4.4 Article

Molecular phylogenetics of Linaceae with complete generic sampling and data from two plastid genes

Journal

BOTANICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 165, Issue 1, Pages 64-83

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01096.x

Keywords

Hugoniaceae; Malpighiales; matK; molecular dating; rbcL

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [DEB-0508802]
  2. University of Texas at Austin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The phylogeny of Linaceae is examined, with sampling from the 13 commonly recognized genera of the family and sequence data from the plastid genes matK and rbcL. Representatives of 24 additional families of the order Malpighiales are included in the analyses, with members of Celastrales, Fabales, Fagales, Oxalidales and Rosales used as outgroups. Linaceae and both subfamilies, the temperate Linoideae and the tropical Hugonioideae, are found to be monophyletic in likelihood- and parsimony-based analyses, although the monophyly of Hugonioideae is not well supported. Average divergence time estimates using rbcL indicate that the subfamilies diverged from each other during the Palaeocene, approximately 60 million years ago. No sister group to Linaceae is consistently identified in these analyses, and relationships among families of Malpighiales are not well resolved. In accord with previous estimates of Linoideae phylogeny, Linum is shown to be nonmonophyletic, with several segregate genera nested within it, but the relationships of the south-east Asian genera, Anisadenia, Reinwardtia and Tirpitzia, remain uncertain. In Hugonioideae, Indorouchera and Philbornea are found to be closely related to members of Hugonia section Durandea. Relationships of the neotropical genera Hebepetalum and Roucheria to the palaeotropical hugonioids are not consistently resolved. (C) 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 165, 64-83.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available