ARTICLE

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 OPEN

Evolutionary history of Coleoptera revealed by

extensive sampling of genes and species
Shao-Qian Zhang1, Li-Heng Che1, Yun Li1, Dan Liang1, Hong Pang1, Adam Ślipiński2 & Peng Zhang1

Beetles (Coleoptera) are the most diverse and species-rich group of insects, and a robust,
time-calibrated phylogeny is fundamental to understanding macroevolutionary processes that
1234567890():,;

underlie their diversity. Here we infer the phylogeny and divergence times of all major
lineages of Coleoptera by analyzing 95 protein-coding genes in 373 beetle species, including
~67% of the currently recognized families. The subordinal relationships are strongly sup-
ported as Polyphaga (Adephaga (Archostemata, Myxophaga)). The series and superfamilies
of Polyphaga are mostly monophyletic. The species-poor Nosodendridae is robustly recov-
ered in a novel position sister to Staphyliniformia, Bostrichiformia, and Cucujiformia. Our
divergence time analyses suggest that the crown group of extant beetles occurred ~297
million years ago (Mya) and that ~64% of families originated in the Cretaceous. Most of the
herbivorous families experienced a significant increase in diversification rate during the
Cretaceous, thus suggesting that the rise of angiosperms in the Cretaceous may have been
an ‘evolutionary impetus’ driving the hyperdiversity of herbivorous beetles.

1 State
Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, College of Ecology and Evolution, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510006, China.
2 AustralianNational Insect Collection, CSIRO, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. Correspondence and requests for materials should be
addressed to A.Ś. (email: Adam.Slipinski@csiro.au) or to P.Z. (email: alarzhang@gmail.com)

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1

ARTICLE
C
oleoptera, also known as beetles, are the most diverse and
species-rich insect group on Earth. With more than
380,000 described extant species1, beetles constitute ~25%
of all described animal species on this planet, and many species
remain to be described2. Beetles exhibit extraordinary morpho-
logical and ecological diversity and play important roles in nearly
all terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems3. To understand the
processes that have resulted in the extraordinary diversity of
beetles, a comprehensive time-calibrated phylogeny of extant
beetles is required. However, resolving the phylogeny of beetles
has proven to be a difficult challenge because of their exceptional
species richness, complicated morphological characteristics and
sparse molecular data. Therefore, deciphering the evolutionary
history of beetles is one of the most important and complicated
problems in insect biology.
Since the first natural classification of beetles proposed by
Crowson4, many efforts have been made to refine the framework
based on morphological characters1,5–11. In recent years, many
researchers have attempted to resolve the beetle phylogeny on the
basis of molecular data12–17. These studies have made great
progress; however, the resolution of the resulting phylogenies is
often poor, and many branches of the beetle tree-of-life remain
unresolved. For example, nine hypotheses regarding the rela-
tionships among four suborders of beetles (Fig. 1) have been
proposed in recent decades, but most of them did not receive
strong support11,16,18–23. In addition, the relationships among the
series and superfamilies of Polyphaga have lacked consistently
strong nodal support, including the phylogenetic position of the
elusive Nosodendridae. These uncertainties have prevented the
development of a comprehensive time-calibrated phylogeny of
beetles, which is necessary to understand the macroevolutionary
processes that promoted the beetle’s extraordinary diversity.
Although early beetle fossils are rare, beetles are commonly
thought to have first appeared in the Early Permian5,24. A recent
study has reported a fossil beetle from the Pennsylvanian (Car-
boniferous)25, thus suggesting an earlier origin of beetles,
although other researchers have suggested that the assessment of
this fossil should be re-evaluated26. On the other hand, molecular
studies have suggested that the age for crown Coleoptera ranged
T1 T2
Polyphaga
Myxophaga
Adephaga
Archostemata
Outgroups
T4 T5
Polyphaga
Adephaga
Myxophaga
Archostemata
Outgroups
T7 T8
Myxophaga
Adephaga
Archostemata
Polyphaga
Outgroups
Fig. 1 Nine proposed topologies among four suborders of Coleoptera. Topologies are derived from: T1, refs.
21; T6, ref. 22; T7, ref. 18; T8, refs. 17,23; T9 refs. 16,32
2 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
from ~253 to 333 Mya (million years ago) and that the diver-
gences of most modern lineages occurred during the Late Triassic
to Cretaceous; however, the confidence intervals of these age
estimates are large12,13,16,27.
It is well known that both taxon sampling and gene sampling
can affect the accuracy of phylogenetic reconstruction. In pre-
vious beetle phylogenetic studies, when the amount of sequence
was large (e.g., using ribosomal protein genes extracted from EST
data28, whole-mitochondrial genomes15,17, or transcriptome
data23,29), the taxon sampling was small, or when the taxon
sampling was large, the amount of sequence was small (e.g., three
genes: ~3000 nt12, four genes: 6600 nt14, and eight genes: 8377
nt16). Until recently, beetle molecular phylogenetics has mainly
relied on nuclear ribosomal DNA and mitochondrial gene
sequences. These data are either too conservative (lacking infor-
mation) or too heterogeneous in composition and evolutionary
rate (prone to systematic bias), and hence are insufficient for
resolving the higher level phylogeny of beetles. Compared with
nuclear ribosomal DNA and mitochondrial genes, nuclear
protein-coding (NPC) genes are more informative and less biased
in base composition, and they have been used to resolve many
problematic relationships in beetles16,30. However, because of the
deep evolutionary divergences in beetles and widely varying
evolutionary rates among taxa, NPC genes that can be amplified
across all beetles are still scarce (fewer than 10), thus resulting in
their relatively infrequent use in higher level beetle
phylogenetics16.
In this study, we dramatically increase the gene sampling by
including 95 recently developed31 nuclear protein-coding genes,
representing the largest source of data for beetle phylogenetics to
date. In addition, our broad taxon sampling includes 373 beetles
representing all recognized suborders, series, superfamilies and
124 of 186 families. Our results establish the phylogenetic rela-
tionships among major lineages and greatly improve robustness
throughout the entire phylogeny, especially in deep nodes. This
study provides a basis for a more accurate natural classification of
Coleoptera. Furthermore, we also estimate the divergence times
for the entire beetle phylogeny and study the tempo and pattern
of diversification of beetles. We find that Coleoptera originated in
T3
Polyphaga Polyphaga
Myxophaga Adephaga
Adephaga Myxophaga
Archostemata Archostemata
Outgroups Outgroups
T6
Myxophaga Myxophaga
Adephaga Adephaga
Polyphaga Polyphaga
Archostemata Archostemata
Outgroups Outgroups
T9
Archostemata Myxophaga
Adephaga Archostemata
Myxophaga Adephaga
Polyphaga Polyphaga
Outgroups Outgroups
5,19; T2, ref. 11; T3, refs. 14,20; T4, ref. 12; T5, ref.
| DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
Formicidae Atta
Apidae Apis
Drosophilidae Drosophila
Culicidae Anopheles
Bombycidae Bombyx
Nymphalidae Danaus
Corydalidae Neochauliodes IN61
Chrysopidae Dichochrysa IN54
Ascalaphidae Ascalohybris IN56
Myrmeleontidae Myrmeleon IN53
Cupedidae Tenomerga INB118
Torridincolidae Satonius INB116
Haliplidae Peltodytes INB121
Gyrinidae Orectochilus INB037
Noteridae Canthydrus INB115
Noteridae sp. CSR039
Dytiscidae Laccophilus INB111
Adephaga Dytiscidae Hyphydrus INB114
Dytiscidae Eretes INB112
Dytiscidae Agabus INB109
Dytiscidae Rhantus INB113
Carabidae Cicindela INB101
Carabidae Paussinae sp. TH2
Carabidae Omoglymmius INB120
Carabidae Elaphrus INB212
Carabidae Carabus INB100
Carabidae Clivina INB167
Carabidae Pheropsophus INB168
Carabidae Dischissus INB013
Carabidae Lebia INB170
Carabidae Pentagonica INB171
Scirtidae Pseudomicrocara CSR143
Coleoptera Scirtidae Elodes INB133
Scirtidae Scirtinae sp. INB041
Derodontidae Derodontus CSR091
Clambidae Clambus CSR082
Eucinetidae Noteucinetus CSR021
Eucinetidae Noteucinetus CSR103
Rhipiceridae Oligorhipis CSR049
Dascillidae Dascillus INB028
Dascillidae Metallidascillus INB200
Buprestidae Dicerca INB083
Buprestidae Coroebus INB018
Buprestidae Trachys INB084
Byrrhidae Microchaetes CSR076
Byrrhidae Cytilus INB053
Byrrhidae Notolioon CSR008
Dryopidae Pachyparnus INB166
Dryopidae Helichus CSR019
Dryopidae Helichus INB194
Polyphaga Eulichadidae Eulichas INB025
Ptilodactylidae Ptilodactyla INB015
Ptilodactylidae Epilichas INB079
Callirhipidae Ennometes CSR009
Callirhipidae Simianus INB119
Chelonariidae Chelonarium CSR012
Psephenidae Sclerocyphon CSR043
Psephenidae Mataeopsephus INB081
Psephenidae Schinostethus INB080
Psephenidae Schinostethus INB052
Elmidae Stetholus CSR094
Elmidae Graphelmis CSR093
Elmidae Stenelmis INB038
Limnichidae Cephalobyrrhus INB082
Heteroceridae Heterocerus INB092
Limnichidae Limnichus TH1
Limnichidae Byrrhinus CSR112
Limnichidae Pelochares INB042
Artematopodidae Eurypogon INB202
Artematopodidae Artematopus CSR004
Omethidae Drilonius INB129
Omethidae Drilonius INB127
Throscidae Trixagus CSR056
Throscidae Trixagus INB125
Eucnemidae Anischia CSR022
Eucnemidae Hemiopsida CSR104
Eucnemidae Otho INB035
Cantharidae Malthinus INB154
Cantharidae Heteromastix CSR077
Cantharidae Ichthyurus INB065
Cantharidae Laemoglyptus INB153
Cantharidae Lycocerus INB155
Cantharidae Prothemus INB064
Cantharidae Fissocantharis INB156
Cantharidae Themus INB001
Cantharidae Themus INB063
Elateridae Osslimus CSR092
Lycidae Benibotarus YL0447
Lycidae Platerodrilus YL0458
Lycidae Lycostomus YL0616
Lycidae Macrolycus YL0509
Lycidae Dilophotes YL0454
Lycidae Libnetis YL0478
Lycidae Porrostoma CSR113
Elateridae Agrypnus INB160
Elateridae Cardiotarsus INB210
Elateridae Denticollis INB165
Elateridae Denticollis INB162
Elateridae Pectocera INB159
Elateridae sp. INB164
Elateridae Penia INB163
Elateridae Cebrio TH4
Elateridae Ampedus INB161
Elateridae Melanotus INB211
Elateridae Hemicrepidius INB016
Phengodidae Stenophrixothrix CSR041
Rhagophthalmidae sp. INB128
Rhagophthalmidae Rhagophthalmus CSR048
Rhagophthalmidae Rhagophthalmus CSR132
Lampyridae Gorhamia TH3
Lampyridae Drilaster INB157
Lampyridae Luciola INB061
Lampyridae Pristolycus INB060
Lampyridae Cyphonocerus INB062
Lampyridae Vesta INB059
Lampyridae Pyrocoelia INB017
Lampyridae Diaphanes INB158
Nosodendridae Nosodendron CSR038
Histeridae Platysoma CSR023
Histeridae Saprinus CSR024
Hydrophilidae Georissus INB106
Hydrophilidae Anacaena INB105
Hydrophilidae Sphaeridium INB107
Hydrophilidae Helochares CSR108
Hydrophilidae Berosus INB152
Hydrophilidae Oocyclus INB014
Hydrophilidae Sternolophus CSR107
Hydrophilidae Hydrophilus INB103
Ptiliidae sp. CSR044
Hydraenidae Hydraena INB108
Jacobsoniidae Derolathrus CSR026
Jacobsoniidae Derolathrus CSR109
Agyrtidae Pteroloma INB201
Leiodidae Agathidium CSR032
Leiodidae Agyrtodes CSR030
Leiodidae Cholevinae sp. CSR031
Staphylinidae Centrophthalmus INB091
Staphylinidae Omaliinae sp. INB176
Staphylinidae Scydmaeninae sp. CSR146
Staphylinidae Dianous INB175
Staphylinidae Megalopaederus INB030
Staphylinidae Staphylinus INB008
Staphylinidae Staphylininae sp. INB174
Staphylinidae Tachinus INB088
Staphylinidae Tachinus INB090
Silphidae Nicrophorus INB022
Silphidae Necrodes INB078
Staphylinidae Apatetica INB085
Staphylinidae Scaphidium INB089
Staphylinidae Scaphidium CSR054
Staphylinidae Priochirus INB086
Staphylinidae Osorius INB087
Trogidae Omorgus CSR057
Trogidae Trox INB036
Lucanidae Phalacrognathus INB098
Lucanidae Cyclommatus INB099
Lucanidae Aegus INB148
Passalidae Ceracupes INB057
Passalidae Aceraius INB096
Geotrupidae Australobolbus CSR137
Geotrupidae Geotrupes INB097
Glaphyridae Amphicoma INB011
Hybosoridae Liparochrus CSR025
Hybosoridae Cyphopisthes CSR138
Scarabaeidae Rhyparus INB002
Scarabaeidae Onthophagus CSR142
Scarabaeidae Copris INB146
Scarabaeidae Cheirotonus INB151
Scarabaeidae Heteronyx CSR140
Scarabaeidae Ectinohoplia INB147
Scarabaeidae Dasyvalgus INB149
Scarabaeidae Protaetia INB104
Scarabaeidae Allomyrina INB169
Scarabaeidae Carneodon CSR139
Scarabaeidae Mimela INB145
Scarabaeidae Anomala CSR141
Dermestidae Evorinea CSR090
Dermestidae Orphinus INB130
Dermestidae Dermestes CSR089
Bostrichidae Lyctus CSR070
Bostrichidae Polycaon INB032
Ptinidae Hedobia INB204
Ptinidae Dorcatoma CSR046
Ptinidae Ptinus CSR045
Ptinidae Ptinus INB132
Cucujiformia
Fig. 2 Cladogram of Coleoptera. The topology was inferred from the concatenated amino acid data set by ML (RAxML) and Bayesian inference (Exabayes).
Nodes with bootstrap values (BS) <70 and posterior probabilities (PP) <0.95 are not indicated by colored circles. Traditional taxonomic units that are not
monophyletic are indicated with quotation marks
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
ARTICLE
Bothrideridae Deretaphrus CSR072
Bothrideridae Ascetoderes CSR074
Cerylonidae Philothermus CSR011
Murmidiidae Murmidius CSR078
Discolomatidae Aphanocephalus CSR018
Hymenoptera Cerylonidae Ostomopsis CSR079
Euxestidae Hypodacnella CSR010
Diptera Teredidae Teredolaemus CSR073
Teredidae Xylariophilus CSR071
Lepidoptera Outgroups Teredidae Xylariophilus CSR007
Megaloptera Alexiidae Sphaerosoma CSR002
Latridiidae Enicmus CSR028
Neuroptera Latridiidae Corticaria CSR029
Latridiidae Melanophthalma CSR111
Archostemata Anamorphidae Papuella CSR095
Corylophidae Periptyctus CSR086
Myxophaga Corylophidae Priamima CSR085 Coccinelloidea
Corylophidae Sericoderus CSR014
Corylophidae Orthoperus INB209
Endomychidae Holoparamecus CSR096
‘Hydradephaga’ Endomychidae Stenotarsus CSR098
Endomychidae Cyclotoma CSR020
Endomychidae Encymon CSR097
Endomychidae Sinocymbachus INB005
Coccinellidae Microfreudea C33
Coccinellidae Stethorus C54
Coccinellidae Exochomus C25
Coccinellidae Harmonia C10
Coccinellidae Rhizobius C28
Coccinellidae Ortalia C31
Geadephaga Coccinellidae Sasajiscymnus C44
Coccinellidae Chnootriba C04
Nemonychidae Aragomacer CSR120
Anthribidae Acorynus INB007
Anthribidae Ozotomerus INB043
Anthribidae Peribathys INB102
‘Scirtoidea’ Anthribidae Xylinada INB054
Belidae Rhinotia CSR067
‘Derodontoidea’ Attelabidae Involvulus INB074
Attelabidae Byctiscus INB076
Attelabidae Phymatapoderus INB051
‘Scirtoidea’ Attelabidae Paratrachelophorus INB188 Curculionoidea
Brentidae Baryrhynchus INB044
Dascilloidea Brentidae Cylas INB199
Brentidae Apion CSR075
Brentidae Apion INB075
Buprestoidea Curculionidae Platypodinae sp. INB045
Curculionidae Episomus INB010
Curculionidae Peribleptus INB185
Curculionidae Curculio INB184
Curculionidae Xylosandrus INB048
Curculionidae Dendroctonus
Megalopodidae Temnaspis INB031
Cucujiformia Cerambycidae Oberea INB067
Cerambycidae Dorysthenes INB150
Cerambycidae Xylotrechus INB069
Cerambycidae Spondylis INB068
Cerambycidae Strangalia INB066
Chrysomelidae Bruchidius INB144
Chrysomelidae Sagra INB134
Chrysomelidae Sominella INB138
Byrrhoidea Chrysomelidae Lilioceris INB135 Chrysomeloidea
Chrysomelidae Chrysomela INB019
Chrysomelidae Galerucinae sp. INB140
Chrysomelidae Altica INB141
Chrysomelidae Dactylispa INB136
Chrysomelidae Anisodera INB137
Chrysomelidae Cassida INB006
Chrysomelidae Trichochrysea INB139
Chrysomelidae Oomorphoides INB142
Chrysomelidae Cryptocephalus INB143
Chrysomelidae Chlamisus INB077
Boganiidae Paracucujus CSR006
Erotylidae Anadastus CSR100
Erotylidae Tetraphala INB029
Erotylidae Cryptophilus CSR102
Erotylidae Thallis CSR099
Erotylidae Episcaphula CSR101
Erotylidae Episcapha INB023
Helotidae Neohelota INB004
Protocucujidae Ericmodes CSR129
Sphindidae Aspidiphorus CSR053
Monotomidae Rhizophagus CSR119
Monotomidae Thione INB207
Monotomidae Mimemodes CSR034
Monotomidae Monotomopsis CSR118
Kateretidae Notobrachypterus CSR027
Cybocephalidae Cybocephalus CSR088
Nitidulidae Glischrochilus INB197
Nitidulidae Brachypeplus CSR121
Nitidulidae Pallodes CSR122
Nitidulidae Urophorus INB056 Cucujoidea
Nitidulidae Carpophilus INB196
Hobartiidae Hydnobioides CSR106
Cryptophagidae Micrambina CSR015
Cryptophagidae Curelius INB192
Silvanidae Psammoecus INB095
Elateroidea Silvanidae Silvanoprus CSR145
Silvanidae Uleiota CSR052
Silvanidae Psammoecus INB124
Silvanidae Cryptamorpha CSR144
Cucujidae Pediacus CSR087
Cucujidae Platisus CSR016
Phloeostichidae Hymaea CSR127
Phloeostichidae Ropalobrachium CSR128
Myraboliidae Myrabolia CSR037
Passandridae Passandra CSR125
Propalticidae Propalticus CSR042
Laemophloeidae Laemophloeus CSR110
Laemophloeidae Cryptolestes INB193
Phalacridae Phalacrinus CSR126
Phalacridae sp. CSR040
Phalacridae Olibrus INB122
Trogossitidae Rentonellum CSR059
Byturidae Haematoides INB039
Biphyllidae Biphyllus CSR068
Biphyllidae Althaesia CSR005
Trogossitidae Leperina CSR160
Acanthocnemidae Acanthocnemus CSR062
Trogossitidae Larinotus CSR058
Trogossitidae Thymalus INB024
Thanerocleridae Isoclerus CSR055
‘Derodontoidea’ Cleridae Tenerus CSR083
Cleridae Necrobia CSR084
Cleridae Allochotes INB191
Cleridae Cladiscus INB189 Cleroidea
Cleridae Xenorthrius INB012
Hydrophiloidea Cleridae Stenocallimerus INB190
Trogossitidae Parapeltis CSR159
Trogossitidae Ancyrona CSR158
Prionoceridae Idgia INB040
Melyridae Dasytes CSR115
Melyridae Carphurus CSR117
‘Staphylinoidea’ Melyridae Carphurus INB131
Melyridae Dicranolaius CSR116
‘Derodontoidea’ Melyridae Malachiinae sp. INB003
Lymexylidae Atractocerus INB094
Lymexylidae Melittomma CSR033 Lymexyloidea
Rhipiphoridae Trigonodera CSR050
Rhipiphoridae Rhipidioides CSR133
Mordellidae Hoshihananomia INB034
Mycteridae Trichosalpingus CSR036
Oedemeridae Ditylus INB033
Oedemeridae Pseudolycus CSR124
Oedemeridae Thelyphassa CSR123
Ischaliidae Ischalia INB049
‘Staphylinoidea’ Aderidae sp. INB206
Aderidae sp. CSR001
Boridae Synercticus CSR069
Trictenotomidae Trictenotoma INB208
Scraptiidae Scraptia INB205
Pythidae Anaplopus CSR131
Salpingidae Ocholissa CSR136
Salpingidae Euryplatus CSR134
Salpingidae Orphanotrophium CSR051
Salpingidae Orphanotrophium CSR135
Pyrochroidae Morpholycus CSR047
Pyrochroidae Morpholycus CSR130
Pyrochroidae Eupyrochroa INB027
Pyrochroidae Pseudopyrochroa INB020
Anthicidae Macratria CSR065
Anthicidae Macratria INB050
Anthicidae Trichananca CSR064
Anthicidae Lemodes CSR003
Anthicidae Anthicus CSR063
Meloidae Zonitis CSR114
Meloidae Epicauta INB093 Tenebrinoidea
Incertae sedis Rhizonium CSR105
Scarabaeoidea Melandryidae Dircaeomorpha INB055
Zopheridae Monomma CSR060
Zopheridae Bitoma CSR061
Mycetophagidae Nototriphyllus CSR035
Mycetophagidae Mycetophagus INB047
Archeocrypticidae Wattianus CSR066
Ulodidae Ulodes CSR161
Ulodidae Meryx CSR162
Melandryidae Melandryinae sp. INB203
Zopheridae Zopherosis CSR163
Ciidae Cis CSR013
Ciidae Cis CSR080
Ciidae Australocis CSR081
Tenebrionidae Adelium CSR149
Tenebrionidae Ecnolagria CSR157
Tenebrionidae Chlorophila INB046
Bostrichoidea Tenebrionidae Cryphaeus INB181
Tenebrionidae Tribolium
Tenebrionidae Cyphaleus CSR148
Tenebrionidae Cillibus CSR150
Tenebrionidae Cossyphus CSR153
Tenebrionidae Platydema CSR155
Tenebrionidae Amarygmus CSR147
PP = 1.0 and BS ≥ 90 Tenebrionidae Tanychilus CSR154
PP = 1.0 and 90 > BS ≥ 70 Tenebrionidae Cteniopinus INB073
Tenebrionidae Palorus CSR151
PP = 1.0 and BS < 70 Tenebrionidae Strongylium INB180
1.0 > PP ≥ .095 and BS < 70 Tenebrionidae Tyrtaeus CSR156
Tenebrionidae Derispia CSR152
Tenebrionidae Derispia INB072
3
ARTICLE
Table 1 Topology test for the nine proposed hypotheses among the four suborders of beetles
No. Topology
T9 (Polyphaga, (Adephaga, (Archostemata, Myxophaga)))
T8 (Polyphaga, (Myxophaga, (Adephaga, Archostemata)))
T7 (Polyphaga, (Archostemata, (Adephaga, Myxophaga)))
T1 (Archostemata, (Adephaga, (Myxophaga, Polyphaga)))
T3 (Archostemata, (Myxophaga, (Adephaga, Polyphaga)))
T6 (Archostemata, (Polyphaga, (Myxophaga, Adephaga)))
T2 ((Archostemata, Adephaga), (Polyphaga, Myxophaga))
T4 ((Archostemata, Myxophaga), (Adephaga, Polyphaga))
T5 ((Archostemata, Polyphaga), (Adephaga, Myxophaga))
* p-value <0.05 indicates statistical rejection
the earliest Permian and that most extant lineages, especially
phytophagous beetles, diverged during the Cretaceous, thus
suggesting that the rise of angiosperms in the Cretaceous may
have played an important role in the hyperdiversification of
beetles. Our study provides a temporal perspective for under-
standing the evolutionary history of the Coleoptera and should
provide a cornerstone for the further study of systematics of this
extraordinarily diverse order.
Results
Higher level phylogenetic relationships of beetles. Our mole-
cular data included 95 nuclear protein-coding genes from 373
beetle species and 10 holometabolan outgroups (Supplementary
Data 1). The gene coverage for species ranged from 49.1 to 96.3%,
with an average of 78.6% (Supplementary Data 2). The con-
catenated supermatrix consisted of 23,802 amino acids (or 71,406
nucleotides). We estimated concatenated trees with both
nucleotide and deduced protein sequences by using two max-
imum likelihood (ML) methods (RAxML and IQ-TREE) and a
Bayesian approach (ExaBayes). The protein RAxML analysis
produced a well-resolved phylogeny (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Other ML and Bayesian analyses based on nucleotide or protein
sequences resulted in nearly identical phylogenies and similar
branch support, as shown in Fig. 2 (Supplementary Figs. 2–6).
Gene tree-based coalescent analysis (ASTRAL) of our data
recovered a tree with lower nodal support that was also congruent
with the ML tree after collapsing of clades with <50% bootstrap
support (Supplementary Fig. 7). These congruent results indi-
cated that the resulting phylogeny was highly robust regardless of
the data set and tree-building method.
Our phylogenetic analyses achieved well-supported resolution
of relationships among all major lineages of beetles. In the ML
analyses, >85% of nodes were supported with standard bootstrap
values (RAxML) ≥70% or ultrafast bootstrap values (IQ-TREE)
≥95% (Supplementary Figs. 1–4). More than 95% of nodes have
posterior probabilities between 0.95 and 1 in the Bayesian
analyses (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6). For this discussion, we
use the protein RAxML tree as our preferred result (Fig. 2).
At the base of the Coleoptera tree, our phylogeny strongly
supported the relationships among suborders as Polyphaga
(Adephaga (Myxophaga, Archostemata)), a hypothesis recently
reported by McKenna et al.16 and Sharkey et al.32, albeit with
negligible to moderate support. The topology recovered in this
study with high support provided an opportunity to assess
relationships between suborders, which have been disputed for
decades. The approximately unbiased (AU) test analysis showed
that the three hypotheses with Polyphaga sister to the other three
suborders were significantly better than the other hypotheses,
although these three hypotheses were not significantly different
4 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
Amino acid data Nucleotide data
Δln L AU test p-values Δln L AU test p-values
0 0.920 0 0.946
23.65 0.123 16.64 0.151
19.95 0.227 21.04 0.088
117.83 2e − 05* 90.38 0.002*
109.62 0.001* 70.81 0.018*
59.96 0.036* 54.42 0.030*
118.50 4e − 05* 93.51 1e − 22*
92.38 5e − 04* 64.45 0.007*
92.30 2e − 05* 80.11 0.003*
from one another (Table 1). It should be noted that our study
included only a single species of Archostemata and only one of
Myxophaga, which makes these taxa prone to long-branch
attraction (LBA). Therefore, the relationships among Adephaga,
Myxophaga, and Archostemata reported here should still be
considered as tentative and needed validation by future studies.
The Adephaga has been divided into two monophyletic groups
(the terrestrial Geadephaga and aquatic Hydradephaga) by many
molecular studies12,16,33; however, Hydradephaga is sometimes
recovered as paraphyletic14,17,34. In agreement with the latter, our
analyses recovered Hydradephaga as paraphyletic with the
aquatic Haliplidae and Gyrinidae forming a clade sister to all
other aquatic and terrestrial adephagans (Fig. 2). However, this
result had strong support only in the Bayesian analyses (BPP =
0.96; Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6) and received negligible
support in the ML analyses (BS <50%; Supplementary Figs. 1 and
2). Therefore, the phylogeny of Adephaga still remained
ambiguous. Given that our sampling of Hydradephaga was
insufficient, recovering internal relationships of Adephaga may
require sampling more aquatic adephagan families Amphizoidae,
Aspidytidae, Hygrobiidae, and Meruidae.
At the base of the strongly supported suborder Polyphaga, four
families occupied the basal nodes, forming two successive
branching clades sister to the remaining polyphagans (Fig. 2),
which is congruent with all recent studies12,14,16,28. In addition,
we corroborated the placement of Derodontidae as the sister
taxon to Clambidae + Eucinetidae with strong support (BS = 98%,
BPP = 1.0; Fig. 2), which had been only weakly supported
before16.
Series Elateriformia, which consists of the monophyletic
superfamilies Dascilloidea, Buprestoidea, Elateroidea, and
Byrrhoidea, was strongly recovered as the third branching lineage
of Polyphaga, and a similar result has only recently been
proposed from an analysis of beetle mitogenomes17.
Dascilloidea was strongly corroborated as the sister taxon to
the other superfamilies of Elateriformia (BS = 100%; Fig. 2), in
agreement with recent studies14,16,35 but not with others12,17.
Buprestoidea was recovered as a sister to a clade of Byrrhoidea
and Elateroidea. However, the sisterhood between Byrrhoidea and
Elateroidea was only strongly supported in Bayesian analyses
(Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4), similarly to the monophyly of
Byrrhoidea, in which moss-feeding Byrrhidae was only weakly
related to other byrrhoids (BS = 40%; Supplementary Fig. 1).
Nosodendridae has previously been placed in various positions:
within Bostrichoidea7, within Derodontoidea11, associated with
Scirtoidea11,36, sister to Scarabaeiformia14, or grouped with
Elateriformia12,16. This family was robustly recovered in a novel
position in this study: as a sister clade to Staphyliniformia,
Bostrichiformia, and Cucujiformia (BS = 100%; BPP = 1.0; Fig. 2).
| DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 ARTICLE

a
350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 (Mya)
Carboniferous Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic
Cupedidae Archostemata
Torridincolidae
Gyrinidae
Myxophaga
Haliplidae
Noteridae Adephaga
Dytiscidae
Carabidae
Scirtidae
Derodontidae Scirtoidea
Clambidae
Eucinetidae
+Derodontidae
Rhipiceridae
Dascillidae Dascilloidea
Elateriformia Buprestidae Buprestoidea
Polyphaga Byrrhidae
Dryopidae
Eulichadidae
Ptilodactylidae
Callirhipidae
Chelonariidae Byrroidea
Psephenidae
Elmidae
Limnichidae Cephalobyrrhus
Limnichidae clade1
Heteroceridae
Omethidae
Artematopodidae
Throscidae
Eucnemidae
Cantharidae
Elateridae Osslimus
Lycidae Elateroidea
“Core Polyphaga” Elateridae clade1
Elateridae clade2
Phengodidae
Rhagophthalmidae
Lampyridae
Nosodendridae Nosodendridae
Histeridae
Hydrophilidae Hydrophiloidea
Jacobsoniidae Jacobsoniidae
Ptiliidae
Hydraenidae
Agyrtidae
Leiodidae
Staphylinidae Centrophthalmus
Staphylinidae Omaliinae
Staphylinoidea
Staphylinidae clade1
Staphylinidae clade2
Staphylinidae clade3
Silphidae
Trogidae
Lucanidae
Geotrupidae
Passalidae Scarabaeoidea
Glaphyridae
Hybosoridae
Scarabaeidae
Dermestidae
Bostrichidae Bostrichoidea
Ptinidae
Bothrideridae
Cerylonidae Philothermus
Discolomatidae
Murmidiidae
Euxestidae
Cerylonidae Ostomopsis
Teredidae Coccinelloidea
Alexiidae
Latridiidae
Anamorphidae
Corylophidae
Endomychidae
Coccinellidae
Phytophaga Megalopodidae
Cerambycidae Chrysomeloidea
Chrysomelidae
Nemonychidae
Anthribidae
Belidae
Attelabidae
Curculionoidea
Brentidae
Cucujiformia Curculionidae
Boganiidae
Erotylidae
Helotidae
Sphindidae
Protocucujidae
b This study
Monotomidae
Cybocephalidae
Kateretidae
360 Coleoptera Toussaint et al.27 Nitidulidae
Cucujoidea
Mean divergence time and 95% CI (Mya)

McKenna et al.16 Hobartiidae

340 Polyphaga Hunt et al.12 Cryptophagidae
Silvanidae
320 Cucujidae
Phloeostichidae
300 Cucujiformia Myraboliidae
Bostrichiformia Passandridae
Elateriformia Phalacridae
280 Adephaga Propalticidae
Laemophloeidae
260 Trogossitidae Rentonellum
Byturidae
240 Biphyllidae
Trogossitidae Leperina
Trogossitidae clade1
220 Acanthocnemidae
Thanerocleridae
Cleroidea
200 Cleridae
Trogossitidae clade2
180 Prionoceridae
Melyridae
160 Lymexylidae
Ripiphoridae Trigonodera
Lymexyloidea
Coccinelloidea Cleroidea Ripiphoridae Rhipidioides
270 Elateroidea Mordellidae
Mean divergence time and 95% CI (Mya)

Ischaliidae
Scarabaeoidea Curculionoidea Aderidae
240 Mycteridae
Oedemeridae
Dascilloidea Trictenotomidae
210 Boridae
Scraptiidae
Pythidae
Salpingidae
180 Pyrochroidae
Anthicidae Macratria Tenebrionoidea
Anthicidae clade1
150 Anthicidae Anthicus
Meloidae
Melandryidae Dircaeomorpha
120 Incertae sedis Rhizonium
Zopheridae clade1
Mycetophagidae
90 Archeocrypticidae
Ulodidae
Zopheridae Zopherosis
Melandryidae Melandryinae
60 Ciidae
Tenebrionidae

350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 (Mya)

Fig. 3 New timescale for beetle evolution and comparison of divergence times. a Time-calibrated tree of beetles. The time tree was collapsed to family level
with outgroups removed (for detailed results, see Supplementary Fig. 8). Divergence times were estimated with MCMCTREE with 20 calibration points, on
the basis of the amino acid data set. Fossil constraints within Coleoptera are shown with black triangles. Horizontal bars represent 95% credibility intervals.
b Comparison of divergence time estimates for twelve major nodes sharing across four beetle time trees. The circle represents the mean age, and the
whiskers mark the 95% credibility internals (Photo credits: Hong Pang, Yun Li, and Zhenhua Liu)

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 5

ARTICLE
In agreement with many previous studies16–18,37,38, Hydro-
philoidea, Staphylinoidea (including Jacobsoniidae), and Scara-
baeoidea formed a well-supported clade (BS = 94%; Fig. 2), thus
supporting a traditional monophyletic Haplogastra. Within this
clade, Staphylinoidea (including Jacobsoniidae) was closer to
Scarabaeoidea than to Hydrophiloidea with moderate support (BS
= 78% and BPP = 1.0; Supplementary Figs. 1 and 5), inconsistent
with previous findings that Staphyliniformia (Staphylinoidea +
Hydrophiloidea) was monophyletic or Hydrophiloidea was the
sister group of Scarabaeoidea8,16,37,39. Derolathrus (Jacobsoniidae),
which has previously been assigned to the superfamily Derodon-
toidea, was strongly recovered as sister to Hydraenidae + Ptiliidae
within Staphylinoidea (BS >90%; Fig. 2). The same or similar
placements were recovered on the basis of both morphological and
molecular data11,16, thus strongly suggesting that Derolathrus
(Jacobsoniidae) should be transferred to Staphylinoidea.
Bostrichiformia was strongly supported as the sister group of
the hyperdiverse series Cucujiformia in all of our analyses (BS =
100%; Fig. 2). Among the seven recognized superfamilies within
Cucujiformia, Coccinelloidea was sister to the remaining super-
families with moderate nodal support (BS = 69%; Fig. 2). The
superfamily Cucujoidea (excluding Biphyllidae and Byturidae)
was a strongly supported clade (BS = 93%; Fig. 2) and a sister
taxon to Phytophaga, which consists of the two highly supported
superfamilies Curculionoidea and Chrysomeloidea (Fig. 2). The
close relationships among Cucujoidea, Curculionoidea, and
Chrysomeloidea had maximal support in all analyses (BS =
100%; BPP = 1.0; Fig. 2). Cleroidea was strongly recovered as
monophyletic (BS = 100%; Fig. 2), when including Biphyllidae
and Byturidae, which were formerly placed in Cucujoidea but
recently transferred to Cleroidea12,40. The monophyly of
Lymexyloidea was moderately supported (BS = 64%; Fig. 2), and
it was closely related to Tenebrionoidea with maximal support.
These two superfamilies jointly are sister to Cleroidea, with
moderate support (BS = 72%; Fig. 2).
In summary, our beetle phylogeny corroborates many of the
deeper coleopteran nodes inferred by other studies but with
greater support. Relationships among the deepest branches in the
Polyphaga, for which previous studies have reported conflicting
results, are now strongly supported. Our novel findings include
the isolated position of Nosodendridae and a close relationship
between Scarabaeoidea and Staphylinoidea.
New timescale for beetle evolution. Before this study, only three
comprehensive family-level studies have been performed to esti-
mate divergence times for Coleoptera with newly generated
molecular data12,13,16. These three studies have suggested that the
last common ancestor of Coleoptera first occurred in the Permian
period (253–285 Mya). However, certain time estimates have
been criticized by Toussaint et al.27 because they conflict with
current knowledge of the beetle fossil record. Using the data of
McKenna et al.16 but a different set of fossil calibration points,
Toussaint et al.27 have proposed a much older timescale for
Coleoptera for both deeper and shallower nodes. Their results
have indicated that the crown age of Coleoptera was ~333 Mya,
which is in the mid Carboniferous.
The extensive sampling of nuclear genes in our study provides
substantial new molecular data to estimate the divergence times
for extant beetles. Our divergence time analyses used a Bayesian
relaxed clock method (MCMCTREE) and 20 fossil calibration
points carefully selected from currently known Coleoptera fossils
(Supplementary Table 1). It should be pointed out that we used
some fossils to calibrate the crown groups of the superfamilies in
which they belong, even when the cited reference clearly places
the fossil in extant families. We have several considerations for
6 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
doing so: (1) poor fossil preservation of beetles often prevents
observation of the relevant characters, so it is possible to
erroneously place fossil taxa in extant families based on
incomplete morphological characters; (2) our taxon sampling
does not cover all beetle families and some families are
represented by only one species, the monophyly of some families
is not certain yet; (3) the monophyly of most superfamilies are
robust but the family-level relationships within each superfamily
is not robust. Therefore, it is more proper to use these fossils at
superfamily level but not family-level under the current situation
of both taxon sampling and phylogenetic robustness. We also ran
a time analysis using those fossils at family level to calibrate the
stem ages of relevant families. The resulting times were on
average 12% older than the times estimated by imposing fossils at
superfamily level. This result indicated that the divergence times
of beetle evolution are sensitive to the fossil calibration points, as
recently suggested by Toussaint et al.27. Because the use of fossils
in beetle divergence time analyses is still under debate16,27, we
tentatively used the divergence times estimated by imposing
fossils at superfamily level as our preferred time results. The full-
time tree for the 383 taxa sampled in this study is given in
Supplementary Fig. 8, and the family level time tree is
summarized in Fig. 3a. The 383-taxa time tree using fossils at
family level can be found in Supplementary Fig. 9.
Overall, our divergence times were notably more precise (i.e.,
smaller confidence intervals) than those in the three previous
studies. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the 12 selected
nodes in the beetle tree (Fig. 3b) were ~50% narrower than
previous estimates. For example, the crown nodes of Coleoptera,
Adephaga, and Polyphaga in our study had 95% CIs ranging from
5.9 to 14.0 Mya, whereas McKenna et al.16 has reported CIs
ranging from 28.9 to 43.1 Mya (Supplementary Table 2). We
redid the time analyses using our 95 genes but the exact same age
constraints as used by McKenna et al.16 or Toussaint et al.27 and
still observed the increased precision of the dating results
(Supplementary Fig. 10). This result indicated that the greater
precision should be mainly attributed to the size of our data set
(71 kb), which exceeds those of previous studies (~8.4 kb at most)
by at least eightfold. A similar increase in precision of divergence
time estimations was also found for plethodontid salamanders by
using 95 nuclear genes41.
We estimated that the last common ancestor of extant beetles
occurred during the earliest Permian at 297 Mya (95% CI
291–304), which is earlier than the Early Late Permian origin
(253–285 Mya) estimated by Hunt et al.12 and McKenna et al.16
but later than that of Toussaint et al.27 (~333 Mya) (Fig. 3b). The
initial diversification of Polyphaga occurred at 280 (273–287)
Mya, in the Early Permian, but the ‘core Polyphaga’ (excluding
basal Scirtoidea and Derodontidae) occurred at 246 (240–253)
Mya, which was shortly after the Permian-Triassic (PT) boundary
(Fig. 3a). Notably, the basal Polyphaga lineages are species-poor
(only ~1055 species), whereas the ‘core Polyphaga’ includes ~88%
of the described extant species of beetles (~340,000 species), and
the branch leading to ‘core Polyphaga’ was long (24 million years
in duration) and spanned the PT boundary (Fig. 3a). These
results indicated that Polyphaga originated in the Permian and
survived through the End-Permian mass extinction.
In shallower nodes, such as the origin of many beetle
superfamilies, our time estimates are considerably younger than
those of Toussaint et al.27 and more consistent with the results of
the two earlier studies12,16 (Fig. 3b) and the results of other
researches focused on individual clades of beetles42,43. For
example, the crown age of Curculionoidea (weevils) estimated
in this study is 157 (156–161) Mya, which is in the late Jurassic
period, in agreement with the Jurassic origin proposed by
Hunt et al.12 and McKenna et al.16,42. Toussaint et al.27 estimated
| DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 ARTICLE

300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 (mya)
Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic
15 Cupedidae(31)
Torridincolidae(60)
Gyrinidae(882)
Haliplidae(218)
Noteridae(250)
Dytiscidae(4015)
Carabidae(40350)
12 Scirtidae(800)
Derodontidae(30)
13 Clambidae(170)
Eucinetidae(53)
Rhipiceridae(70)
Dascillidae(80)
Buprestidae(14700)
Byrrhidae(430)
Dryopidae(300)
Eulichadidae(30)
Ptilodactylidae(500)
Callirhipidae(150)
Chelonariidae(250)
Psephenidae(290)
10 Elmidae(1500)
LimnichidaeHeteroceridae(690)
Omethidae(33)
Artematopodidae(45)
Throscidae(150)
Eucnemidae(1500)
Cantharidae(5100)
5 Lissominae(150)
Lycidae(4600)
Elateridae1(4925)
Elateridae2(4925)
Phengodidae(250)
Rhagophthalmidae(30)
Lampyridae(2200)
14 Nosodendridae(50)
Histeridae(4300)
Hydrophilidae(3400)
Jacobsoniidae(20)
Ptiliidae(650)
Hydraenidae(1600)
Agyrtidae(70)
Leiodidae(3700)
StaphylinidaeSilphidae(56200)
Trogidae(300)
Lucanidae(1489)
Geotrupidae(920)
Passalidae(800)
Glaphyridae(204)
Hybosoridae(573)
Diversification rate 3 Scarabaeidae(27000)
0.088 Dermestidae(1200)
Bostrichidae(570)
Ptinidae(2200)
BothrideridSeries(1250)
Alexiidae(50)
Latridiidae(1000)
Anamorphidae(174)
0.064 Corylophidae(200)
Endomychidae(1606)
Coccinellidae(6000)
Megalopodidae(350)
Cerambycidae(30079)
Chrysomelidae(32500)
0.04 9 Nemonychidae(70)
Anthribidae(3900)
Belidae(375)
Attelabidae(2500)
Brentidae(4000)
1 Curculionidae(51000)
0.015 Boganiidae(11)
Erotylidae(3500)
Helotidae(107)
Sphindidae(59)
Protocucujidae(7)
Monotomidae(250)
Cybocephalidae(150)
11 Kateretidae(95)
8 Nitidulidae(4350)
Hobartiidae(6)
Cryptophagidae(600)
Silvanidae(500)
Cucujidae(44)
Phloeostichidae(14)
Myraboliidae(13)
Passandridae(109)
Phalacridae(640)
4 Propalticidae(30)
Laemophloeidae(430)
Clade Rate ∆AICc Rentoniinae(15)
Byturidae(24)
1 0.0876 8.57 Biphyllidae(200)
2 0.0810 28.83 Trogossitidae2Acanthocnemidae(301)
Thanerocleridae(30)
3 0.0804 27.78 Cleridae(3400)
7
Trogossitidae1(300)
4 0.0785 11.84 Prionoceridae(160)
5 0.0710 30.98 Melyridae(6000)
Lymexylidae(70)
6 0.0696 8.79 RipiphoridaeMordellidae(1900)
7 0.0678 17.96 Ischaliidae(34)
Aderidae(900)
8 0.0657 6.28 Mycteridae(160)
Oedemeridae(500)
9 0.0645 54.24 Trictenotomidae(13)
10 0.0642 5.44 Boridae(4)
Scraptiidae(500)
11 0.0389 8.36 Pythidae(23)
12 0.0239 7.02 Salpingidae(300)
Pyrochroidae(167)
13 0.0203 23.05 6 AnthicidaeMeloidae(6000)
Melandryidae1(210)
14 0.0165 8.3 Incertae sedis Rhizonium(1)
15 0.0154 21.09 Zopheridae1(850)
Mycetophagidae(130)
Global rate 0.0484 Archeocrypticidae(60)
Ulodidae(30)
Zopheridae2(850)
Melandryidae2(210)
Ciidae(650)
2 Tenebrionidae(20000)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Number of species

300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 (Mya)

Fig. 4 Diversification patterns of major beetle lineages inferred from MEDUSA analysis. Each terminal represents a monophyletic family-level taxon. The
number in parenthesis next to the taxon name indicates the number of validly described species within the taxon. The species richness of each taxon is also
indicated with histograms on the right. Branches are color coded to show the diversification rates. Clades with significant diversification rate shifts
compared with the background rate are marked with circled numbers on the tree (red: rate increase; blue: rate decrease). Estimated net diversification
rates and differences in AICc scores are included in the lower left table

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 7

ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4

a b
0.1 60,000 Herbivorous &
Rate accelerating event 55,000 xylophagous Staphylinidae
0.09
Rate slowdown event Fungivorous & Curculionidae
50,000
0.08 saprophagous
45,000

Described extant species

Net diversification rate
0.07 Predacious
40,000 Carabidae

0.06 35,000
Chrysomelidae
0.05 30,000 Cerambycidae
Scarabaeidae
0.04 25,000
20,000 Tenebrionidae
0.03
15,000 Buprestidae*
0.02
10,000 Elateridae

0.01 5000
0 Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic
0 Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic

300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 (Mya) 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 (Mya)

c d
60 40

50

Family-level divergence events

30
Divergence events

40

30 20

20
10
10

0 Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic

0 Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic

300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 (Mya) 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 (Mya)

Fig. 5 Diversification of beetles across the geological timescale. a Timing of the 15 significant changes in net diversification rate identified by MEDUSA. The
dashed line denotes the background net diversification rate of Coleoptera. b Origin times and the species richness of beetle families. We used stem age as
the origin time for a family when only one species is sampled for the family or when the taxon sampling did not cover the crown of the family. For non-
monophyletic families, the stem age of the oldest lineage of the family was used. The nine largest families with species numbers >10,000 are highlighted
with family names and feeding habits. For the Buprestidae (marked with an asterisk), we performed an additional time estimation, adding the
Schizopodidae sequences from McKenna et al.16 to calculate the stem age of this family. c Number of divergence events within every 20 million year
interval calculated from the 383-taxon time tree. Note that the diversification rate of beetles experienced an upsurge beginning from the late Jurassic
(marked with a red line). d Number of divergence events within every 20 million year interval calculated from the family-level time tree. A similar
diversification upsurge pattern was also detected in the late Jurassic

this node to be 226.9 Mya (Late Triassic). In terms of the fossil have argued that there is no apparent association between the
record, weevils first appear unequivocally in the Late Jurassic diversity of beetles and the diversification of angiosperms and
(Karatau, Oxfordian—Kimmeridgian, 163.5–152.1 Mya), which is that the extreme diversity of beetles may be explained by their
close to our time estimate. long evolutionary history, high-lineage survival, and diversifica-
In summary, our new timescale for beetle evolution suggests tion in a wide range of niches.
that the crown Coleoptera originated in the earliest Permian. The On the basis of the new timescale of beetles, we calculated the
divergence among beetle series mainly occurred during the diversification pattern of beetles with both MEDUSA47 and
Triassic, with most superfamilies appearing during the Jurassic, BAMM48. Both methods produced similar results of beetle
and almost 64% of families appearing in the Cretaceous (stem diversification. We estimated the global diversification rate for
ages are used here because some families have only one species Coleoptera to be 0.0484 lineages per million years (Myr)
sampled in this study). Even when we use the alternative (MEDUSA) or 0.0510 lineages per million years (BAMM) (Fig. 4,
calibration scheme (using fossils at family level), there are still Supplementary Fig. 11). The global diversification rate for
46% of families that originated during the Cretaceous (Supple- Coleoptera drops to ~0.045 lineages/Myr based on our alternative
mentary Fig. 9). These age estimates corroborate many of the time estimate (using fossils at family level). These rates are
dating results estimated by earlier studies, but with higher apparently low compared with those of other organism groups
precision (having smaller CIs). that experienced rapid radiation, such as neoavian birds (0.089
lineages/Myr)47 and angiosperms (0.077 lineages/Myr)49. Because
beetles originated in the lowermost Permian and have an
Diversification tempo of beetles and its relationship with the apparently low-diversification rate, we agree with Hunt et al.12
rise of angiosperms. What factors cause the extraordinary species that the high-species richness of beetles as a whole should be
richness of beetles are still widely discussed. From a perspective of attributed to their long history and low-lineage extinction.
morphology, the sclerotized forewings (elytra), which protect the However, the MEDUSA analysis identified ten clades within
membranous flying hindwings, may be responsible for the Coleoptera with significantly higher diversification rates
apparent success of beetles3. Moreover, other studies have also (0.0642–0.0876 lineages/Myr) than the background diversification
emphasized the importance of complete metamorphosis, devel- rate, and they all belong to the suborder Polyphaga (Fig. 4). The
opment cycle and division of ecological niches to larvae and BAMM analysis also identified four rate-increase shifts that are
adults as innovations of the extraordinary diversity of Holome- included within the MEDUSA results (Supplementary Fig. 11).
tabola, including Coleoptera44,45. Another popular hypothesis These clades include most species-rich groups of beetles, such as
suggests that the striking diversity of beetles is largely driven by Phytophaga, Scarabaeidae, Elateridae, and Tenebrionidae, which
co-radiations with flowering plants42,46. However, Hunt et al.12 constitute ~56.3% of extant species of beetles, thus indicating that

8 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
more than half of beetle diversity can be attributed to fast
diversification rates in certain clades. In addition, both BAMM and
MEDUSA analyses detected two or five clades with significantly
lower diversification rates than the background rate (Fig. 4;
Supplementary Fig. 11), and they mainly belong to the species-
poor beetle groups. Moreover, 9 of 10 rate-accelerating events
detected by MEDUSA occurred in the Cretaceous, although all five
rate slowdown events occurred much earlier (Fig. 5a). A similar
pattern was observed when we used the alternative timescale of
beetles: seven identical rate-increasing events were detected and five
of them occurred in the Cretaceous, while all rates slowdown shifts
predated the Cretaceous (Supplementary Fig. 12). These results
suggested that the Cretaceous was an important period in shaping
the extreme diversity of beetles.
Flowering plants (angiosperms) diversified quickly during the
Cretaceous period and became the dominant group of plants50,51.
Interestingly, among the nine largest beetle families, which have
>10,000 described species, seven were estimated to originate in
the Cretaceous, and their diets are associated with plants (Fig. 5b).
Curculionidae, Chrysomelidae, Cerambycidae, and Buprestidae
are phytophagous, and more than three-quarters of species in
Scarabaeidae are phytophagous, whereas certain species in
Tenebrionidae and Elateridae are phytophagous, and many
others feed on decomposing plant materials and woody tissues.
In contrast, the other two species-rich families (Staphylinidae and
Carabidae) that are predominantly predacious were estimated to
originate in the Early Jurassic, long before the Cretaceous
(Fig. 5b). The coordination of diversification between angios-
perms and phytophagous beetles, but not with predacious beetles,
clearly shows that the extraordinary diversity of phytophagous
beetles can be attributed to co-evolution with angiosperms.
To show the diversification tempo of beetles through time, we
counted the number of divergence events of Coleoptera within
every interval of 20 million years from the Permian to the present,
on the basis of our 383-species time tree. We noticed that the
diversification rate of beetles experienced an upsurge in the late
Jurassic (~160 Mya) and reached the greatest speed in the
Cretaceous (Fig. 5c). This rate-elevating pattern remained stable
when we counted divergence events on the family-level time tree
(Fig. 5d). Although the oldest angiosperm fossils date from the
Valanginian to the Hauterivian in the Cretaceous52,53, the crown
age of the angiosperms has been estimated to be at least 160
Mya54,55. Therefore, the diversification rate pattern of beetles is
still consistent with the beetle-angiosperm co-evolution hypoth-
esis46. However, the accelerating diversification of beetles in the
late Jurassic also indicates that the rapid radiation of beetles
began before flowering plants flourished.
Overall, no single explanation can explain the success of the
order Coleoptera. Perhaps, the Permian origin of the crown group
and a long period of evolution steadily increased the diversity of
beetles. Because lineage survival was high, beetle diversification
entered an ‘exponential’ phase in the late Jurassic. The subsequent
boom of flowering plants in the Cretaceous provided new
ecological opportunities for phytophagous beetles, thus further
promoting the biodiversity of beetles. All these factors together
create the great diversity of extant beetles.
Methods
Taxon sampling. In this study, we used a Coleoptera classification that incorpo-
rated results from Ślipiński et al.1 and Bouchard et al.10 with the exception of
Rhysodidae, which is considered to be a subfamily of Carabidae11, and added the
recently proposed superfamilies Coccinelloidea and eight recently elevated (or re-
elevated) families40,56. We sampled 371 coleopteran taxa representing the 4 extant
suborders, 7 series, 17 superfamilies and 124 of 186 families. Four neuropterid taxa,
including 3 families of Neuroptera and 1 family of Megaloptera, were used as
outgroups. Most of the missing families were species-poor lineages with limited
distribution. Additionally, we added 8 taxa with public genome data downloaded
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
ARTICLE
from the Ensembl database (http://www.ensembl.org), including two beetles (Tri-
bolium castaneum and Dendronctonus ponderosae) and 6 other holometabolan
insects. Therefore, our final taxon sampling included 383 species (373 beetles and
10 outgroups). We did not include Strepsiptera as an outgroup to beetles, because
among the 95 genes used in this study, only 44 (missing data >50%) could find
orthologous sequences in the published Strepsiptera genome57. All specimens
derived from the Biological Museum of Sun Yet-Sen University, China and Aus-
tralian National Insect Collection, CSIRO, in Canberra, Australia were marked with
unique numbers. The detailed information of taxonomy, locality, collector/iden-
tifier of specimens was provided in Supplementary Data 1.
DNA sequencing. Specimens were preserved in 95% ethanol and stored at −20 °C.
DNA was extracted from the thorax muscles, legs or the entire specimen using a
TIANamp Genomic DNA kit (TIANGEN Inc., Beijing, China). Voucher specimens
have been deposited in the Biological Museum of Sun Yat-Sen University. Ninety-five
nuclear protein-coding genes were amplified from DNA extracts by PCR using the
protocol and primers described in Che et al.31. The amplification products were
sequenced using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy, as described by Feng
et al.58. Briefly, all amplification products from a single specimen were pooled toge-
ther and purified. The specimen amplification product pools were then randomly
sheared to small fragments (200–500 bp), the ends were repaired, and a species-
specific barcode linker was added. All indexed amplification product pools were then
mixed together, and a sequencing library was constructed with the pooled DNA using
the TruSeq DNA Sample Preparation kit and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq
2500 sequencer. Approximately 24 GB of 90-bp Illumina HiSeq paired-end reads were
obtained. These reads were bioinformatically sorted by barcode sequences and
assembled into consensus sequences using Trinity59. All assembled sequences were
checked for possible intron insertion by using a Python script provided by Che
et al.31. The final intron-removed sequences were further examined for frame shifts
and stop codons to ensure that they could be properly translated. GenBank accession
numbers for the new sequences are given in Supplementary Data 3.
Sequence alignment and data partition. All 95 genes were aligned using the
ClustalW algorithm implemented in MEGA v660 on the basis of the translated
amino acid sequences. Ambiguously aligned regions were trimmed using Gblock
v.0.91b61, with all gaps allowed (-b5 = a) and all other parameters at default set-
tings. Nucleotide alignments were performed according to the corresponding
protein alignments using a custom Python script. All 95 protein and nucleotide
alignments were concatenated. Binning genes into ‘supergenes’ is a statistical
technique that can account for sampling error by increasing signal-to-noise ratio,
and it has been applied in phylogenetics recently62–64. Because many genes in our
data set are short, we thus used data binning strategy to partition our data. The
protein data set was divided into 10 partitions according to the evolutionary rate of
each gene (measured as their overall mean P distances). ProtTest 365 was used to
identify the best-fit models for the 10 partitions with the Bayesian information
criterion (BIC). We also did additional phylogenetic analyses using different par-
titioning schemes. The phylogenies inferred from unpartitioned and 95-gene-
partitioned data set are almost identical to that inferred from 10-bin-partitioned
data set, except several nodes with negligible supports (Supplementary Fig. 13).
This result showed that different partitioning schemes have little influence to the
final phylogenetic results. For the nucleotide data set, we used a Perl script
(Degen_v1_4.pl; http://www.phylotools.com) to degenerate nucleotides to IUPAC
ambiguity codes for the first and third codon positions, an extension of RY coding,
which can reduce the effect of nucleotide compositional heterogeneity66. The
degenerated nucleotide data set makes synonymous changes largely invisible but
non-synonymous changes largely intact, which can be supported in RAxML and
IQ-TREE analyses. The resulting nucleotide data matrix was partitioned by codons
(three partitions defined), and the best-fit models for every codon partition was
selected with PartitionFinder67.
Phylogenetic analyses. The protein and nucleotide data sets were analyzed with
both ML and Bayesian inference (BI) methods. The ML analyses were conducted
using RAxML v.8.068 and IQ-TREE69. Branch support in the RAxML analyses were
evaluated through a rapid bootstrap algorithm (-f a option) with 500 replicates. In
the IQ-TREE ML analyses, nodal support values were estimated using the
embedded ultrafast bootstrap approach (UFBoot), which is computational efficient
and relatively unbiased70.
Bayesian analyses were conducted using ExaBayes v1.4.171. Two Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) runs were performed with one cold chain and three heated
chains (temperature set to 0.1) for 50 million generations, and sampling was
performed every 1000 generations. The average standard deviation of split
frequencies (ASDSFs) and potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) were <1% and
close to 1 across the two runs, respectively. The effective sample sizes (ESSs) were
>200 for all parameters after the first 20% of generations were discarded.
The species tree analysis without gene concatenation was performed for the
protein data set using ASTRAL 4.7.672 under the coalescent model. For each gene,
the best ML tree and 200 bootstrapping trees were inferred by RAxML under the
best fitting model selected by ProtTest. The species tree analysis was then
conducted using ASTRAL taking these 95 unrooted best ML trees and
9
ARTICLE
corresponding bootstrapping trees as input, under the multilocus bootstrapping
option with 200 replicates (-r = 200).
The approximately unbiased (AU)73 test was used to evaluate the alternative
beetle phylogeny hypotheses, and site-wise log likelihoods of all alternative
topologies were calculated with RAxML using the -f g option. Then, the site log-
likelihood file was used as input to estimate the P-values for each alternative
hypothesis using the AU test implemented in the program CONSEL74.
Divergence time estimation. Divergence times were estimated by using
MCMCTREE in the PAML package75 with the uncorrelated rate model (clock = 2).
The protein RAxML tree was used as the reference topology. Twenty fossils
(Supplementary Table 1), of which 13 were within the Coleoptera, were used to
calibrate the clock. Imposing maximum bounds is necessary when estimating deep
divergence times76. Because holometabolous insects are not known from before the
Pennsylvanian of the Carboniferous, we constrained the maximum age of the
Coleoptera-Neuropterida split to 323.2 Mya, the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian
boundary, which is a fairly conservative maximum bound for this node. To further
limit the effect of imposing an erroneous maximum constraint, we specified the tail
probability of this maximum bound as 2.5%; thus, the time estimation had a 2.5%
probability of being greater than the bound.
The ML estimates of the branch lengths for each of the 10 protein partitions
were calculated using CODEML (in PAML) under the WAG + F + Γ model. To
specify the prior on the overall substitution rate, the root age (crown
Holometabola) was set to 345 Mya, according to a recent phylogenomic estimate23.
On the basis of the mean tree depth from the 10 protein partitions, the gamma-
Dirichlet prior for the overall substitution rate (rgene gamma) was set at G (1,
8.36), and the gamma-Dirichlet prior for the rate-drift parameter (sigma2 gamma)
was set at G (1, 4.5). The posterior time estimates were conducted by using a
MCMC algorithm. After the first 100,000 iterations were discarded as burn-in, the
MCMC run was sampled every 100 iterations until it achieved 10,000 samples. Two
MCMC runs using different random seeds were compared to determine their
convergence with similar results, and effective sample sizes of every node age and
every parameter were >200, as determined in Tracer V1.477 software.
Diversification rate analyses. We used MEDUSA(Modeling Evolutionary
Diversification Using Stepwise AIC)47 and BAMM (Bayesian Analysis of Macro-
evolutionary Mixture)48 to investigate the tempo of diversification of the Coleop-
tera. MEDUSA was conducted on the ultrametric phylogenetic tree with the species
richness data. The time-calibrated Coleoptera tree generated by MCMCTREE was
pruned to a family-level chronogram so that each terminal reflected a mono-
phyletic family (or possible equal). In some cases, families that were not mono-
phyletic were grouped together or split apart. The approximate numbers of
described species for terminals were obtained from Ślipiński et al.1. MEDUSA
sequentially adds rate shifts to the family-level chronogram until further additions
fail to have a distinct increase in model fit (i.e., the improvement in AIC score is
lower than the threshold). The MEDUSA analysis was conducted in R using the
packages Geiger78 with the default settings, including the corrected AIC (AICc)
criterion and mixed model.
We also detected diversification rate shifts using BAMM v. 2.5. The 383-taxa
time-calibrated tree was used as input tree. To account for incomplete taxa
sampling, we used a non-random incomplete taxon sampling correction and
specified this sampling fractions by families. The family-specific sampling
probabilities were specified according to described species diversity obtained from
Ślipiński et al.1. The BAMM analysis was run for 60 million generations at a
temperature increment parameter of 0.01 and sampled event data every 1000
generations. We discarded the first 10% generations as burn-in and examined the
effective sample size (ESS >200) of the log-likelihood and the number of shift events
for convergence with the CODA package79 in R. Finally, the best shift configuration
and the net diversification rates of clades were inferred with BAMMtools80.
Data availability. The raw sequences of the 95 genes, nucleotide and amino acid
alignments of 95 genes, phylogenetic trees, and time trees are available in figshare
(10.6084/m9.figshare.5306497). All new gene sequences have been deposited in
GenBank (for accession numbers, Supplementary Data 3). The raw Illumina
sequencing data generated in this paper can be downloaded from the NCBI
Sequence Read Archive under the BioProject Accession Number PRJNA419242.
Received: 5 May 2017 Accepted: 15 December 2017
References
1. Ślipiński, S. A., Leschen, R. A. B. & Lawrence, J. F. in Animal biodiversity: an
outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness Vol. 3148
(ed Zhang, Z.-Q.) 203–208 (2011).
2. Grove, S. J. & Stork, N. E. An inordinate fondness for beetles. Invertebr. Taxon.
14, 733–739 (2000).
10 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
3. Crowson, R. A. The Biology of the Coleoptera (Acadamic Press, 1981).
4. Crowson, R. A. The Natural Classification of the Families of Coleoptera
(Nathaniel Lloyd, 1955).
5. Crowson, R. A. The phylogeny of Coleoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 5, 111–134
(1960).
6. Lawrence, J. F. & Newton, A. F. Evolution and classification of beetles. Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13, 261–290 (1982).
7. Lawrence, J. F. & Newton, A. F. in Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of
Coleoptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson
(eds. Pakaluk, J. & Ślipiński, S. A.) 779–1006 (Museum i Instytut Zoologii PAN,
Warszawa, 1995).
8. Beutel, R. G. & Leschen, R. A. B. in Handbook of Zoology Coleoptera, Beetles:
Morphology and Systematics (Archostemata, Adephaga, Myxophaga, Polyphaga
partim) 1 (Walter de Gruyter, 2005).
9. Leschen, R. A. B., Beutel, R. G. & Lawrence, J. F. Handbook of Zoology
Coleoptera, Beetles: Morphology and Systematics (Elateroidea, Bostrichiformia,
Cucujiformia partim) 2 (Walter de Gruyter, 2010).
10. Bouchard, P. et al. Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). Zookeys 88,
1–972 (2011).
11. Lawrence, J. F. et al. Phylogeny of the Coleoptera based on morphological
characters of adults and larvae. Ann. Zool. 61, 1–217 (2011).
12. Hunt, T. et al. A comprehensive phylogeny of beetles reveals the evolutionary
origins of a superradiation. Science 318, 1913–1916 (2007).
13. McKenna, D. D. & Farrell, B. D. The Timetree of Life (eds Hedges, S. B.
& Kumar, S.) 278–289 (Oxford University Press, 2009).
14. Bocak, L. et al. Building the Coleoptera tree-of-life for >8000 species:
composition of public DNA data and fit with Linnaean classification. Syst.
Entomol. 39, 97–110 (2014).
15. Crampton-Platt, A. et al. Soup to tree: the phylogeny of beetles inferred by
mitochondrial metagenomics of a Bornean rainforest sample. Mol. Biol. Evol.
32, 2302–2316 (2015).
16. McKenna, D. D. et al. The beetle tree of life reveals that Coleoptera survived
end-Permian mass extinction to diversify during the Cretaceous terrestrial
revolution. Syst. Entomol. 40, 835–880 (2015).
17. Timmermans, M. J. T. N. et al. Family-level sampling of mitochondrial
genomes in Coleoptera: compositional heterogeneity and phylogenetics.
Genome Biol. Evol. 8, 161–175 (2016).
18. Kukalová-Peck, J. & Lawrence, J. F. Evolution of the hind wing in Coleoptera.
Can. Entomol. 125, 181–258 (1993).
19. Beutel, R. G. & Haas, F. Phylogenetic relationships of the suborders of
Coleoptera (Insecta). Cladistics 141, 103–141 (2000).
20. Caterino, M. S. et al. Basal relationships of Coleoptera inferred from 18S rDNA
sequences. Zool. Scr. 31, 41–49 (2002).
21. Pons, J., Ribera, I., Bertranpetit, J. & Balke, M. Nucleotide substitution rates for
the full set of mitochondrial protein-coding genes in Coleoptera. Mol.
Phylogenet. Evol. 56, 796–807 (2010).
22. Song, H., Sheffield, N. C., Cameron, S. L., Miller, K. B. & Whiting, M. F. When
phylogenetic assumptions are violated: Base compositional heterogeneity and
among-site rate variation in beetle mitochondrial phylogenomics. Syst.
Entomol. 35, 429–448 (2010).
23. Misof, B. et al. Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect
evolution. Science 346, 763–767 (2014).
24. Grimaldi, D. & Engel, M. S. Evolution of the Insects (Cambridge University,
2005).
25. Béthoux, O. The earliest beetle identified. J. Paleontol. 83, 931–937 (2009).
26. Kukalová-Peck, J. & Beutel, R. G. Is the Carboniferous †Adiphlebia lacoana
really the ‘oldest beetle’? Critical reassessment and description of a new
Permian beetle family. Eur. J. Entomol. 109, 633–645 (2012).
27. Toussaint, E. F. A. et al. The peril of dating beetles. Syst. Entomol. 42, 1–10 (2017).
28. Hughes, J. et al. Dense taxonomic EST sampling and its applications for molecular
systematics of the Coleoptera (beetles). Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 268–278 (2006).
29. Peters, R. S. et al. The evolutionary history of holometabolous insects inferred
from transcriptome-based phylogeny and comprehensive morphological data.
BMC Evol. Biol. 14, 52 (2014).
30. Wild, A. L. & Maddison, D. R. Evaluating nuclear protein-coding genes for
phylogenetic utility in beetles. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48, 877–891 (2008).
31. Che, L. H. et al. Genome-wide survey of nuclear protein-coding markers for
beetle phylogenetics and their application in resolving both deep and shallow-
level divergences. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 1342–1358 (2017).
32. Sharkey, C. R. et al. Overcoming the loss of blue sensitivity through opsin
duplication in the largest animal group, beetles. Sci. Rep. 7, 8 (2017).
33. Shull, V. L., Vogler, A. P., Baker, M. D., Maddison, D. R. & Peter, M. Sequence
alignment of 18S ribosomal RNA and the basal relationships of adephagan
beetles: evidence for monophyly of aquatic families and the placement of
Trachypachidae. Syst. Biol. 50, 945–969 (2001).
34. Baca, S. M., Alexander, A., Gustafson, G. T. & Short, A. E. Z. Ultraconserved
elements show utility in phylogenetic inference of Adephaga (Coleoptera) and
suggest paraphyly of ‘Hydradephega’. Syst. Entomol. 42, 786–795 (2017).
| DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4
35. Kundrata, R., Bocakova, M. & Bocak, L. The comprehensive phylogeny of the
superfamily Elateroidea (Coleoptera: Elateriformia). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 76,
162–171 (2014).
36. Ge, S. Q., Beutel, R. G. & Yang, X. K. Thoracic morphology of adults of
Derodontidae and Nosodendridae and its phylogenetic implications
(Coleoptera). Syst. Entomol. 32, 635–667 (2007).
37. Hansen, M. Phylogeny and classification of the staphyliniform beetle families
(Coleoptera). Biol. Skr. 48, 1–339 (1997).
38. Caterino, M. S., Hunt, T. & Vogler, A. P. On the constitution and phylogeny of
Staphyliniformia (Insecta: Coleoptera). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34, 655–672 (2005).
39. Mckenna, D. D. et al. Phylogeny and evolution of Staphyliniformia and
Scarabaeiformia: Forest litter as a stepping stone for diversification of
nonphytophagous beetles. Syst. Entomol. 40, 35–60 (2014).
40. Robertson, J. A. et al. Phylogeny and classification of Cucujoidea and the
recognition of a new superfamily Coccinelloidea (Coleoptera: Cucujiformia).
Syst. Entomol. 40, 745–778 (2015).
41. Shen, X. X. et al. Enlarged multilocus data set provides surprisingly younger
time of origin for the Plethodontidae, the largest family of salamanders. Syst.
Biol. 65, 66–81 (2016).
42. McKenna, D. D., Sequeira, A. S., Marvaldi, A. E. & Farrell, B. D. Temporal lags
and overlap in the diversification of weevils and flowering plants. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7083–7088 (2009).
43. Ahrens, D., Schwarzer, J. & Vogler, A. P. The evolution of scarab beetles tracks
the sequential rise of angiosperms and mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141470
(2014).
44. Mayhew, P. J. Why are there so many insect species? Perspectives from fossils
and phylogenies. Biol. Rev. 82, 425–454 (2007).
45. Rainford, J. L., Hofreiter, M., Nicholson, D. B. & Mayhew, P. J. Phylogenetic
distribution of extant richness suggests metamorphosis is a key innovation
driving diversification in insects. PLoS ONE 9, e109085 (2014).
46. Farrell, B. D. ‘Inordinate fondness’ explained: Why are there so many beetles?
Science 281, 555–559 (1998).
47. Alfaro, M. E. et al. Nine exceptional radiations plus high turnover explain
species diversity in jawed vertebrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106,
13410–13414 (2009).
48. Rabosky, D. L. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and
diversity-dependence on phylogenetic trees. PLoS ONE 9, e89543 (2014).
49. Magallón, S. & Sanderson, M. J. Absolute diversification rates in angiosperm
clades. Evolution 55, 1762–1780 (2001).
50. Lidgard, S. & Crane, P. R. Angiosperm diversification and Cretaceous floristic
trends: a comparison of palynofloras and leaf macrofloras. Paleobiology 16,
77–93 (1990).
51. Magallón, S., Gómez-Acevedo, S., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L. & Hernández-
Hernández, T. A metacalibrated time-tree documents the early rise of flowering
plant phylogenetic diversity. New Phytol. 207, 437–453 (2015).
52. Friis, E. M., Pedersen, K. R. & Crane, P. R. Cretaceous angiosperm flowers:
Innovation and evolution in plant reproduction. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 232, 251–293 (2006).
53. Doyle, J. A. Molecular and fossil evidence on the origin of angiosperms. Annu.
Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 40, 301–326 (2012).
54. Bell, C. D., Soltis, D. E. & Soltis, P. S. The age and diversification of the
angiosperms re-revisited. Am. J. Bot. 97, 1296–1303 (2010).
55. Albert, V. A. et al. The Amborella genome and the evolution of flowering
plants. Science 342, 1241089 (2013).
56. Cline, A. R. et al. Molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial
and tribal classification and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Syst. Entomol. 39, 758–772 (2014).
57. Niehuis, O. et al. Genomic and morphological evidence converge to resolve the
enigma of strepsiptera. Curr. Biol. 22, 1309–1313 (2012).
58. Feng, Y. J., Liu, Q. F., Chen, M. Y., Liang, D. & Zhang, P. Parallel tagged
amplicon sequencing of relatively long PCR products using the Illumina HiSeq
platform and transcriptome assembly. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 91–102 (2016).
59. Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data
without a reference genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 644–652 (2011).
60. Tamura, K., Stecher, G., Peterson, D., Filipski, A. & Kumar, S. MEGA6:
molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30,
2725–2729 (2013).
61. Castresana, J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their
use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 540–552 (2000).
62. Bayzid, M. S. & Warnow, T. Naive binning improves phylogenomic analyses.
Bioinformatics 29, 2277–2284 (2013).
63. Betancur-R, R., Naylor, G. J. P. & Ortí, G. Conserved genes, sampling error, and
phylogenomic inference. Syst. Biol. 63, 257–262 (2014).
64. Mirarab, S., Bayzid, M. S., Boussau, B. & Warnow, T. Statistical binning enables
an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree. Science 346, 1250463
(2014).
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:205 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02644-4 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
ARTICLE
65. Darriba, D., Taboada, G. L., Doallo, R. & Posada, D. ProtTest 3: fast selection of
best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27, 1164–1165 (2011).
66. Regier, J. C. et al. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of
nuclear protein-coding sequences. Nature 463, 1079–1083 (2010).
67. Lanfear, R., Calcott, B., Ho, S. Y. W. & Guindon, S. PartitionFinder: combined
selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic
analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 1695–1701 (2012).
68. Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-
analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).
69. Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast
and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood
phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).
70. Minh, B. Q., Nguyen, M. A. T. & von Haeseler, A. Ultrafast approximation for
phylogenetic bootstrap. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1188–1195 (2013).
71. Aberer, A. J., Kobert, K. & Stamatakis, A. ExaBayes: massively parallel bayesian
tree inference for the whole-genome era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 2553–2556 (2014).
72. Mirarab, S. et al. ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree
estimation. Bioinformatics 30, i541–i548 (2014).
73. Shimodaira, H. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection.
Syst. Biol. 51, 492–508 (2002).
74. Shimodaira, H. & Hasegawa, M. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of
phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17, 1246–1247 (2001).
75. Dos Reis, M., Zhu, T. & Yang, Z. The impact of the rate prior on Bayesian
estimation of divergence times with multiple loci. Syst. Biol. 63, 555–565 (2014).
76. Zhang, P. & Wake, D. B. Higher-level salamander relationships and divergence
dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
53, 492–508 (2009).
77. Rambaut, A. & Drummond, A. J. Tracer. Available at http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/
Tracer (2007).
78. Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. & Challenger, W. GEIGER:
investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24, 129–131 (2008).
79. Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K. & Vines, K. CODA: convergence diagnosis
and output analysis for MCMC. R. News 6, 7–11 (2006).
80. Rabosky, D. L. et al. BAMMtools: an R package for the analysis of evolutionary
dynamics on phylogenetic trees. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 701–707 (2014).
Acknowledgements
We thank all of our lab members for help in experiments and data analyses. We thank
Zhenhua Liu for kindly providing valuable beetle images. This work was supported by
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants No. 31672266 and 31372172
to P. Zhang) and the National Youth Talent Support Program (W02070133 to P. Zhang).
Author contributions
P.Z., D.L., and A.S. designed the project. Y.L., H.P., and A.S. carried out taxon sampling
and collection. S.-Q.Z. performed the DNA sequencing with the help of L.-H.C. and Y.L.
S.-Q.Z. and P.Z. analyzed the data. S.-Q.Z. and P.Z. wrote the paper.
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
017-02644-4.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Reprints and permission information is available online at http://npg.nature.com/
reprintsandpermissions/
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2018
11