Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 98. (Budapest 2006)

Makranczy, Gy.: Systematics and phylogenetic relationships of the genera in the Carpelimus group (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Oxytelinae)

num and an analogous situation in another subfamily (Osoriinae, Eleusini), he changed the polarity of this character to consider the free second sternite to be a derived character (NEWTON 1982). The resulting change in the placement of taxa marked the birth of the presently recognized tribal classification of basal Oxytelinae. Although NEWTON realized the problems with the tribal classification at the time of the Oxypius article (NEWTON 1982), only in 1992 did he present a formal tribal classification (NEWTON & THAYER 1992a). The Tree of Life phylogeny Until now the phylogeny displayed on the Tree of Life webpage (address: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Oxytelinae) has been the most accepted hypothesis of relationships among genera of oxytelines (NEWTON 1995). This tree is primarily a reworking of HERMAN (1970); the data are inferred from the tree and character list published (HERMAN 1970, NEWTON 1982) but with additions and modifications plus more basal taxa. The presented phylogenetic relationships are not documented by published characters or analyses. This phylogeny is not very well supported; in fact, analysis of character sets in the literature using more modern computer programs would result in collapse of many branches. The changes implied by this tree affect the tribal classification primarily, which was already outlined in NEWTON & THAYER (1992a). Three out of the oxyteline tribes are monophyletic in this tree, but the basal lineage of Thinobiini (Manda, Eppelsheiniius, etc.) is paraphyletic - a problem left unresolved. Gildenkov 's phylogeny In the last part of his series of books, GILDENKOV (2001) presented a new hypothesis on the relationships of the genera of Oxytelinae. He used 70 characters and weighted the ones he thought most important. He did not use the word outgroup and all his taxa are in the ingroup. The characters were polarized a priori, possibly on the basis of unstated outgroups. He did not, however, explain why he polarized transformation series in one way and not the other. The species he used in his data matrix are not mentioned, nor whether he observed these characters himself or used published data. Further, he did not mention how he produced his tree, though it appears to have been produced manually without formally defining the procedure. Only one tree was presented, without explanation of why it was thought to be better than any other possible tree. Parsimony was not mentioned. Essentially, the data could not be checked; this analysis was arbitrary. He specifically said that features of the mandibles, legs and the metendosternite are adaptive