S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 51. (Budapest, 1990)
14 . X One or two pairs of aggenital setae present X Three or more pairs of aggenital setae present 15. X Three pairs of anal setae present X Less or more than three pairs of anal setae present 16. X Three pairs of adanal setae present X Less or more than three pairs of adanal setae present 17. X Lyrifissures lad located anteriorly, near to setae a^ X Lyrifissures iad located posteriorly, far from setae a^ 18. + Legs tridactylous o Legs bi- or monodactylous XVI + Chaetotaxy of tarsus I of normal type o Chaetotaxy of tarsus I of reduced type, or neotrichy present XVII X Famulus coupled with solenidium it Famulus originating far from the solenidium XIX X Solenidia co lf and c0 2 of tarsus II with coupled setae X Solenidia t*3^ , and of tarsus II with out coupled setae XXI + Seta d on tibia IV long, not coupled with solenidium o Seta d on tibia IV reduced and coupled with solenidium XX + Genu IV with solenidium o Genu IV without solenidium XVIII + Trochanter of legs III and IV with 3 pairs of setae each o Trochanter of legs III and IV with less than 3 pairs of setae each V. CLUSTER ANALYSIS The analysis has been carried out in three variations: 1. all the accentuated features (having Roman numerals in the previous list) were regarded equal in rank (Fig. 3), 2. some particularly important features (I-VI) were singularly (Fig. 4) weighted, and finally 3. these latter were divided into two groups (I-III were double weighted, IV-VI were singularly weighted) were again weighted (Fig. 5). For computation of agglomerative cluster analysis we applied the programme package SYN-TAX III (Podani 1988). The squared Euclidean distance for binary data was used for distance function, and the group average fusion strategy was chosen for amalgamating of species. Fsom among the analyses, as it had been expected, the features regarded to be equal .in rank yielded no reliable starting point for building up the system. However, both the singularly and the further weighted analyses unequivocally brought forward such relationships which strongly approximated the presupposed system, at placed were identical with it. On the bases of the investigations carried out the system of the superfamily Euphthiracaroidea is as follows : VI. THE SYSTEM OF THE SUPERFAMILY EUPHTHIRACAROIDEA My previous taxonomic research suggests that Oribatids are split up into far too many taxa either on generic or family level. This is especially striking in the almost entirely artificial system called the "higher Oribatids" Euoribatida, where the number of supraspecific taxa proliferates in recentyears without bounds (Balogh, J. and Balogh, P. 1984 , Subias , J. and Balogh, P . 1990 ). I am quite aware of the fact, that as far as the binominal nomenclature and the traditional hierarchic taxonomy and systematics are regarded to be the bases for all sciences dealing with taxa (e.g. zoogeography, faunagenetics , cenology) then this artificial system should be used and continuously improved. But, obviously, this should not lead to raising difficulties in orientation, as it had been indicated by several authors (Trave 1978, Woas 1981, etc.), by simp-
