Phylogenetic relationships among the Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea) inferred from partial 16S rDNA, 28S rDNA D2, 18S rDNA gene sequences and morphological characters

Phylogenetic relationships among the Braconidae were examined using homologous 16S rDNA, 28S rDNA D2 region, and 18S rDNA gene sequences and morphological data using both PAUP* 4.0 and MRBAYES 3.0B4 from 88 in-group taxa representing 35 subfamilies. The monophyletic nature of almost all subfamilies, of which multiple representatives are present in this study, is well- supported except for two subfamilies, Cenocoelinae and Neoneurinae that should probably be treated as tribal rank taxa in the sub- family Euphorinae. The topology of the trees generated in the present study supported the existence of three large generally accepted lineage or groupings of subfamilies: two main entirely endoparasitic lineages of this family, referred to as the “helconoid complex” and the “microgastroid complex,” and the third “the cyclostome.” The Aphidiinae was recovered as a member of the non-cyclosto- mes, probably a sister group of Euphorinae or Euphorinae-complex. The basal position of the microgastroid complex among the non-cyclostomes has been found in all our analyses. The cyclostomes were resolved as a monophyletic group in all analyses if two putatively misplaced groups (Mesostoa and Aspilodemon) were excluded from them. Certain well-supported relationships evident in this family from the previous analyses were recovered, such as a sister-group relationships of Alysiinae+Opiinae, of Braconinae+Doryctinae, and a close relationship between Macrocentrinae, Xiphozelinae, Homolobinae, and Charmontinae. The relationships of “Ichneutinae+((Adeliinae+Cheloninae)+(Miracinae+(Cardiochilinae+Microgastrinae)))” was conWrmed within the microgastroid complex. The position of Acampsohelconinae, Blacinae, and Trachypetinae is problematic. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.