CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present study indicated that the subfamily Epilachninae consisting of a
single tribe Epilachnini, is distantly related to tribes of subfamily Coccinellinae. This has
been long considered by many taxonomists. The subfamily Epilachninae consisted of one
large tribe showing close affinity to the tribes of Coccinellini and Psylloborini of the
subfamily Coccinellinae. Therefore, the place of Epilachninae in the tree of classification
must be closer to the subfamily Coccinellinae (Sasaji, 1971). The relationship between
subfamily Scymninae and tribe Ortaliini was debatable during the past few decades. The
present study separated the tribe Ortaliini from tribe Scymnini, positioning tribe Chilocorini
in between. This does not support the statement “tribe Ortaliini of subfamily Ortaliinae must
be placed closer to the tribe Scymnini”. This has been long on debate among taxonomists
until the Gordon’s reconstruction of the family classification in 1976 and 1985, separating
Ortaliinae into an individual subfamily. Present study did not include species of tribes from
subfamily Sticholotinae which is considered as the most primitive group in the family
Coccinellidae and species from subfamilies of Lithophilinae, Aspidimerinae and
Hyperaspinae (according to the Gordon’s phenotic classification 1976, 1985). Due to this
reason the phylogenetic relationship of the entire family is not resolved. The inclusion of all
phenotypically identified subfamilies with more than one species for each genus and with
more than one genus for each tribe is a must to obtain a better understanding of the subfamily
level relationships. At the same time, investigations of morphological and ecological
characteristics based on new evidence of the present phylogenetic study and incorporation of
those characters with DNA sequence data are necessary in order to understand the complete
phylogeny of family Coccinellidae.