<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shi, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chen, X.-X.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Achterberg, C. van</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phylogenetic relationships among the Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea) inferred from partial 16S rDNA, 28S rDNA D2, 18S rDNA gene sequences and morphological characters</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Molecular phylogenetics and evolution</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16S rDNA</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18S rDNA</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28S rDNA</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Braconidae</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">morphology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phylogenetic relationships</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elsevier</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">104-116</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">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.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record></records></xml>