“…Traditional classifications, based on morphology and without a cladistic approach, are available for the Strongylida (Chabaud, 1974;Durette-Desset et al, 1994), and paleogeographical reconstructions have been proposed with great degrees of detail for the Trichostrongylina (Durette-Desset, 1985). Attempts to construct a phylogenetic classification of the group using cladistic methods have been, until now, limited to the subfamily Pudicinae (Durette-Desset and Justine, 1991), the family Trichostrongylidae (Hoberg and Lichtenfels, 1994), and the superfamily Trichostrongylidea (DuretteDesset et al, 1999). Molecular studies are numerous in this group (see review by Gasser and Newton, 2000), but have used mostly the ITS1 and ITS2 regions of rDNA, for diagnostic purposes (Audebert et al, 2000;Chilton et al, 1995Chilton et al, , 1998Conole et al, 1999;Dallas et al, 2000;Hoste et al, 1993Hoste et al, , 1995Hung et al, 1997;Leignel et al, 1997;Newton et al, 1998a;Stevenson et al, 1995Stevenson et al, , 1996Zarlenga et al, 1998), or the mtDNA for characterization of species (Hoberg et al, 1999), sometimes with phyloge-netic reconstructions Hung et al, 1996) limited to the intrageneric level.…”