4.6 Article

The bryophyta (mosses):: Systematic and evolutionary inferences from an rps4 gene (cpDNA) phylogeny

Journal

ANNALS OF BOTANY
Volume 87, Issue 2, Pages 191-208

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1006/anbo.2000.1318

Keywords

bryophyta; mosses; phylogeny; rps4; evolution; peristome; parsimony; sequences

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phylogenetic analyses of nucleotide and amino acid sequences of the chloroplast protein coding gene rps4 were performed for 225 species of mosses, representing 84 % of families recognized by Vitt (1984. In: Schuster RM, ed. New manual of bryology, vol 2. Nichinan: Hattori Botanical Laboratory), under the criterion of maximum parsimony with Takakia and Sphagnum as outgroups. Most parsimonious topologies converge to a scenario wherein the Andreaeidae are monophyletic and sister to the Bryidae (peristomate mosses), the Nematodonteae and the Buxbaumiaceae form a monophyletic lineage, the Diphysciaceae are sister to the Arthrodonteae and, within the latter, the Funarineae-Encalyptineae-Timmiaceae-Haplolepideae compose a monophyletic clade sister to remaining diplolepideous mosses. This hypothesis suggests that early in the evolution of the Arthrodonteae, two major lineages diverged, with opposite and alternate peristomes, respectively. Bootstrap support for the deep dichotomies is poor or lacking but increases when protein translations of rps4 sequences are included in the analysis. Several novel systematic hypotheses are raised, including (a) a diplolepideous rather than haplolepideous origin of the Pleurophascaceae; (b) an affinity of the Catascopiaceae with the Funariineae rather than the Bryineae; and (c) a close relationship of the Calomniaceae and Mitteniaceae to the Rhizgoniaceae. The advantages and disadvantages of a single gene phylogeny are discussed with respect to the identification of polyphyletic familial or suprafamilial taxa. (C) 2001 Annals of Botany Company.

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