Abstract

Generic delimitations in the Ficinia Clade of tribe Cypereae are revisited. In particular, we aim to establish the placement of annual species currently included in Isolepis of which the phylogenetic position is uncertain. Phylogenetic inference is based on two nuclear markers (ETS, ITS) and five plastid markers (the genes matK, ndhF, rbcL and rps16, the trnL intron and trnL-F spacer) data, analyzed using model based methods. Topologies based on nuclear and plastid data show incongruence at the backbone. Therefore, the results are presented separately. The monophyly of the smaller genera (Afroscirpoides, Dracoscirpoides, Erioscirpus, Hellmuthia, Scirpoides) is confirmed. However, Isolepis is paraphyletic as Ficinia is retrieved as one of its clades. Furthermore, Ficinia is paraphyletic if I. marginata and allies are excluded. We take a pragmatic approach based on the nuclear topology, driven by a desire to minimize taxonomic changes, to recircumscribe Ficinia to include the annual Isolepis species characterized by cartilaginous glumes and formally include all the Isolepis species inferred outside the core Isolepis clade. Consequently, the circumscription of Isolepis is narrowed to encompass only those species retrieved as part of the core Isolepis clade. Five new combinations are made (Ficinia neocapensis, Ficinia hemiuncialis, Ficinia incomtula, Ficinia leucoloma, Ficinia minuta). We present nomenclatural summary at genus level, identification keys and diagnostic features.

Highlights

  • The paradigm shift towards recognition of genera as monophyletic entities has necessitated changes in generic circumscription (Humphreys & Linder, 2009)

  • Regardless, there is strong support in both data sets for the tribe Cypereae with the Cyperus and Ficinia clades as sister

  • This study aimed to establish the phylogenetic position of contentious annual species currently placed in Isolepis and to test the monophyly of the genera

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The paradigm shift towards recognition of genera as monophyletic entities has necessitated changes in generic circumscription (Humphreys & Linder, 2009). Embryo morphology data (Van der Veken, 1965; Goetghebeur, 1986; Semmouri et al, 2019) have unequivocally demonstrated that lineages with distinct morphology were included in Scirpus. In his seminal treatment of the family, Goetghebeur (1998) placed the 24 taxa previously named Scirpus by Linnaeus (1753) in the tribes Cypereae, Fuireneae and Scirpeae, with S. sylvaticus L. being the only species described by Linnaeus recognized as a true Scirpus and two of the species recognized as members of Isolepis R.Br

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.