Skip to main content

Full text of "Cophylogenetic relationships between Anicetus parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and their scale insect hosts (Hemiptera: Coccidae)."

See other formats

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

Evolutionary Biology 


Cophylogenetic relationships between Anicetus 
parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and their 
scale insect hosts (Hemiptera: Coccidae) 

Jun Deng 1,2 , Fang Yu 1 , Hai-Bin Li 1,2 , Marco Gebiola 3,4 , Yves Desdevises 5,6 , San-An Wu 2 * and Yan-Zhou Zhang 1 " 


Background: Numerous studies have investigated cospeciation between parasites and their hosts, but there have 
been few studies concerning parasitoids and insect hosts. The high diversity and host specialization observed in 
Anicetus species suggest that speciation and adaptive radiation might take place with species diversification in scale 
insect hosts. Here we examined the evolutionary history of the association between Anicetus species and their scale 
insect hosts via distance-based and tree-based methods. 

Results: A total of 94 Anicetus individuals (nine parasitoid species) and 1 13 scale insect individuals (seven host 
species) from 14 provinces in China were collected in the present study. DNA sequence data from a mitochondrial 
gene (COI) and a nuclear ribosomal gene (28S D2 region) were used to reconstruct the phylogenies of Anicetus 
species and their hosts. The distance-based analysis showed a significant fit between Anicetus species and their 
hosts, but tree-based analyses suggested that this significant signal could be observed only when the cost of 
host-switching was high, indicating the presence of parasite sorting on related host species. 

Conclusions: This study, based on extensive rearing of parasitoids and species identification, provides strong 
evidence for a prevalence of sorting events and high host specificity in the genus Anicetus, offering insights into 
the diversification process of Anicetus species parasitizing scale insects. 

Keywords: Host-parasitoid interactions, Sorting, Speciation, COI, 28S-D2 


The study of the evolution of host-parasite associations 
has a long history, with the first paper published a cen- 
tury ago [1-6]. Since then, numerous host-symbiont sys- 
tems have been observed and several analytical methods 
proposed. When the host and parasite phylogenetic trees 
are the same, that is when visual inspection show that 
the two trees precisely match, with hosts and corres- 
ponding parasites at the same positions, a cospeciation 
pattern can be directly inferred. In other situations, the 
reconstruction of a hypothetical revolutionary scenario 
is not straightforward, as it can involve different events 
including cospeciation, duplication, lineage sorting and 

* Correspondence:; 

2 Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, 

Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China 

Vey Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of 

Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China 

Full list of author information is available at the end of the article 

host-switching [7]. In such cases, a rigorous and specific 
method must be used to differentiate cospeciation from 
a number of potential scenarios. 

In the last two decades, several methods were devel- 
oped to assess the level of cospeciation in symbiotic as- 
sociations [8], and the availability of programs such as 
TreeMap [9], TreeFitter [10,11] and ParaFit [12] has led 
to an increased level of accuracy in host-parasite cospe- 
ciation studies [13-15]. These software search for an op- 
timal evolutionary scenario for the association between 
hosts and their symbionts (for example, parasites). Pre- 
vious work has investigated cospeciation between para- 
sites and their hosts, such as lice and mammals [16-21], 
plants and insects [22-25], plants and fungi [26], fish 
and Platyhelminthes [7,27,28], and animals and viruses 
[29,30]. However, cophylogeny between parasitoids and 
their insect hosts has been rarely investigated, with the 
few previous studies focusing on Lepidoptera-parasitoids 
systems [31,32]. 

O© 2013 Deng et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative 
BiolVlGCl C6ntTcll Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and 
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication 
waiver (http://creativecommons.Org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 
http://www.biomedcentral.eom/1 471 -21 48/1 3/275 

Page 2 of 1 1 

Almost every plant-feeding insect species is attacked 
by at least one parasitoid species [33] and even without 
strict host specificity, there are at least as many (and 
possibly more) parasites than free-living species. Among 
Hymenopteran parasitoids, Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera: 
Chalcidoidea) is an economically important group of 
nearly 4000 species of natural enemies of Lepidoptera, 
scale insects and other insect orders [34]. The genus 
Anicetus Howard is well known for its important eco- 
nomic significance. Several Anicetus species, such as A. 
beneficus Ishii & Yasumatsu, are frequently used as bio- 
logical control agents of wax and soft scales of the genus 
Ceroplastes Gray (Homoptera: Coccidae), which are sig- 
nificant pests of important agricultural crops [35-37]. 
However, due to their small size and frequent lack of 
distinct morphological characters, the accurate identi- 
fication of wax scales and parasitoids is still a great 
challenge for taxonomists. The study of cophylogenetic 
patterns between species of Anicetus and Ceroplastes is 
therefore difficult, however, it is also crucial for a better 
understanding of speciation and diversification processes 
in this parasitoid genus. Two recent DNA barcoding 
studies of Anicetus and their wax scale hosts were used 
as a taxonomic reference for the present study [38,39]. 

Several recent DNA-based studies strongly suggest 
that morphologically similar lineages traditionally con- 
sidered as single species are instead genetically isolated, 
and in many cases host-specific [40-43]. Koinobiont pa- 
rasitic Hymenoptera, in particular, display an intricate 
physiological relationship with their hosts and conse- 
quently tend to have relatively narrow host ranges [44]. 
The degree of host specificity of Encyrtidae is variable. 
For example, Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope and Leptomas- 
tix dactylopii Howard are two parasitoids of mealybug 
species; the former is highly host specific, whereas the 
latter displays a wider host range, having been recorded 
from more than 20 host species [45]. Some Encyrtidae 
species such as Copidosoma floridanum (Ashmead) [46] 
exclusively parasitize a given host family or subfamily, 
while other Copidosoma species have a wider host range 
and attack different families of Lepidoptera [47]. High 
host specificity has been reported in Comperia merceti 
(Compere) [48], Gyranusoidea tebygi Noyes [49,50], and 
more recently in Encyrtus sasakii [51]. Zhang et al. [38] 
recently showed that host specificity tends to be strict in 
the Anicetus group, where species are usually restricted 
to one host species. Furthermore, Anicetus species have 
a low mobility and individuals that leave the host die 
within a few hours or days, hence they are totally reliant 
upon their hosts for survival. This makes the genus Ani- 
cetus a good candidate for evolution via cospeciation 
with their insect hosts. 

The nine Anicetus species used for this study exhibit 
narrow host ranges and only parasitize wax scales. A 

large number of Ceroplastes individuals were collected 
throughout China (see Materials and methods). The 
aims of this study were to reconstruct molecular phylo- 
genies for wax scale insects and their Anicetus parasi- 
toids, and to assess the degree of cospeciation in this 
host-parasitoid association in order to better understand 
the drivers of species diversification in this group of 


Phylogenetic analyses 

The partition homogeneity test indicated that the COI 
and 28S datasets did not display any significant signal of 
heterogeneity (P = 0.35 for host dataset and P = 0.66 for 
parasitoids dataset). This test compared the summed 
lengths of most-parsimonious trees computed from each 
dataset (i.e. gene) to the lengths of trees generated from 
random partitions of the combined sequences of both 
genes [52], and calculated the probability of obtaining a 
random tree similar or shorter to the length of observed 
summed tree. The two datasets were then combined 
for subsequent phylogenetic analysis. In the host tree, 
Parasaissetia sp. was strongly supported as basal clade 
and Pulvinaria aurantii was sister group to the clade of 
all Ceroplastes species, which was strongly supported 
(Figure 1). For parasitoids, most Anicetus species were 
strongly supported except for two groups of A. benifi- 
cus and A. rubensi individuals (PP = 0.58) (Figure 2). 
These two species are morphologically very similar, 
reflecting the taxonomic uncertainty at this level. 

The parasite and host phylogenies built from consen- 
sus sequences were used to assess their phylogenetic 
congruence (Figure 3). These trees, using consensus se- 
quences, were identical to previous phylogenies (Figure 1, 
Figure 2). Furthermore, not all parasitoids from the same 
host clustered in the same clade, for example, A. dodo- 
nia Ferriere and A. aligarhensis Hayat, Alam & Agarval 
clustered together even though they use different hosts. 

Topology-based analyses: Treemap 3.0P and Jane 4 

The tanglegram built from the phylogenetic trees and in- 
dividual associations between Anicetus species and their 
scale insect hosts (Figure 3) suggested that the trees did 
not perfectly match. We then used Treemap 3.0p that 
generated 64 optimal solutions to reconcile the two trees 
with the lowest number of revolutionary events consid- 
ering their costs (Figure 4), none of which indicated sig- 
nificant congruence. We used different cost sets for each 
of these coevolutionary events to produce different re- 
sults in Jane 4 (Table 1). In both methods, each event is 
given a cost inversely related to the likelihood of that 
event [53], and a global cost is computed by summing 
the costs of all events needed to fit the parasitoid tree 
onto the host tree (i.e. tree reconciliation). A significant 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

Page 3 of 1 1 

S3 523d 

Acanthococcus sp. 

| Parasaissetia sp. 

4 l2"i6ib | Pulvinaria a in until 


S2 161b 



C. rubens var 

C. rubens 

C. ceriferus 

C. japonicus 


Figure 1 Bayesian trees of scale insect species based on combined COI and 28S data. Support values (posterior probabilities) are provided 
for each node. 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

Page 4 of 1 1 

IsS | Eusemion sp. 

, ■ 08-07a 
1 I 08-07b 


A. sp2 



07- 96d 

08- 28a 
07-961 b 

07- 962b 

08- 53a 


10- 084f 

11 - 025a 
,11 -025b 


07- 97b 

08- 30a 
10-1 15a 
10-1 14a 
10-1 14b 
07-971 a 
07-971 b 
07-971 c 

07- 971 d 

08- 24a 

10-1 12a 
10-1 12b 


A. benificus & A. beniflcus var 

A. rubensi 

A. ceroplastis 

A. dodina 


I | 08-27a 
1 | 08-27b 


07-01 a 
07-01 b 
07-01 c 
07-01 d 
07-01 e 

07- 01 f 

08- 31 a 
08-31 b 
10-1 13a 

10- 1 13b 

11 - 030a 
11 -030b 
11 -030c 

A. aligarhensis 


A. spl 


Figure 2 Bayesian trees of Anicetus species based on combined COI and 28S data. Support values (posterior probabilities) are provided for 
each node. 

global cost (P = 0.004) was only observed in Jane with 
the TreeFitter default cost model, that is 5 for cospecia- 
tion, 4 for duplication, 0 for host-switch, 7 for loss and 0 
for failure to diverge. Setting the costs of host-switch to 
high values in the TreeFitter default model caused the 
overall fit to become significant, suggesting that host- 
switch is rare in this host-parasitoid system. Meanwhile, 
a large number of sorting events (7) were found with 
the TreeFitter default model, in contrast to 0-1 sorting 
events with the other models. In addition, we compared 
the patristic distances (phylogenetic divergence) between 

parasitoid and hosts in copaths using TreeMap (Figure 5), 
to assess whether branch lengths are correlated in cospe- 
ciating hosts and parasitoids (corresponding branches in 
the two trees are called "copaths"). A strong positive cor- 
relation would support cospeciation, and in this case the 
slope of the linear relationship indicated the relative evo- 
lutionary rates in hosts and parasitoids because the same 
genes were used to build the phylogenies. The branch 
length randomization test suggested a strong significant 
correlation between copaths (r = 0.8145), supporting the 
hypothesis that cospeciation has occurred in this host- 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

Page 5 of 1 1 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

Page 6 of 1 1 

Table 1 Results of cophylogenetic analyses with Jane for Anicetus and their hosts 



i otai 





to diverge 


Jane default model 









TreeMap default model 









TreeFitter default model 









Host switch-adjusted TreeFitter model 









Codivergence adjusted TreeFitter model 


















Asterisks indicate significance at the 1% level. Columns indicate the number of each event type necessary to reconcile host and parasite trees under different 
event cost schemes. Event costs are for cospeciation, duplication, host switching, sorting event, and failure to diverge, respectively. P-values were computed from 
999 random reconstructions. 

parasitoid association. The slope of the linear relationship 
using the reduced major axis method was 3.6, suggesting 
that Anicetus species have evolved more rapidly than their 
scale insect hosts. This result is consistent with previ- 
ous results obtained for Achrysocharoides (Hymenoptera: 
Eulophidae) [32]. 

Distance-based analysis: ParaFit 

We used ParaFit to compare patristic distance between 
hosts and their corresponding parasitoids, to test the 
global fit between the two trees. In addition the method 
assesses if each individual host-parasitoid association 
(link) significantly contributes to the global fit, to evalu- 
ate which ones have a structuring effect. The global test 
indicated a significant congruence between Anicetus and 
scale insect trees (P = 0.01602). However, the test of indi- 
vidual links showed that not all host-parasite associa- 
tions significantly contributed to this global fit: 4 out of 
10 individual links were significant (Eusemion sp.-Acan- 
thococcus sp., A. ohgushii-C. japonicus, A dodina-C. ceri- 
ferus and A. aligarhensis-C. japonicus), suggesting their 
structuring role in the global congruence. 

c ^ 

















0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 


Figure 5 Relationship between patristic distances of copaths 

for Anicetus species and their scale insect hosts. 

\ J 


A cophylogenetic signal is weak or absent in most host- 
parasite associations that have been studied to date 
[54-56]. However, significant cospeciation has been in- 
ferred in systems where host-switching is prevented by 
the asocial lifestyle of the host and the low mobility of 
the parasite. Examples include rodent-lice associations 
[6,18] and insect- symbiont systems where bacteria, nee- 
ded for reproduction, are transmitted maternally [57,58]. 
The present study can be added to these few examples of 
extensive cospeciation, supported using various methods. 

This study is the first to thoroughly investigate the 
cophylogenetic interactions between Anicetus and their 
scale insect hosts, and suggests the ubiquity of sorting 
events coupled with strong host specificity in the genus 
Anicetus. Nine genetically distinct species were clearly 
delineated in the phylogenic tree based on combined 
molecular data (28S-D2 and COI). Anicetus benificus, A. 
benificus_var and A. rubensU all parasitoids of C. rubens, 
were found grouped in the phylogeny, which is congru- 
ent with the current taxonomy (Figure 2). Furthermore, 
morphological data confirmed this pattern, for example, 
the antennal clava and ovipositor of these three species 
are similar to each other [59]. However, not all Anicetus 
species from the same host were found to cluster in the 
phylogenetic tree: A. aligarhensis and A. dodonia, from 
two different hosts, appeared to cluster together as sister 
species with a high posterior probability value. The pres- 
ence of host-switching (one daughter parasitoid lineage 
shifting to a distant host) or sorting events (when the 
parasitoid is absent, for example, has become extinct, 
in one of the daughter host lineages) may explain this 

The distance-based analysis showed a strong cophylo- 
genetic signal between Anicetus species and their scale 
insect hosts. However, tree-based analyses suggested that 
this signal is significant only when the cost of host- 
switching is high. In addition, a sharp increase in the 
number of sorting events was found using the TreeFitter 
cost model, suggesting that sorting has been an important 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

Page 7 of 1 1 

component of Anicetus diversification. Paterson et al [14] 
have suggested that three processes can lead to the ab- 
sence of parasites from their hosts: sampling error, pa- 
rasite extinction and the patchy distribution of parasites 
(resulting in the so-called "missing the boat" process). We 
believe that our sampling was dense enough to strongly 
reduce, if not eliminate, sampling error. Our observations 
suggest that parasitism rates even within one species are 
not stable and low rates are often found in some locations. 
Chantos et al. [60] observed that the encyrtid wasp Neo- 
dusmetia sangwani (Subba Rao) exhibits a patchy geo- 
graphic distribution. Our investigations showed that most 
Ceroplastes species only carried up to three Anicetus indi- 
viduals and that a patchy distribution of Anicetus species 
may be very common in wax scales. Therefore, Anicetus 
species may have been absent from the host founder 
population because of a patchy distribution and the small 
size of the host population when speciation took place, 
leading to a sorting event via a "missing the boat" process. 
In addition, host specific parasites are likely to possess 
fewer populations than multi-host parasites [56]. These 
observations support the conclusion that some parasites 
in this study may have gone extinct from a host lineage 
after a host speciation event. 

In the present study, we observed that Anicetus species 
only attacked and parasitized single host species. This is 
coherent with the hypothesis that the evolution of ob- 
ligate parasites (or parasitoids) with limited ability to 
transfer between different host species is tightly linked 
to the evolution of their own host species [61]. However, 
the congruence of host-parasite phylogenies is not per- 
fect, which can be explained by a mix of revolutionary 
events such as host switching, parasite speciation with- 
out host speciation (duplication), parasite extinction, 
and non-colonization of all host lineages [62]. A previ- 
ous study suggested that Anicetus species is adapted to 
narrow niches or restricted to particular hosts. Speci- 
fically, A. ceroplastis, A. beneficus, A. rubensi and A. ali- 
garhensis develop on the same host {Ceroplastes spp.), 
and thus far they have not been reared from other hosts 
across China [38]. After investigating a high number of 
samples from different provinces, we found that these 
species and others display strict host specificity (Table 2). 
For example, A. spl and A. sp2 were observed to only 
attack Pulvinaria aurantii and Parasaissetia sp., respect- 
ively. This host specificity is not congruent with former 
multi-host records of the genus Anicetus observed in 
previous studies [63-65], which could be explained by 
the extensive examination carried out in the present 
study, coupled with the use of molecular data. 

Many studies have supported the hypothesis that koi- 
nobionts are more host-specific than idiobionts [66-68], 
and a high degree of host specificity is relatively com- 
mon among parasitic Hymenoptera [43,51,69]. Traditional 

Table 2 A detailed description of host specificity of each 
Anicetus species 

Anicetus species 




Eusemion sp. 

Guangxi, baise 

Aconthococcus sp. 

A sp2 

Fujian, Nanjing 

Porosoissetio sp. 


A spl 


pulvinorio ourontii 


A oligorhensis 

Shanxi, Taiyuan 

C. joponicus 

A. oligorhensis 

Hubei, Jingzhou 

C. joponicus 


A. oligorhensis 

Hubei, Xiangyang 

C. joponicus 


A. ohgushii 

Zhejiang, Yuyao 

C. joponicus 


A. dodonio 

Anhui, Wuhu 

C. ceriferus 

A. ceroplostis 


C. ceriferus 


A. rubensi 


C. rubens 

1 1 .v.2008 

A. rubensi 

Jiangxi, Yichun 

C. rubens 


A. rubensi 

Jiangxi, Xinyu 

C. rubens 


A. rubensi 

Hunan, Changsha 

C. rubens 


A. beneficus 


C. rubens 

1 1 .v.2008 

A. beneficus 

Jiangxi, Yichun 

C. rubens 


A. beneficus 


C. rubens 


A. beneficus 

Sichuan, Chengdu 

C. rubens 


A. beneficus 


C. rubens 


A. beneficus 


C. rubens 


A. beneficus 

Anhui, HeFei 

C. rubens 

20.V.201 1 

A. beneficus 

Jiangxi, Xinyu 

C. rubens 


A. beneficus 

Jiangsu, Nanjing 

C. rubens 


A. beneficus vor 

Yunnan, Kunming 

C. rubens 


species of parasitoid wasps that use many different hosts 
for their larvae can be complexes of cryptic taxa, each of 
them adapted to use only a few hosts [69]. An increasing 
number of studies using molecular data suggest that spe- 
cies traditionally considered generalists are in fact com- 
plexes of cryptic taxa, each of them adapted to narrow 
niches [38,40,42,70]. To avoid such problematic species 
identification leading to biased patterns of host specificity, 
taxonomic issues such as careful species discrimination 
and recognition of cryptic taxa must be carefully ad- 
dressed before conducting cophylogenetic studies. 


In this study, we carefully assessed the identity of Anicetus 
species parasitizing wax scales and verified the taxonomic 
status of their hosts using laboratory rearing. Through the 
distance-based analysis (ParaFit) and the topology-based 
analyses (TreeMap 3.0|3 And Jane 4), we presented strong 
evidence for a prevalence of sorting events and high host 
specificity in the genus Anicetus, offering insights into the 
diversification process of Anicetus species parasitizing 
scale insects. Our study emphasizes that extensive rearing 
of parasitoids and accurate identification are important for 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 
http://www.biomedcentral.eom/1 471 -21 48/1 3/275 

Page 8 of 1 1 

investigating coevolutionary relationships in host-parasi- 
toid associations. 



All species of Anicetus were reared from adults or late- 
stage nymphs of wax scale insects (Ceroplastes spp.) col- 
lected in the field from 14 provinces in China. Different 
Ceroplastes species present on the same twig or leaf 
were isolated and kept individually in glass vials for at 
least 2 months to allow parasitoids to emerge. The col- 
lected parasitoids were stored in 95% ethanol for taxo- 
nomic identification and molecular study. Parasitoids 
were identified by author ZYZ and Ceroplastes hosts by 
author SAW. In total, we collected seven out of twelve 
Anicetus species known from China [34] and two other 
species tentatively named as Anicetus spl (reared form 
Pulvinaria aurantii) and Anicetus sp2 (reared from 
Parasaissetia sp.). Although we have collected six out of 
ten Ceroplastes species known in China [39], Anicetus 
species were reared from three of them (see Additional 
file 1 and Additional file 2). Voucher specimens were de- 
posited at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of 
Sciences, Beijing. 

DNA extraction, amplification and sequencing 

Total DNA was extracted from individuals preserved in 
95% ethanol using DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen), 
following the manufacturer s protocol. Protocols for PCR 
amplification of COI and 28S followed Zhang et al. [38] 
for parasitoids and Deng et al. [39] for scale insects. 
Products were visualized on 1% agarose and the most 
intense products were sequenced bidirectionally using 
BigDye v3.1 on an ABI3730xl DNA Analyzer (Applied 
Biosystems). GenBank accession numbers are given in 
Additional file 1 and Additional file 2. 

Phylogenetic reconstruction 

Sequences of COI and 28S were aligned using Clustal W 
1.8.3 [71] as implemented in BioEdit 7.0.5 [72]. Some se- 
quences of hosts and parasitoids were retrieved from 
previous studies [38,39]. Several samples collected from 
other cities in China (see electronic supplementary ma- 
terial, Additional file 1 and Additional file 2) were added 
to our data. A total of 94 Anicetus individuals (nine pa- 
rasitoid species) and 113 scale insect individuals (seven 
host species) were used in the present study. To confirm 
that sequence data could be concatenated, the homogen- 
eity of the COI and 28S data sets was assessed using a 
partition homogeneity test (100 replicates) [73] as im- 
plemented in the program PAUP* 4.0bl0 [74]. We esti- 
mated the DNA sequence evolution model that best fit 
the data using jModelTest 0.1.1. [75], applying the Akaike 
Information Criterion (AIC). For the COI data, we used 

a codon model (nucmodel = codon, code = metmt in 
MrBayes, see below). For the 28S data, the selected 
models for hosts and parasitoids were HKY + G and 
GTR + G, respectively. Bayesian analyses (BA) of com- 
bined data sets were performed with MrBayes 3.2 [76] 
with these evolutionary models assigned separately to the 
respective partitions. A Markov chain Monte Carlo search 
was run with four chains of 10,000,000 generations sam- 
pled once every 100 generations. A plot of number of gen- 
erations versus the log probability was used to check for 
stationarity, and posterior probability values (PP) were cal- 
culated after the first 25% of trees were discarded. To test 
the convergence of chains and assess stationarity of BA 
parameter values, the effective sample sizes (ESS) of all 
parameters were calculated using Tracer 1.5 [77]. Analyses 
of these parameters in Tracer 1.5 shown that most ESS 
values were exceeding 500, indicating strong equilibrium 
after discarding burn-in. Eusemion sp. (Hymenoptera: 
Encyrtidae) was chosen as an outgroup of Anicetus para- 
stoids and Acanthococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Eriococcidae) as 
an outgroup of coccids. 

Cophylogenetic analyses 

Seven host species and nine Anicetus species were used 
for cophylogenetic analyses. Consensus sequences of COI 
and 28S were created by collapsing all sequences from the 
same species using BioEdit 7.0.5, and used in the analysis 
of the congruence of parasite and host phylogenies. Sev- 
eral methods using TreeMap [9,78], TreeFitter [11], Jane 4 
[79] and ParaFit [12], are available to study the congru- 
ence between symbiont and host phylogenies. In the 
present study, three methods were used: a distance-based 
method called ParaFit implemented in CopyCat [80] and 
topology (or tree) -based methods implemented in Jane 4 
and TreeMap 3 (developed by Mike Charleston and avail- 
able at 

TreeMap is a popular topology-based program that 
reconciles two trees using four types of events (cospecia- 
tion (C), host-switching (H), duplication (D), and sorting 
(S)) to graphically depict the differences between the phy- 
logenies [9,81]. In our study, TreeMap 3.0|3 was used to 
reconstruct the tanglegram and assess the congruence 
between parasite and host phylogenies (including out- 
groups). We also computed the correlation between evo- 
lutionary divergences in previously identified cospeciating 
pairs ("copaths") in TreeMap to test whether parasitoids 
evolve faster than their hosts [9]. As the same genes were 
used to build host and parasite trees, the slope of the lin- 
ear relationship between corresponding divergences re- 
flect their relative evolutionary rates. 

Jane 4 uses a polynomial time dynamic programming 
algorithm in conjunction with a genetic algorithm to 
compare the two tree topologies by optimally mapping 
the parasite tree onto the host tree using different event 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 
http://www.biomedcentral.eom/1 471 -21 48/1 3/275 

Page 9 of 1 1 

costs to find very good, and often optimal, solutions to 
reconcile the two phylogenetic trees [79,82]. We used 
Jane 4 with 100 generations and a population size of 200 
as parameters of the genetic algorithm. Six different cost 
models were used to find the minimum total cost (see 
Table 1). All models were tested using random tip 
mappings with 100 randomizations. Jane 4 can handle 
polytomies, considered as soft polytomies, which are 
resolved in order to minimize the global cost. We se- 
lected the option "Prevent mid-polytomy" to ensure 
that no revolutionary event was involved in the (very 
short) branches created to resolve polytomies. 

ParaFit is not dependent on fully resolved phylogenies 
and uses matrices of phylogenetic distances for both 
hosts and parasites [12]. Three types of information are 
used to describe the situation in matrix form: a matrix 
of phylogenetic distances among parasites, a matrix of 
phylogenetic distances among hosts, and a matrix of the 
observed host-parasite associations. All of the combined 
consensus data of parasitoids and hosts were used to sta- 
tistically assess the global fit between trees and the sig- 
nificance of the contribution of each individual link 
between taxa to this global congruence. Tests of signifi- 
cance were performed using 999 permutations. 

Availability of supporting data 

GenBank accession numbers are provided in Additional 
file 1: Table SI and Additional file 2: Table S2). The se- 
quence alignments for tree construction have been de- 
posited in the TreeBASE with accession URL (http:// 

Additional files 

Competing interests 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Authors' contributions 

JD, FY and YZZ assembled all of the sequences. JD, FY, HBL, MG, YD and YZZ 
performed data analyses. JD, MG, YD, SAW and YZZ wrote the manuscript. 
All of the authors read and approved the final manuscript. 


We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, to Bodil 
Cass for kindly revising the English language, and to the following people 
who helped us to collect Ceroplastes samples: Guo-Hua Huang (Hunan 

Agricultural University, Changsha), Shao-Bin Huang (Guangdong Forestry Vo- 
cational Technology College, Guangzhou), Jian-qin Wu (The Administrative 
Bureau of Tianbaoyan National Nature 

Reserve of Yong'an, Yong'an), Kai-Ju Wei (Youxi No.1 Middle School of Fujian 
Province, Youxi), Hong-Liang Li (Institute for Nutritional Sciences, SIBS, 
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai), Hu Li (Guizhou University, Guiyang), 
Xian Li (Forestry Protection Station of Chengdu, Sichuan), Qiang Shen (Forestry 
Protection Station of Yuyao, Ningbo), Xiu-Hao Yang (Forestry Protection Station 
of Guangxi, Nanning), Ying-Jie Zhang (Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming), 
Nan Nan and Xu-Bo Wang (Beijing Forestry University, Beijing), Ying Wang 
(Northeast Forestry University, Harbin). The project was supported by the 
Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant no. 31272350, 31372151), the 
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (BLYJ201 305), 
the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KSCX2-YW-NF-02) and in part by the 
Department of Science and Technology of China (2012FY1 1 1 100). 

Author details 

] Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of 
Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China. 2 Key 
Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing 
Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China. 3 CNR - Istituto per la Protezione 
delle Piante, UOS di Portici, Via Universita 133, 80055 Portici (NA), Italy, 
department of Entomology, The University of Arizona, 410 Forbes Building, 
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. 5 Sorbonne Universites, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 
7232, Integrative Biology of Marine Organisms, Observatoire Oceanologique, 
F-66650 Banyuls/Mer, France. 6 CNRS, UMR 7232, Integrative Biology of Marine 
Organisms, Observatoire Oceanologique, F-66650 Banyuls/Mer, France. 

Received: 25 September 2013 Accepted: 18 December 2013 
Published: 23 December 2013 


1. Kellogg VL: Distribution and species-forming of ecto-parasites. Am Not 

1913, 47:129-158. 

2. Brooks DR: Testing the context and extent of host-parasite coevolution. 

Syst Biol 1979, 28(3):299-307. 

3. Brooks DR: Hennig's parasitological method: A proposed solution. Syst 
Biol 1981, 30(3):229-249. 

4. Brooks DR, Glen DR: Pinworms and primates: a case study in coevolution. 
Proc Helminthol Soc Washington 1 982, 49:76-85. 

5. Cressey R, Collette B, Russo J: Copepods and scombrid fishes: A study in host- 
parasite relationships. National Marine Fisheries Service: Fishery bulletin 
United States; 1983:81. 

6. Hafner MS, Nadler SA: Phylogenetic trees support the coevolution of 
parasites and their hosts. Nature 1988, 332:258-259. 

7. Desdevises Y, Morand S, Jousson 0, Legendre P: Coevolution between 
Lomellodiscus (Monogenea: Diplectanidae) and Sparidae (Teleostei): 
the study of a complex host-parasite system. Evolution 2002, 

8. Light JE, Hafner MS: Codivergence in heteromyid rodents (Rodentia: 
Heteromyidae) and their sucking lice of the genus Fahrenholzia 
(Phthiraptera: Anoplura). Syst Biol 2008, 57(3):449-465. 

9. Page RD: TreeMap 1.0. Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology 
Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow; 

10. Ronquist F: Reconstructing the history of host-parasite associations using 
generalised parsimony. Cladistics 1995, 11(1):73-89. 

1 1 . Ronquist F: TreeFitter 1.0. Computer program distributed by the author. 
Uppsala: Uppsala University; 2000. 

12. Legendre P, Desdevises Y, Bazin E: A statistical test for host-parasite 
coevolution. Syst Biol 2002, 51 (2):2 17-234. 

13. Boeger WA, Kritsky DC: Coevolution of the Monogenoidea 
(Platyhelminthes) based on a revised hypothesis of parasite phylogeny. 
Int J Parasitol 1997, 27(1 2):1 495-1 5 1 1. 

14. Paterson AM, Palma RL, Gray RD: How frequently do avian lice miss 
the boat? Implications for coevolutionary studies. Syst Biol 1999, 
48(1 ):21 4-223. 

15. Johnson KP, Clayton DH: Coevolutionary history of ecological replicates: 
comparing phylogenies of wing and body lice to Columbiform hosts. 

In Tangled Trees: phylogeny, cospeciation and coevolution. Chicago: University 
of Chicago press: Page RDM; 2003:262-286. 

Additional file 1: Table SI. List of scale insect samples used for 
molecular work. (Collectors' names are abbreviated as follows: 
FPZ = Fang-Ping Zhang; GHH = Guo-Hua Huang; HBL = Hai-Bin Li; 
HLL = Hong-Liang Li; HL = Hu Li; JD = Jun Deng; JQW = Jian-Qin Wu; 
KJW = Kai-Ju Wei; NN = Nan Nan; QS = Qiang Shen; SAW = San-An Wu; 
SBH = Shao-Bin Huang; XHY = Xiu-Hao Yang; XL = Xian Li; YJZ = Ying-Jie 
Zhang; YW = Ying Wang; YZZ = Yan-Zhou Zhang; YQX = Yu-Qiang Xi). 

Additional file 2: Table S2. List of parasitoid samples used for 
molecular work. Specimens of parasitoids used in the study. (Collectors' 
names are abbreviated as follows: JD = Jun Deng; JL = John LaSalle; 
DYH = Dun-Yuan Huang; HLL = Hong-Liang Li; JL = Jie Li; SAW = San-An 
Wu; YZZ = Yan-Zhou Zhang). 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:275 

16. Demastes JW, Hafner MS: Cospeciation of pocket gophers (Geomys) and 
their chewing lice (Geomydoecus). J Mammal 1993, 74(3):521 -530. 

17. Hafner MS, Sudman PD, Villablanca FX, Spradling TA, Demastes JW, Nadler 
SA: Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and 
parasites. Science 1994, 265:1087-1090. 

18. Hafner MS, Page RD: Molecular phylogenies and host-parasite 
cospeciation: gophers and lice as a model system. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 
SerB 1995, 349(1 327):77-83. 

19. Paterson AM, Wallis GP, Wallis LJ, Gray RD: Seabird and louse coevolution: 
Complex histories revealed by 12S rRNA sequences and reconciliation 
analyses. Syst Biol 2000, 49(3):383-399. 

20. Banks JC, Paterson AM: Multi-host parasite species in cophylogenetic 
studies. Int J Parasitol 2005, 35(7):741 -746. 

21. Hughes J, Kennedy M, Johnson KP, Palma RL, Page RD: Multiple 
cophylogenetic analyses reveal frequent cospeciation between 
pelecaniform birds and Pectinopygus lice. Syst Biol 2007, 56(2):232-251. 

22. Itino T, Davies SJ, Tada H, Hieda Y, Inoguchi M, Itioka T, Yamane S, Inoue T: 
Cospeciation of ants and plants. Ecol Res 2001, 16(4):787-793. 

23. Lopez-Vaamonde C, Rasplus JY, Weiblen GD, Cook JM: Molecular 
phylogenies of fig wasps: partial cocladogenesis of pollinators and 
parasites. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2001, 21 (1):55-71. 

24. Ronquist F, Liljeblad J: Evolution of the gall wasp-host plant association. 
Evolution 2001, 55(12):2503-2522. 

25. Marussich WA, Machado CA: Host-specificity and coevolution among 
pollinating and nonpollinating new world fig wasps. Mol Ecol 2007, 
16(9):1 925-1 946. 

26. Hoist-Jensen A, Kohn L, Jakobsen K, Schumacher T: Molecular phylogeny 
and evolution of Monilinia (Sclerotiniaceae) based on coding and 
noncoding rDNA sequences. Am J Bot 1997, 84(5):686. 

27. Slmkova A, Morand S, Jobet E, Gelnar M, Verneau O: Molecular phylogeny 
of congeneric monogenean parasites {Dactylogyrus): a case of intrahost 
speciation. Evolution 2004, 58(5):1 001 -1 01 8. 

28. Huyse T, Volckaert FA: Comparing host and parasite phylogenies: 
Gyrodactylus flatworms jumping from goby to goby. Syst Biol 2005, 

29. Jackson AP, Charleston MA: A cophylogenetic perspective of RNA-virus 
evolution. Mol Biol Evol 2004, 21(1):45-57. 

30. Dimcheff DE, Drovetski SV, Krishnan M, Mindell DP: Cospeciation and 
horizontal transmission of avian sarcoma and leukosis virus gag genes 
in galliform birds. J Virol 2000, 74(9):3984-3995. 

31 . Althoff DM: A test of host-associated differentiation across the 'parasite 
continuum'in the tri-trophic interaction among yuccas, bogus yucca 
moths, and parasitoids. Mol Ecol 2008, 1 7(1 7):391 7-3927. 

32. Lopez-Vaamonde C, Godfray C, West SA, Hansson C, Cook JM: The 
evolution of host use and unusual reproductive strategies in 
Achrysocharoides parasitoid wasps. J Evol Biol 2005, 18:1029-1041. 

33. Godfray HCJ: Parasitoids: behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton 
University Press: Princeton; 1994. 

34. Noyes J: Universal chalcidoidea database. In World Wide Web electronic 
publication; 2013. (accessed October 2013). 

35. Smith D: Biological control of Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, by the 
introduced parasitoid Anicetus beneficus Ishii and Yasumatsu. Old J Agric 
AnimSci 1986, 43(2):1 01 -1 05. 

36. Kim H, Moon D, Park J, Lee S, Lippold P, Chang Y: Studies on integrated 
control of citrus pests. (2) Control of ruby scales (Ceroplastes rubens) on 
citrus by introduction of a parasitic natural enemy, Anicetus beneficus 
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Korean J Plant Protection 1979, 18:107-1 10. 

37. Krull S, Basedow T: Evaluation of the biological control of the pink wax 
scale Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Horn., Coccidae) with the introduced 
parasitoid Anicetus beneficus Ishii & Yasumatsu (Hym., Encyrtidae) 

in the Central province of Papua New Guinea. J Appl Entomol 2005, 

38. Zhang YZ, Si S, Zheng JT, Li HL, Fang Y, Zhu CD, Vogler AP: DNA barcoding 
of endoparasitoid wasps in the genus Anicetus reveals high levels 

of host specificity (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Biol Control 201 1, 

39. Deng J, Yu F, Zhang TX, Hu HY, Zhu CD, Wu SA, Zhang YZ: DNA barcoding 
of six Ceroplastes species (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) from China. 

Mol Ecol Resour 2012, 12(5)791-796. 

40. Herre EA: Barcoding helps biodiversity fly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 
103(1 1):3949-3950. 

Page 10 of 11 

41. Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PK, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK, Das 
I: Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol 
Evol 2007, 22(3):148-155. 

42. Smith MA, Wood DM, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, Hebert PD: DNA barcodes 
affirm that 16 species of apparently generalist tropical parasitoid flies 
(Diptera, Tachinidae) are not all generalists. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 

43. Gebiola M, Gomez-Zurita J, Monti M, Navone P, Bernardo U: Integration of 
molecular, ecological, morphological and endosymbiont data for species 
delimitation within the Pnigalio soemius complex (Hymenoptera: 
Eulophidae). Mol Ecol 201 2, 21 (5):1 1 90-1 208. 

44. Askew R, Shaw MR: Parasitoid communities: their size, structure and 
development. In Insect Parasitoids, 13th Symposium of Royal Entomological 
Society of London. Edited by Waage J, Greathead D. London: now Elsevier: 
Academic Press; 1986:225-264. 

45. Chong JH, Oetting RD: Specificity of Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope and 
Leptomastix dactylopii for six mealybug species. BioControl 2007, 

46. Noyes J: Copidosoma truncatellum (Dalman) and C. floridanum 
(Ashmead)(Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae), two frequently misidentified 
polyembryonic parasitoids of caterpillars (Lepidoptera). Syst Entomol 
1988, 13(2):1 97-204. 

47. Zolnerowich G: Systematics of the Copidosomatini: Polyembryonic Parasites 
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Texas A & M University: phD thesis; 1995. 

48. Gordh G: Biological investigations on Comperia merceti (Compere), an 
encyrtid parasite of the cockroach Supella longipalpa (Serville). 

J Entomol. (A) 1973, 47(2): 1 15-123. 

49. Willink E, Moore D: Aspects of the biology of Rastrococcus invadens 
Williams (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), a pest of fruit crops in West 
Africa, and one of its primary parasitoids, Gyranusoidea tebygi Noyes 
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Bull Ent Res 1988, 78:709-715. 

50. Narasimham A, Chacko M: Rastrococcus spp.(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 
and their natural enemies in India as potential biocontrol agents for R. 
invadens Williams. Bull Entomol Res 1988, 78(04)703-708. 

51. Chesters D, Wang Y, Yu F, Bai M, Zhang TX, Hu HY, Zhu CD, Zhang YZ: 
The integrative taxonomic approach reveals host specific species in 
an encyrtid parasitoid species complex. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(5):e37655. 

52. Jiggins FM, von Der Schulenburg JH, Hurst GD, Majerus ME: Recombination 
confounds interpretations of Wolbachia evolution. Proc Biol Sci 2001, 

53. Ronquist F: Phylogenetic approaches in coevolution and biogeography. 
Zool Scr 1997, 26(4):3 13-322. 

54. Johnson PT, Lunde KB, Thurman EM, Ritchie EG, Wray SN, Sutherland DR, 
Kapfer JM, Frest TJ, Bowerman J, Blaustein AR: Parasite (Ribeiroia ondatrae) 
infection linked to amphibian malformations in the western United 
States. Ecol Monogr 2002, 72(2): 1 51-1 68. 

55. Weckstein JD: Biogeography explains cophylogenetic patterns in toucan 
chewing lice. Syst Biol 2004, 53(1 ):1 54-1 64. 

56. Banks J, Palma R, Paterson A: Cophylogenetic relationships between 
penguins and their chewing lice. J Evol Biol 2005, 1 9(1 ):1 56—1 66. 

57. Clark MA, Moran NA, Baumann P, Wernegreen JJ: Cospeciation between 
bacterial endosymbionts (Buchnera) and a recent radiation of aphids 
(Uroleucon) and pitfalls of testing for phylogenetic congruence. Evolution 
2000, 54(2):5 17-525. 

58. Jousselin E, Desdevises Y, Coeur d'Acier A: Fine-scale cospeciation 
between Brachycaudus and Buchnera aphidicola: bacterial genome helps 
define species and evolutionary relationships in aphids. Proc R Soc Lond 
B-Biol Sci 2009, 276(1 654):1 87-1 96. 

59. Xu ZH, He JH: Two new species of the genus Anicetus from China 
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 1997, 1:021. 

60. Chantos JM, Vinson SB, Helms KR: Distribution and abundance of parasites 
of the rhodesgrass mealybug, Antonina graminis: reassessment of a 
classic example of biological control in the southeastern United States. 

J Insect Sci 2009, 9(48): 1-6. 

61 . Klassen GJ: Coevolution: a history of the macroevolutionary approach to 
studying host-parasite associations. J Parasitol 1992, 78(4):573-587. 

62. Page RD: Tangled trees: Phylogeny, cospeciation, and coevolution. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press; 2003. 

63. Subba Rao B, Hayat M: The Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India 
and the adjacent countries. Part II. A catalogue of Chalcidoidea of India 
and the adjacent countries. Orient Insects 1986, 20:1-430. 

Deng et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 201 3, 13:275 Page 11 of 1 1 

http://www.biomedcentral.eom/1 471 -21 48/1 3/275 

















Yang ZX, Ren YS: Studies on the different kinds of parasitic wasp of 

Ceroplastes rubens Mask, and C. japaonica Green and their killing effect 

on the pests. South China Fruits 1999, 28:16-18. 

Noyes JS, Hayat M: Oriental mealybug parasitoids of the Anagyrini 

(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Wallingford: Cab International; 1994. 

Sato H: Parasitoid complexes of lepidopteran leaf miners on oaks 

(Quercus dentata and Quercus mongolica) in Hokkaido. Japan. Ecol Res 

1990, 5(1):1-8. 

Sheehan W, Hawkins BA: Attack strategy as an indicator of host range in 
metopiine and pimpline ichneumonidae (hymenoptera). Ecol Entomol 

1991, 16(1):129-131. 

Memmott J, Godfray H, Gauld ID: The structure of a tropical host- 
parasitoid community. J Anim Ecol 1994, 63:521-540. 
Smith MA, Rodriguez JJ, Whitfield JB, Deans AR, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, 
Hebert PD: Extreme diversity of tropical parasitoid wasps exposed by 
iterative integration of natural history, DNA barcoding, morphology, and 
collections. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105(34):1 2359-1 2364. 
Dyer LA, Singer M, Lill J, Stireman J, Gentry G, Marquis RJ, Ricklefs RE, 
Greeney HF, Wagner DL, Morais H: Host specificity of Lepidoptera in 
tropical and temperate forests. Nature 2007, 448(71 54):696-699. 
Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: CLUSTAL W: improving the 
sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through 
sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix 
choice. Nucleic Acids Res 1994, 22(22):4673-4680. 
Hall TA: BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor 
and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl Acids Symp Ser 1999, 

Farris JS, Kallersjo M, Kluge AG, Bult C: Testing significance of 
incongruence. Cladistics 1995, 10:315-319. 

Swofford DL: PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other 
Methods). Version 4. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2003. 
Posada D: jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol 2008, 
25(7):1 253-1 256. 

Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP: MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference 

under mixed models. Bioinformatics 2003, 1 9(1 2):1 572-1 574. 
Rambaut A, Drummond AJ: Tracer v. 1.5; 2009. 
software/tracer/(accessed 14 October 2012). 

Charleston MA, Robertson DL: Preferential host switching by primate 
lentiviruses can account for phylogenetic similarity with the primate 
phylogeny. Syst Biol 2002, 51:528-535. 

Conow C, Fielder D, Ovadia Y, Libeskind-Hadas R: Jane: a new tool for the 
cophylogeny reconstruction problem. Algorithms Mol Biol 2010, 5(1):16. 
Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Huson DH, Goker M: CopyCat: cophylogenetic 
analysis tool. Bioinformatics 2007, 23(7):898-900. 

Page RD: Parallel phylogenies: reconstructing the history of host-parasite 
assemblages. Cladistics 1994, 10(2):155-173. 
Mendlova M, Desdevises Y, Civanova K, Pariselle A, Simkova A: 
Monogeneans of West African cichlid fish: evolution and cophylogenetic 
interactions. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(5):e37268. 

doi:1 0.1 1 86/1 471 -21 48-1 3-275 

Cite this article as: Deng et al.: Cophylogenetic relationships between 
Anicetus parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and their scale insect 
hosts (Hemiptera: Coccidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013 13:275. 

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central 
and take full advantage of: 

• Convenient online submission 

• Thorough peer review 

• No space constraints or color figure charges 

• Immediate publication on acceptance 

• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar 

• Research which is freely available for redistribution 

Submit your manuscript at 


BioMed Central