Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Representatives of the 8 nominal subfamilies comprising the harpactoroid complex have been studied and their various characters analyzed in terms of phylogenetic significance. These groups usually have in common 13 characters or character complexes most of which are apomorphic and, therefore, indicative of a close relationship between groups. The characters are absent or uncommon in other reduviid subfamilies. Analysis of the characters distinguishing the various harpactoroid groups indicates that, except for the Bactrodinae, these characters are relatively few and minor. Since most of the harpactoroid groups have in common many apomorphic characters and each has rather few autapomorphic characters, it is concluded that these groups should comprise a redefined subfamily Harpactorinae. Accordingly, the former Harpactorinae, as well as the Raphidosominae, Tegeinae, Apiomerinae, Diaspidinae, and Ectinoderinae, should be reduced to tribal status. The Phonolibinae are not sufficiently different from the tegeines to justify separate group treatment and should, therefore, be placed in the tribe Tegini. The Bactrodinae lack many of the harpactoroid characters and have several synapomorphic characters. Therefore, it is concluded that they should remain as a subfamily.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Norman T. Davis (1969) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: