4.5 Article

Molecular phylogeny of Coelogyne (Epidendroideae; Orchidaceae) based on plastid RFLPS, matK, and nuclear ribosomal its sequences:: Evidence for polyphyly

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 88, Issue 10, Pages 1915-1927

Publisher

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.2307/3558367

Keywords

Coelogyne; Coelogyninae; matK; molecular phylogeny; nrDNA ITS; Orchidaceae; plastid DNA RFLPs

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the monophyly of Coelogyne (Epidendroideae: Orchidaceae) and reveal sectional relationships and relations to allied genera in subtribe Coclogyninae, we collected PCR (polymerase chain reaction) amplified restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) from 11 plastid regions for 42 taxa (28 Coelogyne species and 14 representatives of other genera) and three outgroups from Bletiinae and Thuniinae. We also sequenced a large portion of the plastid trnK intron (mostly matK) and the nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacers ITS1 and ITS2 (including the 5.8S gene). Separate phylogenetic analyses on each data set using maximum parsimony produced mainly congruent (except for the position of Panisea) but weakly supported clades. Parsimony analysis of the combined data clearly identified three main clades in Coclogyninae. Whereas Coelogyninae are monophyletic, Coelogyne is polyphyletic, with species failing into at least two well-supported clades. The utility of morphological characters used in previous classifications was explored by reconstructing character state evolution on one of the four molecular trees. Lip base and petal shape were homoplasious. whereas ovary indumentum and flower number were congruent with well-supported groups. The implications of our results for the classification of Coelogyne are discussed. and a reorganization of the genus by including Neogyna and Pholidota and removing several species is proposed.

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