Adding morphological characters to the molecular data base (Warren et al., 2009) did not change the overall picture in that the monocot feeders appear as sister group of a part of the traditional Pyrginae, but the subdivision of the Pyrginae changed, the “subfamily” falling into two, with the newly defined Pyrginae sister to the monocot feeders and the Eudaminae (raised to subfamily rank) sister to the other two combined. It is remarkable that morphological characters of groupings for which such evidence is scant (actually there is no morphological evidence for the mono-phyly of either Eudaminae or Pyrginae in the new sense), can so drastically change a scheme based on molecules only. Apparently,
morphological and molecular characters are each and in combi-nation too weak to lead to a robust scheme of relationships, and new characters may easily lead to changes in the tree presented by Warren et al. (2009). This said, the latter tree is the best we have so far.