Abstract
Systematic studies on the family Phytoseiidae were first conducted at the beginning of the 20th century but increased greatly after the Second World War. Various classifications have been proposed based on different characters such as: dorsal, ventral, and leg chaetotaxy; the shape of ventrianal and sternal shields; the shape of the insemination apparatus (spermatheca) and spermatodactylus; the number of teeth on the movable digit of chelicera; and dorsal and ventral adenotaxy. The genus concepts developed over the last five decades can be divided into two main categories or hypotheses. The first, supported mainly by Chant and McMurtry, focuses on dorsal and ventral chaetotaxy, and the genera so defined usually include a great number of species. The second category, proposed by Athias-Henriot, considers the shape of the insemination apparatus as the key character, and the genera so defined usually include a limited number of species. From a diagnostic point of view, both classifications have a valid structure, but the question investigated herein was: which of the two classifications or hypotheses fits phylogenetic evolution? To answer this, we conducted molecular phylogenetic analyses (using the genes ITS and 12S rRNA) on the genus Neoseiulus, which has been subjected to classification based on the two main genus concepts. The results showed that the first hypothesis (Chant and McMurtry) leads to polyphyly of the genus Neoseiulus, while the second (Athias-Henriot) leads to paraphyly of the genus. The results show that acarologists who first decided that the insemination apparatus was of evolutive importance could be correct as the shape of the insemination apparatus seems to better fit evolutive clades than dorsal and ventral chaetotaxy. The morphology of this organ, however, must be more accurately studied to better define homologies. The present paper investigates the two main hypotheses proposed until now for classification of Phytoseiidae and thereby opens the way for improved classification.