4.5 Article

Phylogenetic reconstruction of the evolution of stylar polymorphisms in Narcissus (Amaryllidaceae)

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 91, Issue 7, Pages 1007-1021

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.91.7.1007

Keywords

ancestral-state reconstructions; concentrated-changes test (CCT); floral evolution; heterostyly; Narcissus; ndF; pollination biology; stigma-height dimorphism; stylar polymorphism; trnL-trnF

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the origin of stylar polymorphisms in Narcissus, which possesses a remarkable range of stylar conditions and diverse types of floral morphology and pollination biology. Reconstruction of evolutionary change was complicated by incomplete resolution of trees inferred from two rapidly evolving chloroplast regions, but we bracketed reconstructions expected on the fully resolved plastid-based tree by considering all possible resolutions of polytomies on the shortest trees. Stigma-height dimorphism likely arose on several occasions in Narcissus and persisted across multiple speciation events. As proposed in published models, this rare type of stylar polymorphism is ancestral to distyly. While there is no evidence in Narcissus that dimorphism preceded tristyly, a rapid transition between them may explain the lack of a phylogenetic footprint for this evolutionary sequence. The single instances of distyly and tristyly in Narcissus albimarginatus and N. triandrus, respectively, are clearly not homologous, an evolutionary convergence unique to Amaryllidaceae. Floral morphology was likely an important trigger for the evolution of stylar polymorphisms: Concentrated-changes tests indicate that a long, narrow floral tube may have been associated with the emergence of stigma-height dimorphism and that this type of tube, in combination with a deep corona, likely promoted, or at least was associated with, the parallel origins of heterostyly.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available