4.7 Article

Phylogenetic inference rejects sporophyte based classification of the Funariaceae (Bryophyta): Rapid radiation suggests rampant homoplasy in sporophyte evolution

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 130-145

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.010

Keywords

Data partitioning; Monophyly test; Conflict visualization; Funariaceae; Physcomitrella

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0919284]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology [0919284] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The moss family Funariaceae, which includes the model systems Funaria hygrometrica and Physcomitrella patens, comprises 15 genera, of which three accommodate approximately 95% of the 250-400 species. Generic concepts are drawn primarily from patterns in the diversity of morphological complexity of the sporophyte. Phylogenetic inferences from ten loci sampled across the three genomic compartments yield a hypothesis that is incompatible with the current circumscription of two of the speciose genera of the Funariaceae. The single clade, comprising exemplars of Funaria with a compound annulus, is congruent with the systematic concept proposed by Fife (1985). By contrast, Entosthodon and Physcomitrium are resolved as polyphyletic entities, and even the three species of Physcomitrella are confirmed to have diverged from distinct ancestors. Although the backbone relationships within the core clade of the Funariaceae remain unresolved, the polyphyly of these genera withstands alternative hypothesis testing. Consequently, the sporophytic characters that define these lineages are clearly homoplasious suggesting that selective pressures (or their relaxation) are in fact driving the diversification rather than the conservation of sporophytic architecture in the Funariaceae. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available