4.1 Article

Molecular phylogeny and systematics of the tribe Chorisporeae (Brassicaceae)

Journal

PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 294, Issue 1-2, Pages 65-86

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00606-011-0452-0

Keywords

Brassicaceae; Chorisporeae; Generic delimitation; Phylogeny; Parrya

Funding

  1. Grant Agency of the Czech Academy of Science [IAA601630902]
  2. Czech Ministry of Education [MSM0021622415]
  3. National Geographic Foundation of the USA [8773-10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sequence data from nuclear (ITS) and chloroplast (trnL-F) regions for 89 accessions representing 56 out of 64 species from all five genera of the tribe Chorisporeae (plus Dontostemon tibeticus) have been studied to test the monophyly of the tribe and its component genera, clarify its boundaries, and elucidate its phylogenetic position in the family. Both data sets showed strong support for the monophyly of the Chorisporeae as currently delimited, though the position of its tentative member D. tibeticus was not resolved by ITS. Parrya and Pseudoclausia are poly and paraphyletic with regard to each other, and Chorispora is either polyphyletic or at least paraphyletic (comprising Diptychocarpus) within a weakly supported monophyletic clade. The incongruence in branching pattern among the markers was most likely caused by hybridization and possibly influenced by incomplete lineage sorting. The present results suggest uniting Pseudoclausia, Clausia podlechii, and Achoriphragma with Parrya and transferring P. beketovii and P. saposhnikovii to Leiospora (Euclidieae). We also obtained support for splitting Chorispora into two geographically defined groups, one of which is closer to Diptychocarpus. Both data sets revealed a close relationship of the Chorisporeae to Dontostemoneae, while ITS also indicated affinity to Hesperideae. Therefore, the position of Chorisporeae needs further verification.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available