4.6 Article

Friends or relatives?: Phylogenetics and species delimitation in the controversial European orchid Genus ophrys

Journal

ANNALS OF BOTANY
Volume 101, Issue 3, Pages 385-402

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcm299

Keywords

AFLP; DNA sequencing; hybridization; introgression; Ophrys; pseudocopulation; species delimitation; systematics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims Highly variable, yet possibly convergent, morphology and lack of sequence variation have severely hindered production of a robust phylogenetic framework for the genus Ophrys. The aim of this study is to produce this framework as a basis for more rigorous species delimitation and conservation recommendations. Methods Nuclear and plastid DNA sequencing and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) were performed on 85 accessions of Ophrys, spanning the full range of species aggregates currently recognized. Data were analysed using a combination of parsimony and Bayesian tree-building techniques and by principal coordinates analysis. Key Results Complementary phylogenetic analyses and ordinations using nuclear, plastid and AFLP datasets identify ten genetically distinct groups (six robust) within the genus that may in turn be grouped into three sections (treated as subgenera by some authors). Additionally, genetic evidence is provided for a close relationship between the O. tenthredinifera, O. bombyliflora and O. speculum groups. The combination of these analytical techniques provides new insights into Ophrys systematics, notably recognition of the novel O. umbilicata group. Conclusions Heterogeneous copies of the nuclear ITS region show that some putative Ophrys species arose through hybridization rather than divergent speciation. The supposedly highly specific pseudocopulatory pollination syndrome of Ophrys is demonstrably 'leaky', suggesting that the genus has been substantially over-divided at the species level.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available