“…Since there is no single published phylogeny that encompasses the whole set of species used in this study, smaller subsets of taxonomic groups were chosen as follow: (1) Chrysomya species, compared with the work of , who recovered three clades in their analyses-[clade I] C. semimetallica and C. latifrons; [clade II] C. bezziana, C. pinguis and C. megacephala; and [clade III] C. putoria, C. nigripes, C. varipes, C. flavifrons, C. incisuralis, C. albiceps and C. rufifacies; (2) Lucilia species, compared with different previously published works (Kurahashi 1966;Shepard 1971;Brown 1979;Stevens andWall 1996, 1997;, with most of them supporting separate clades for (L. cuprina, L. sericata), formerly placed in the Phaenicia genus, and (L. eximia, L. bazini, L. ampullacea, L. porphyrina, L. caesar, L. ilustris); (3) Chrysomyinae genera, compared with the work of , which supports the relationships (Chrysomya, (Phormia, Protophormia)) and (Cochliomyia, (Chloroprocta, Hemilucilia)); and (4) Calliphoridae subfamilies, for which the relationship (Chrysomyinae, (Calliphorinae, Luciliinae)) is supported by the molecular analyses of Kutty et al (2010) and also by more traditional classifications based on morphological characters (Shewell 1987, McAlpine 1989-both recognizing the tribe Luciliini inside the subfamily Calliphorinae). Other topologies used in the comparisons were based on Wallman and Donnellan (2001); Wells and Sperling (2001); Stevens and Wall (2001); Otranto and Stevens (2002); Stevens (2003); Chen et al (2004); ; ; Wells and Williams (2007) and Nelson et al (2007).…”