Résumé
Brevipalpus mites stand out among the phytophagous mites in the family Tenuipalpidae due to the agricultural importance of some its member species, largely because of their action as virus vectors. A phylogenetic classification allows for understanding the evolution of the group as well as to make bio-ecological predictions of a taxon based on known traits of closely related taxa. This phylogenetic background is still lacking for Brevipalpus. Unambiguous identification is needed to understand the role of each species in the transmission of viruses, to guide the adoption of quarantine measures and to support the development of control strategies. Continuing the efforts to advance the systematics of Brevipalpus mites, this study uses an integrative approach at both species groups and species level. A synergistic combination of a multi-tool exploration of DNA datasets, including mitochondrial (two COI regions) and nuclear (ITS2, D1-D3) fragments with different evolution taxes, and a detailed morphological study (optical and scanning microscopy) were employed. Samples of well-known species along with putative ones were obtained from South America, Europe and Middle East collected from 20 host plant families. In addition to the sequences obtained in this study, the phylogenetic datasets included sequences available in public databases. For morphological identification some specimens were compared with type material. Three species delimitation approaches were applied: (1) Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery, (2) Assemble Species by Automatic Partition and (3) a local regression to establish reliable genetic distance thresholds to discriminate intra and interspecific divergences. Results clearly showed that the species group classification by Baker & Tuttle (1987) does not match genetic lineages. Species currently classified as belonging to the phoenicis and cuneatus species groups are polyphyletic and split into unrelated clades. We propose a rearrangement of the species groups corresponding to the observed genetic lineages and phylogenetically informative morphological traits. Genetic distances combined with species delimitation methods clearly support cryptic diversity for some taxa. For others, uncertainties and the lack of congruence between the results obtained for different markers and methods suggest that some speciation processes are just in course and that we „captured‟ different phases of these processes.