4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Phylogenetic analysis of the Australian Salicornioideae (Chenopodiaceae) based on morphology and nuclear DNA

期刊

AUSTRALIAN SYSTEMATIC BOTANY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 89-115

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/SB04031

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Salicornioideae Kostel. are distinctive among the Chenopodiaceae Venet. However, their phylogenetic relationships are poorly understood. Analyses of morphological and molecular characters were undertaken to evaluate relationships within the subfamily and to test the monophyly of the endemic Australian genera Halosarcia Paul G. Wilson, Pachycornia Hook. f., Sclerostegia Paul G. Wilson, Tecticornia Hook. f. and Tegicornia Paul G. Wilson. Kalidium Moq. and Halopeplis Bunge ex Ung.-Sternb. of the tribe Halopeplideae were used as outgroup representatives in the morphological analysis and resolved sister to the tribe Salicornieae. Allenrolfea Kuntze; Halocnemum Bieb. and Heterostachys Meyer formed an early branching group sister to a moderately supported clade comprised of the remaining Salicornieae. Only terminal groups of closely related species received significant bootstrap support in this analysis. In contrast, the current tribal classification of the Salicornioideae was not supported in the molecular analysis as Allenrolfea occidentalis Kuntz ( tribe Salicornieae) positioned sister to Kalidium foliatum Moq. ( tribe Halopeplideae) and the remaining Salicornieae. Three major clades received strong bootstrap support: Microcnemum + Arthrocnemum, Sarcocornia + Salicornia, and the endemic Australian genera. None of the endemic Australian genera was individually supported as monophyletic in either the morphological or the molecular analyses. Subspecies complexes, polyploids and hybrids may contribute to the lack of resolution and apparently high levels of homoplasy in the morphological analysis. A greater understanding of population level processes is required to begin to resolve the phylogeny of this complex group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据