First phylogeny of predatory flower flies (Diptera, Syrphidae, Syrphinae) using mitochondrial COI and nuclear 28S rRNA genes: conflict and congruence with the current tribal classification

The family Syrphidae (Diptera) is traditionally divided into three subfamilies. The aim of this study was to address the monophyly of the tribes within the subfamily Syrphinae (virtually all with predaceous habits), as well as the phylogenetic placement of particular genera using molecular characters. Sequence data from the mitochondrial protein-coding gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I ( COI ) and the nuclear 28S ribosomal RNA gene of 98 Syrphinae taxa were analyzed using optimization alignment to explore phylogenetic relationships among included taxa. Volucella pellucens was used as outgroup, and representatives of the tribe Pipizini (Eristalinae), with similar larval feeding mode, were also included. Congruence of our results with current tribal classification of Syrphinae is discussed. Our results include the tribe Toxomerini resolved as monophyletic but placed in a clade with genera Ocyptamus and Eosalpingogaster . Some genera traditionally placed into Syrphini were resolved outside of this tribe, as the sister groups to other tribes or genera. The tribe Bacchini was resolved into several different clades. We recovered Paragini as a monophyletic group, and sister group of the genus Allobaccha . The present results highlight the need of a reclassification of Syrphinae.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2008.     

基于28S rDNA D2基因片段与形态特征的矛茧蜂亚科系统发育研究（膜翅目：茧蜂科）

本研究选取矛茧蜂亚科Doryctinae（昆虫纲Insecta：膜翅目Hymenoptera：茧蜂科Braconidae）的6族15属18种做内群,茧蜂科其它7亚科11属11种做外群,首次结合同源核糖体28S rDNA D2基因序列片段和100个形态学和解剖学特征对该亚科进行了系统发育学研究。利用“非圆口类"的小腹茧蜂亚科Microgastrinae为根,以PAUP*4.0和MrBayes 3.0B4软件分别应用最大简约法（MP）和贝叶斯法对矛茧蜂亚科的分子数据和分子数据与非分子数据的结合体进行了运算分析;并以PAUP*4.0对矛茧蜂亚科的28S rDNA D2基因序列片段的碱基组成与碱基替代情况进行了分析。结果表明：矛茧蜂亚科的28S rDNA D2基因序列片段的GC含量在39.33%～48.28%之间变动,而对于碱基替代情况来讲,矛茧蜂亚科各成员间序列变异位点上颠换（transversion）大于转换（transition）。不同的分析算法所产生的系统发育树都表明矛茧蜂亚科是一个界限分明的单系群;在矛茧蜂亚科内,除了吉丁茧蜂族Siragrini为单系群外,其他族（矛茧蜂族Doryctini和方头茧蜂族Hecabolini）都是并系群。对于矛茧蜂亚科内各属之间的相互亲缘关系,不同算法所得的系统发育树的拓扑结构不完全一致,表明矛茧蜂亚科内（属及族）的系统发育关系还有待于进一步研究。     

Higher‐level phylogeny of diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) based on larval characters

A comprehensive higher‐level phylogeny of diving beetles (Dytiscidae) based on larval characters is presented. Larval morphology and chaetotaxy of a broad range of genera and species was studied, covering all currently recognized subfamilies and tribes except for the small and geographically restricted Hydrodytinae, where the larva is unknown. The results suggest several significant conclusions with respect to the systematics of Dytiscidae including the following: monophyly of all currently recognized subfamilies, although Dytiscinae when considered in a broad context is rendered paraphyletic by Cybistrinae; currently recognized tribes are monophyletic except for Agabini, Hydroporini and Laccornellini; inter‐subfamily and inter‐tribe relationships generally show weak support, except for a few well supported clades; three distinct clades are recognized within Dytiscinae [Dytiscini sensu lato (i.e. including the genera Dytiscus Linnaeus and Hyderodes Hope), Hydaticini sensu lato, and Cybistrini]; and recognition of Pachydrini as a distinct tribe. Other less robust results include: Methlini sister to the rest of Hydroporinae; relative basal position of Laccornini, Hydrovatini and Laccornellini within Hydroporinae; close relationship of Agabinae and Copelatinae; Matinae nested deep within Dytiscidae, as sister to a large clade including Colymbetinae, Coptotominae, Lancetinae and Dytiscinae sensu lato; the sister‐group relationship of Agabetini and Laccophilini is confirmed. The results presented here are discussed and compared with previous phylogenetic hypotheses based on different datasets, and the evolution of some significant morphological features is discussed in light of the proposed phylogeny. All suprageneric taxa are diagnosed, including illustrations of all relevant synapomorphies, and a key to separate subfamilies and tribes is presented, both in traditional (paper) format and as an online Lucid interactive identification key.     

基于Cytb和ND1基因序列的弄蝶亚科(鳞翅目:弄蝶科)族级系统发育关系分析

【目的】探讨中国弄蝶亚科各族之间的系统发育关系。【方法】对22属32种弄蝶亚科蝶类的Cytb和ND1基因部分序列进行了联合分析,分别采用最大似然法(maximum likelihood,ML)和贝叶斯法(Bayesian inference,BI)构建了系统发育树。【结果】测得的Cytb和ND1基因联合后,获得的序列总长为836 bp,包含保守位点450个,变异位点386个,简约信息位点304个;A+T的平均含量为76.9%,明显高于C+G的平均含量(23.1%)。基于Cytb和ND1基因联合序列的系统发育分析显示,钩弄蝶族(Ancistroidini)、刺胫弄蝶族(Baorini)、弄蝶族(Hesperiini)为单系群,且亲缘关系较近,其亲缘关系为:(弄蝶族Hesperiini+(刺胫弄蝶族Baorini+钩弄蝶族Ancistroidini));而锷弄蝶族Aeromachini(=酣弄蝶族Halpini)是一个复系群。【结论】本文支持钩弄蝶族(Ancistroidini)、刺胫弄蝶族(Baorini)、弄蝶族(Hesperiini)的族级地位,锷弄蝶族(Aeromachini)与Warren等研究结果矛盾,其他族有待补充样本后做进一步研究。     

Molecular systematics of the Cactaceae

Bayesian, maximum‐likelihood, and maximum‐parsimony phylogenies, constructed using nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene region trnK‐matK, are employed to investigate relationships within the Cactaceae. These phylogenies sample 666 plants representing 532 of the 1438 species recognized in the family. All four subfamilies, all nine tribes, and 69% of currently recognized genera of Cactaceae are sampled. We found strong support for three of the four currently recognized subfamilies, although relationships between subfamilies were not well defined. Major clades recovered within the largest subfamilies, Opuntioideae and Cactoideae, are reviewed; only three of the nine currently accepted tribes delimited within these subfamilies, the Cacteae, Rhipsalideae, and Opuntieae, are monophyletic, although the Opuntieae were recovered in only the Bayesian and maximum‐likelihood analyses, not in the maximum‐parsimony analysis, and more data are needed to reveal the status of the Cylindropuntieae, which may yet be monophyletic. Of the 42 genera with more than one exemplar in our study, only 17 were monophyletic; 14 of these genera were from subfamily Cactoideae and three from subfamily Opuntioideae. We present a synopsis of the status of the currently recognized genera.
© The Willi Hennig Society 2011.     

Morphology-based phylogeny of the treehopper family Membracidae (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Membracoidea)

A parsimony‐based phylogenetic analysis of eighty‐three morphological characters of adults and immatures of seventy representatives of the tribes and subfamilies of Membracidae and two outgroup taxa was conducted to evaluate the status and relationships of these taxa. Centrotinae apparently gave rise to Nessorhinini and Oxyrhachini (both formerly treated as subfamilies, now syn.n. and syn.reinst., respectively, of Centrotinae). In contrast to previous analyses, a clade comprising Nicomiinae, Centronodinae, Centrodontinae, and the unplaced genera Holdgatiella Evans, Euwalkeria Goding and Antillotolania Ramos was recovered, but relationships within this clade were not well resolved. Nodonica bispinigera, gen.n. and sp.n., is described and placed in Centrodontini based on its sister‐group relationship to a clade comprising previously described genera of this tribe. Membracinae and Heteronotinae were consistently monophyletic. Neither Darninae nor Smiliinae, as previously defined, was monophyletic on the maximally parsimonious cladograms, but constraining both as monophyletic groups required only one additional step. The monophyly of Stegaspidinae, including Deiroderes Ramos (unplaced in Membracidae), was supported on some but not all equally parsimonious cladograms. More detailed analyses of individual subfamilies, as well as morphological data on the undescribed immatures of several membracid tribes and genera, will be needed to elucidate relationships among tribes and genera. A key to the subfamilies and tribes is provided.     

Chrysomyinae (Diptera: Calliphoridae) is monophyletic: a molecular systematic analysis

The subfamily Chrysomyinae includes blowflies of considerable ecological and applied importance. Previous extensive morphological investigations have affirmed chrysomyine monophyly, but did not support the monophyly of traditional chrysomyine tribes. Conversely, molecular systematic analyses suggested a para‐ or polyphyletic Chrysomyinae. Conflicting hypotheses have been proposed about the tribe‐level classification, and about the relationships of the obligate bird parasites Protocalliphora Hough and Trypocalliphora Peus. To understand chrysomyine evolution better, we reconstructed phylogenies of the Chrysomyinae based on 2285 bp of combined data from mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1 (COI) and nuclear carbamoylphosphate synthetase (CPS) genes. Maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analysis (BA) strongly supported the monophyly of Chrysomyinae and the paraphyly of the tribe Chrysomyini. BA and ML yielded a monophyletic tribe Phormiini, but this was unresolved by MP. A sister‐group relationship between Trypocalliphora and Protocalliphora indicates that obligate bird parasitism evolved once within the Calliphoridae. For the first time all Neotropical genera (Cochliomyia Townsend, Compsomyiops Townsend, Paralucilia Brauer and Bergenstamm, Hemilucilia Brauer and Chloroprocta Wulp) were found to comprise a single lineage, and Chrysomya Robineau‐Desvoidy, traditionally a member of Chrysomyini, was found to be closer to the Phormiini. Similarly, Hemilucilia + Chloroprocta was a monophyletic group. Every genus for which we examined more than one species was monophyletic.     

Phylogeny of the subfamily Larentiinae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): integrating molecular data and traditional classifications

Larentiinae are the second largest subfamily of Geometridae, with more than 6200 described species. Despite recent advances in molecular systematics of geometrid moths, phylogenetic relationships between the numerous subgroups of Larentiinae are poorly known. In this study we present the most comprehensive attempt to date to resolve the phylogeny of Larentiinae, having sampled at least one species from all currently recognized 23 tribes. Fragments of one mitochondrial (COI) and eight nuclear (EF‐1α, WGL, GAPDH, RPS5, IDH, MDH, CAD and 28S) genes were sequenced, for a total of 6939 bp. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses resulted in identical well‐resolved phylogenetic trees, which had maximum or near‐maximum support values at most nodes. Almost all conventionally recognized tribes represented by more than one genus were found to be monophyletic. Close to the root of Larentiinae, six tribes branch off the main lineage one after another, with Dyspteridini being sister to all other members of the subfamily. The rest of larentiines are divided into two very diverse lineages, comprising eight and at least ten tribes, respectively. There were just three findings incongruent with the conventional tribal subdivision of the subfamily. First, the genera Collix Guenée and Anticollix Prout formed a separate, previously unrecognized but well‐supported clade at the tribe level. Second, the Palaearctic genus Pelurga Hübner was placed apart from Larentia Treitschke and Mesoleuca Hübner, which were the other members of Larentiini in this analysis. Third, Cataclysmini appeared together with genera belonging to Xanthorhoini, leaving the latter paraphyletic. The Neotropic genus Oligopleura Herrich‐Schäffer is shown to belong to the tribe Euphyiini ( comb.n. ) according to both molecular data and male genital morphology. The results and the tribal classification of Larentiinae are discussed with reference to the principal publications since the end of the 19th Century. We conclude that the current tribal classification of Larentiinae is not controversial from the phylogenetic point of view and that its increasing complexity has merely reflected the accumulation of information, mainly through different methods of biosystematic study having become available for researchers. Our results indicate that diurnal lifestyle, accompanied by conspicuous coloration, has evolved independently in several subgroups of Larentiinae.     

Phylogeny of the bee family Megachilidae (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) based on adult morphology

Phylogenetic relationships within the bee family Megachilidae are poorly understood. The monophyly of the subfamily Fideliinae is questionable, the relationships among the tribes and subtribes in the subfamily Megachilinae are unknown, and some extant genera cannot be placed with certainty at the tribal level. Using a cladistic analysis of adult external morphological characters, we explore the relationships of the eight tribes and two subtribes currently recognised in Megachilidae. Our dataset included 80% of the extant generic‐level diversity, representatives of all fossil taxa, and was analysed using parsimony. We employed 200 characters and selected 7 outgroups and 72 ingroup species of 60 genera, plus 7 species of 4 extinct genera from Baltic amber. Our analysis shows that Fideliinae and the tribes Anthidiini and Osmiini of Megachilinae are paraphyletic; it supports the monophyly of Megachilinae, including the extinct taxa, and the sister group relationship of Lithurgini to the remaining megachilines. The Sub‐Saharan genus Aspidosmia, a rare group with a mixture of osmiine and anthidiine features, is herein removed from Anthidiini and placed in its own tribe, Aspidosmiini, new tribe . Protolithurgini is the sister of Lithurgini, both placed herein in the subfamily Lithurginae; the other extinct taxa, Glyptapina and Ctenoplectrellina, are more basally related among Megachilinae than Osmiini, near Aspidosmia, and are herein treated at the tribal level. Noteriades, a genus presently in the Osmiini, is herein transferred to the Megachilini. Thus, we recognise four subfamilies (Fideliinae, Pararhophitinae, Lithurginae and Megachilinae) and nine tribes in Megachilidae. We briefly discuss the evolutionary history and biogeography of the family, present alternative classifications, and provide a revised key to the extant tribes of Megachilinae.     

Molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae: assessment of subfamilial and tribal classification and formalization of the family Cybocephalidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)

We present a molecular phylogeny of Nitidulidae based on thirty ingroup taxa representing eight of the ten currently recognized subfamilies. Approximately 10 K base pairs from seven loci (12S, 16S, 18S, 28S, COI, COII and H3) were used for the phylogenetic reconstruction. The phylogeny supports the following main conclusions: (i) Cybocephalidae are formally recognized as a distinct family not closely related to Nitidulidae and its constituent taxa are defined; (ii) Kateretidae are sister to Nitidulidae; (iii) Cryptarchinae are monophyletic and sister to the remaining nitidulid subfamilies; (iv) subfamily Prometopinae stat. res. is reinstated and defined, to accommodate taxa allied to Axyra Erichson, Prometopia Erichson and Megauchenia MacLeay; (v) Amphicrossinae, Carpophilinae and Epuraeinae are shown to be closely related taxa within a well‐supported monophyletic clade; (vi) tribal affinities and respective monophyly within Nitidulinae are poorly resolved by our data and must be more rigorously tested as there was little or no support for prior morphologically based tribes or genus‐level complexes; (vii) Nitidulinae are found to be paraphyletic with respect to Cillaeinae and Meligethinae, suggesting that they should either be subsumed as tribes, or Nitidulinae should be divided into several subfamilies to preserve the status of Cillaeinae and Meligethinae; (viii) Teichostethus Sharp stat. res. is not a synonym of Hebascus Erichson and the former is reinstated as a valid genus. These conclusions and emendations are discussed in detail and presented within a morphological framework.     

Phylogeny and systematics of the subfamily Bryocorinae based on morphology with emphasis on the tribe Dicyphini sensu Schuh,

The classification of the hyperdiverse true bug family Miridae is far from settled, and is particularly contentious for the cosmopolitan subfamily Bryocorinae. The morphological diversity within the subfamily is pronounced, and a lack of explicit character formulation hampers stability in the classification. Molecular partitions are few and only a handful of taxa have been sequenced. In this study the phylogeny of the subfamily Bryocorinae has been analysed based on morphological data alone, with an emphasis on evaluating the tribe Dicyphina sensu Schuh, 1976, within which distinct groups of taxa exist. A broad sample of taxa was examined from each of the bryocorine tribes. A broad range of outgroup taxa from most of the other mirid subfamilies was also examined to test for bryocorine monophyly, ingroup relationships and to determine character polarity. In total a matrix comprising 44 ingroup, 15 outgroup taxa and 111 morphological characters was constructed. The phylogenetic analysis resulted in a monophyletic subfamily Bryocorinae sensu Schuh (1976, 1995), except for the genus Palaucoris, which is nested within Cylapinae. The tribe Dicyphini sensu Schuh (1976, 1995) has been rejected. The subtribe Odoniellina is synonymized with the subtribe Monaloniina and the subtribes Dicyphina, Monaloniina and Eccritotarsina are now elevated to tribal level, with the Dicyphini now restricted in composition and definition. The genus Felisacus is highly autapomorphic and a new tribe – the Felisacini – is erected for the included taxa. This phylogeny of the tribes of the Bryocorinae comprises the following sister‐group relationships: Dicyphini ((Bryocorini + Eccritotarsini)(Felisicini + Monaloniini)).     

Insights into the phylogenetic relationships within Cixiidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha): cladistic analysis of a morphological dataset

Abstract.  According to the most recent classifications proposed, the planthopper family Cixiidae comprises three subfamilies, namely Borystheninae, Bothriocerinae and Cixiinae, the latter with 16 tribes. Here we examine morphological characters to present the first phylogenetic reconstructions within Cixiidae derived from a cladistic analysis. We scored 85 characters of the head, thorax, and male and female genitalia for 50 taxa representative of all cixiid subfamilies and tribes and for six outgroup taxa. Analyses were based on maximum parsimony – using both equally weighted and successive weighting procedures – and Bayesian inferences. The monophyly of most currently accepted tribes and subfamilies was investigated through Templeton statistical tests of alternative phylogenetic hypotheses. The cladistic analyses recover the monophyly of Cixiidae, the subfamily Bothriocerinae, and the tribes Pentastirini, Mnemosynini, and Eucarpiini. Successive weighting and Bayesian inference recover the monophyly of the tribe Gelastocephalini, but only Bayesian inference supports the monophyly of Semoniini. The relationships recovered support the groups [Stenophlepsini (Borystheninae + Bothriocerinae)] arising from the tribe Oecleini, and [Andini + Brixiidini + Brixiini (polyphyletic) + Bennini]. Templeton tests reject the alternative hypothesis of a monophyletic condition for the tribe Pintaliini as presently defined.     

Phylogeny and morphological evolution of tribe Menispermeae (Menispermaceae) inferred from chloroplast and nuclear sequences

The Menispermaceae family contains ca. 72 genera with 450 species that are almost entirely tropical. Its phylogeny at the tribal level has never been examined using molecular data. Here we used DNA sequences of the chloroplast matK gene and trnL-F regions, and the nuclear ITS region to study the delimitation and position of the tribe Menispermeae within the family and its subtribal monophyletic groups. Family-wide phylogenetic analyses of the chloroplast data produced two strongly supported clades. The first clade contains two subclades: Coscinieae including Arcangelisia and Anamirta, and Tinosporeae sensu lato including Fibraureae, supported by morphological characters, such as traits of the cotyledon, stylar scar and embryo. The second clade consists of the tribes Menispermeae sensu DC. and Tiliacoreae Miers. All our analyses surprisingly recognized that tribe Menispermeae is not monophyletic unless tribe Tiliacoreae is included, suggesting that characters of cotyledon and stylar scar are very important for the infrafamilial classification, and that endosperm presence vs. absence was over-emphasized in traditionally tribal division of the family. Our topologies indicate a secondary loss of endosperm. The monophyly of two subtribes of the tribe Menispermeae, Stephaniinae and Cissampelinae, is supported by the cpDNA and ITS data, as well as by morphological characters, including aperture types and shapes, and colpal membrane features of pollen grains, and sepal number of male flowers. The Cocculinae was recognized as a paraphyletic group containing the remaining genera of the tribe Menispermeae.     

Phylogeny,taxonomy, and evolution of Neotropical cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae: Cichlinae)

Despite recent progress on the higher‐level relationships of Cichlidae and its Indian, Malagasy, and Greater Antillean components, conflict and uncertainty remain within the species‐rich African, South American, and Middle American assemblages. Herein, we combine morphological and nucleotide characters from the mitochondrial large ribosomal subunit, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, NADH dehydrogenase four, and cytochrome b genes and from the nuclear histone H3, recombination activating gene two, Tmo‐4C4, Tmo‐M27, and ribosomal S7 loci to analyse relationships within the Neotropical cichlid subfamily Cichlinae. The simultaneous analysis of 6309 characters for 90 terminals, including representatives of all major cichlid lineages and all Neotropical genera, resulted in the first well‐supported and resolved generic‐level phylogeny for Neotropical cichlids. The Neotropical subfamily Cichlinae was recovered as monophyletic and partitioned into seven tribes: Astronotini, Chaetobranchini, Cichlasomatini, Cichlini, Geophagini, Heroini, and Retroculini. Chaetobranchini + Geophagini (including the “crenicichlines”) was resolved as the sister group of Heroini + Cichlasomatini (including Acaronia). The monogeneric Astronotini was recovered as the sister group of these four tribes. Finally, a clade composed of Cichlini + Retroculini was resolved as the sister group to all other cichlines. The analysis included the recently described ?Proterocara argentina, the oldest known cichlid fossil (Eocene), which was placed in an apical position within Geophagini, further supporting a Gondwanan origin for Cichlidae. These phylogenetic results were used as the basis for generating a monophyletic cichline taxonomy. © The Willi Hennig Society 2008.     

Phylogeny of the parasitic wasp subfamily Euphorinae (Braconidae) and evolution of its host preferences

The braconid subfamily Euphorinae is a large, cosmopolitan group of endoparasitoid wasps. The majority of species attack adult hosts, a strategy that is rare among parasitic wasps, but there are also many species that attack nymphs and larval stages. Euphorine hosts may belong to a variety of insect orders (Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Neuroptera, Psocoptera, Orthoptera and Lepidoptera) although most euphorine tribes are confined to Coleoptera. Here we investigate the phylogenetic relationships of the Euphorinae based on molecular data (3 kb of nucleotide data from four markers: 18S, 28S, CAD and COI) and propose a higher‐level classification based upon the resulting phylogeny. We also infer the evolution of host associations and discuss the diversification of the Euphorinae. Results from both Bayesian inference and maximum‐likelihood analysis show that the subfamily, as previously circumscribed, is paraphyletic. We propose that the subfamily be expanded to include the tribes Meteorini and Planitorini (Mannokeraia + Planitorus), so that it corresponds to a clade that is strongly supported as monophyletic in our analyses. Based on our results, a revised higher classification of the Euphorinae is proposed, in which 52 extant genera and 14 tribes are recognized. We reinstate the genus Microctonus belonging to the tribe Perilitini, and synonymize Ussuraridelus with Holdawayella, Sinuatophorus with Eucosmophorus. Furthermore, we propose the following tribal rearrangements: Spathicopis and Stenothremma are transferred to Perilitini; Tuberidelus, Eucosmophorus and Plynops to Cosmophorini; Ecclitura to Dinocampini; Chrysopophthorus, Holdawayella and Wesmaelia to Helorimorphini; Proclithroporus and Heia to Townesilitini. The monotypic tribe Cryptoxilonini is synonymized with Cosmophorini. The genera Pygostolus and Litostolus are placed in a separate tribe, Pygostolini, previously recognized as a subtribe among the Centistini. Parsimony‐based ancestral state reconstructions suggest that the ancestor of Euphorinae was a parasitoid of lepidopteran larvae, and that a host shift to larval Coleoptera occurred only in one clade of the Meteorini, some members of which secondarily shifted back to larval lepidopteran hosts. In the remainder of the subfamily, there was an initial shift from larval to adult coleopterans, followed by subsequent shifts to adults or larvae of Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Neuroptera, Orthoptera and Psocoptera.     

Phylogeny of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), with a reclassification of Eulophinae and the recognition that Elasmidae are derived eulophids

Eulophidae is a large and biologically varied family of parasitoid wasps, traditionally split into four subfamilies; Elasmidae is a uniform (single genus) and morphologically distinct family of wasps that are thought to be related to Eulophidae. The D2 region of the 28S rDNA gene (≈ 560 bp) of eighty‐seven species of eulophid, three species of elasmid and sixteen outgroup species in five families was sequenced. Cladograms were constructed, and the results compared with conclusions drawn from morphological studies. The gene was most informative at the level of subfamily and tribe. The monophyly of both Eulophinae and Tetrastichinae is supported; that of Entedoninae and Euderinae is less clear. Results indicate that Eulophinae is a derived group within Eulophidae, rather than an ancestral group as previously thought, and that Elasmus, the sole genus of Elasmidae, belongs within this subfamily. The tribes of Eulophinae are reassessed and only three accepted: Eulophini (including Euplectrini and Elachertini), Elasmini and Cirrospilini LaSalle trib.n. for Bou?ek's Ophelimini with Ophelimus and Australsecodes excluded. Three small Australian tribes, Anselmellini, Ophelimini and Platytetracampini, are removed from Eulophinae and Entedoninae, respectively, but their exact relationships and subfamily status cannot as yet be decided. Another tribe, Keryini, known from a single Australian genus, is excluded from both Eulophinae and Eulophidae.