TreeBASE Search-Analyses for study 12424

@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref20479, author = {Miriam Kaehler and Fabian A Michelangeli and Lúcia G. Lohmann}, title = {Phylogeny of Lundia (Bignoniaceae) based on ndhF and PepC sequences}, year = {2012}, keywords = {Bignoniaceae, Bignonieae, Lundia, molecular and morphological characters, phylogeny reconstruction}, doi = {}, url = {http://}, pmid = {}, journal = {Taxon}, volume = {61}, number = {}, pages = {}, abstract = {The circumscription of genera belonging to tribe Bignonieae (Bignoniaceae) has been traditionally complex, with only a few genera having stable circumscriptions in the various classification systems proposed for the tribe. The genus Lundia, for instance, is well characterized by a series of morphological synapomorphies and its circumscription has remained quite stable throughout its history. Despite the stable circumscription of Lundia, the circumscription of species within the genus has remained problematic. This study aims to reconstruct the phylogeny of Lundia in order to refine species circumscriptions, gain a better understanding of relationships between taxa, and identify potential morphological synapomorphies for species and major clades. We sampled 26 accessions representing 13 species of Lundia, and five outgroups, and reconstructed the phylogeny of the genus using a chloroplast (ndhF) and a nuclear marker (PepC). Data derived from sequences of the individual loci were analyzed using parsimony and Bayesian inference, and the combined molecular dataset was analyzed with Bayesian methods. The monophyly of Lundia nitidula, a species with a particularly complex circumscription, was tested using Shimoidara-Hasegawa test and the approximately unbiased test for phylogenetic tree selection. In addition, forty morphological characters were mapped onto the tree that resulted from the analysis of the combined molecular dataset in order to identify morphological synapomorphies of individual species and major clades. Lundia and most species currently recognized within the genus were strongly supported as monophyletic in all analyses. One species, Lundia nitidula, was not resolved as monophyletic, but the monophyly of this species was not rejected by the AU and SH tests. Lundia sect. Eriolundia is resolved as paraphyletic in all analyses, while Lundia sect. Eulundia is monophyletic and supported by the same morphological characters traditionally used to circumscribe this section. The phylogeny of Lundia contributed important information for a better circumscription of species and served as basis the taxonomic revision of the genus.} }