad & Fet (2003, 2004)
has, however, rendered Vaejovidae (and Chactidae) paraphyletic. We reject the
revised higher classification of scorpions proposed by these authors because the
methods used in their phylogenetic analysis have been discredited and
consequently their conclusions cannot be justified (Prendini & Wheeler 2005).
For example, Uroctoninae sensu Soleglad & Fet (2003, 2004) is supported
by false synapomorphies (e.g. ‘3–4 lateral ocelli’). Anuroctonus and
Uroctonus are not sister taxa, let alone closely related based on analyses
by others (e.g. Stockwell 1989) and work in progress, where characters
supporting alternative hypotheses have also been included.
The phylogenetic placement of Vaejovidae also remains unclear—contrast, for
example, its placement by Lamoral (1980), Stockwell (1989) and Soleglad & Fet
(2003)—and its component genera a taxonomic shambles. Major genera, e.g.
Pseudouroctonus and Vaejovis, are not monophyletic. The validity of
smaller genera (several monotypic) is also dubious. Generic diagnoses are
unworkable and, aside from species in Baja California, there are no
comprehensive keys. This unsatisfactory situation will remain until an analysis
of phylogenetic relationships in the family has been undertaken and generic
limits have been redefined in terms of monophyly and synapomorphy. Preliminary
evidence suggests that several new genera should be erected, whereas others
(mostly monotypic) should be synonymized (Lourenço & Sissom 2000; Sissom 2000).
A phylogenetic analysis including all or most of vaejovid species is essential
for resolving both the phylogenetic position and generic composition of the
family.
Literature Cited:
Coddington, J.A., Giribet,
G., Harvey, M.S., Prendini, L., & Walter, D.E. 2004. Arachnida. In: Cracraft, J.
and Donoghue, M. (Eds.) Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 296–318.
Lamoral, B.H.
1980. A reappraisal of the suprageneric classification of recent scorpions and
their zoogeography. In:
Gruber, J. (Ed.)
Verhandlungen.
8. Internationaler Arachnologen – Kongress abgehalten ander
Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, 7–12 Juli, 1980.
H. Egermann,
Vienna, 439-444
Lourenço, W.R. &
Sissom, W.D. 2000. Scorpiones. In: Bousquets, J.L., González Soriano, E. &
Papavero, N. (Eds.) Biodiversidad, Taxonomía y Biogeographía de
Artrópodos de México: Hacia una Síntesis de su Concimiento. Volume II.
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, 115–135.
Prendini, L. &
Wheeler, W.C. 2005. Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards
for peer review in online publishing. Cladistics 21: 446–494.
Sissom, W.D.
2000. Family Vaejovidae.
In: Fet, V., Sissom, W.D.,
Lowe, G. & Braunwalder, M.E. Catalog of the Scorpions of the World (1758–1998).
The New York Entomological Society, New York,
503–553.
Soleglad,
M.E. & Fet, V. 2003.
High-level systematics and phylogeny of the extant scorpions (Scorpiones:
Orthosterni). Euscorpius 11: 1–175.
Soleglad,
M.E. & Fet, V. 2004.
The systematics of the scorpion subfamily Uroctoninae (Scorpiones: Chactidae).
Revista Ibérica de Aracnología 10: 81–128.
Stockwell,
S.A. 1989. Revision
of the phylogeny and higher classification of scorpions (Chelicerata). Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
Stockwell,
S.A. 1992. Systematic
observations on North American Scorpionida with a key and checklist of the
families and genera. Journal of Medical Entomology 29: 407–422.
|
