Abstract
The existing systematics of the Chondracanthidae is based predominantly on female characters and divides them into two subfamilies: Chondracanthinae and Lernentominae. Phylogenetic analyses using maximum parsimony were performed using 186 male and female characters. Different trees were generated when male and female characters were analysed separately. Differential weighting showed that the female characters were dominant but not to a great extent and subsequent analyses were run with both partitions combined. Different trees were generated depending on the character setting (unordered, ordered and irreversible‐up). Interestingly, a basal backbone comprising the same nine ingroup taxa was present in all of the trees, although the sequence of those taxa could differ. Constraining the two subfamilies to be monophyletic caused the tree length to be increased and the Templeton and Kishino–Hasegawa tests showed the constrained tree to be significantly different from the unconstrained. The two subfamilies are considered invalid and Lernentominae Oakley, 1927 is formally synonymized with Chondracanthinae Milne Edwards, 1840. The validity of the Pharodidae was tested similarly. Pharodes tortugensis , representing the family Pharodidae, was always recovered nested deep within Chondracanthidae. The Pharodidae Illg, 1948 is therefore synonymized with the Chondracanthidae Milne Edwards, 1840.