CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea

Citation for Study 1090

Citation title: "Phylogeny of the unispicate taxa in Cyperaceae tribe Cariceae I: Generic relationships and evolutionary scenarios.".

This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S995 (Status: Published).

Citation

Starr J., Harris S., & Simpson D. 2004. Phylogeny of the unispicate taxa in Cyperaceae tribe Cariceae I: Generic relationships and evolutionary scenarios. Systematic Botany, null.

Authors

• Starr J.
• Harris S.
• Simpson D.

Abstract

Despite the controversy surrounding Cariceae generic and Carex subgeneric limits, most debates centre on a relatively small number of highly reduced unispicate taxa. This study examines Cariceae phylogeny by using all five genera (Schoenoxiphium, Kobresia, Uncinia, Carex, Cymophyllus) and four Carex subgenera (Primocarex, Vignea, Indocarex, Carex), with the emphasis of sampling on the tribe's taxonomically difficult unispicate groups (Uncinia, Cymophyllus, Kobresia pro parte, Carex subgenera Primocarex and Carex pro parte). Phylogenies based on rDNA internal and external transcribed spacer (ITS, ETS1f) sequences indicate that the tribe consists of four primary clades (((A, B) C) D) that support a fundamental split between dioecious and androgynous unispicate taxa. Dioecious species are related to multispicate species of either Carex subgenera Carex (Clade D) or Vignea (Clade C), whereas the androgynous species of Uncinia, Kobresia, Cymophyllus and Carex are related to multispicate species of Schoenoxiphium and Kobresia (Clades A and B). Trees strongly indicate that the genus Carex is artificial. Moreover, analyses support proposals to merge Carex subgenera Carex and Indocarex (Clade D), and they support the monophyly of Carex subgenus Vignea and the polyphyly of Carex subgenus Primocarex. Analyses also reject the common evolutionary link made between Schoenoxiphium and Carex subgenus Indocarex, and the belief that Schoenoxiphium and Kobresia should be merged. The monotypic genera Cymophyllus and Vesicarex do not warrant generic status. The implications of the phylogeny for tribal inflorescence evolution are discussed.

About this resource

• Canonical resource URI: http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S1090
• Other versions: Nexus NeXML
• Show BibTeX reference

  		@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref17626,
  	 author = {Julian R.  Starr and Stephen A.  Harris and David A.  Simpson},
  	 title = {Phylogeny of the unispicate taxa in Cyperaceae tribe Cariceae I: Generic relationships and evolutionary scenarios.},
  	 year = {2004},
  	 keywords = {},
  	 doi = {},
  	 url = {},
  	 pmid = {},
  	 journal = {Systematic Botany},
  	 volume = {},
  	 number = {},
  	 pages = {},
  	 abstract = {Despite the controversy surrounding Cariceae generic and Carex subgeneric limits, most debates centre on a relatively small number of highly reduced unispicate taxa. This study examines Cariceae phylogeny by using all five genera (Schoenoxiphium, Kobresia, Uncinia, Carex, Cymophyllus) and four Carex subgenera (Primocarex, Vignea, Indocarex, Carex), with the emphasis of sampling on the tribe's taxonomically difficult unispicate groups (Uncinia, Cymophyllus, Kobresia pro parte, Carex subgenera Primocarex and Carex pro parte). Phylogenies based on rDNA internal and external transcribed spacer (ITS, ETS1f) sequences indicate that the tribe consists of four primary clades (((A, B) C) D) that support a fundamental split between dioecious and androgynous unispicate taxa. Dioecious species are related to multispicate species of either Carex subgenera Carex (Clade D) or Vignea (Clade C), whereas the androgynous species of Uncinia, Kobresia, Cymophyllus and Carex are related to multispicate species of Schoenoxiphium and Kobresia (Clades A and B). Trees strongly indicate that the genus Carex is artificial. Moreover, analyses support proposals to merge Carex subgenera Carex and Indocarex (Clade D), and they support the monophyly of Carex subgenus Vignea and the polyphyly of Carex subgenus Primocarex. Analyses also reject the common evolutionary link made between Schoenoxiphium and Carex subgenus Indocarex, and the belief that Schoenoxiphium and Kobresia should be merged. The monotypic genera Cymophyllus and Vesicarex do not warrant generic status. The implications of the phylogeny for tribal inflorescence evolution are discussed.}
  }
  		

• Show RIS reference

  		TY  - JOUR
  ID  - 17626
  AU  - Starr,Julian R. 
  AU  - Harris,Stephen A. 
  AU  - Simpson,David A. 
  T1  - Phylogeny of the unispicate taxa in Cyperaceae tribe Cariceae I: Generic relationships and evolutionary scenarios.
  PY  - 2004
  KW  - 
  UR  - 
  N2  - Despite the controversy surrounding Cariceae generic and Carex subgeneric limits, most debates centre on a relatively small number of highly reduced unispicate taxa. This study examines Cariceae phylogeny by using all five genera (Schoenoxiphium, Kobresia, Uncinia, Carex, Cymophyllus) and four Carex subgenera (Primocarex, Vignea, Indocarex, Carex), with the emphasis of sampling on the tribe's taxonomically difficult unispicate groups (Uncinia, Cymophyllus, Kobresia pro parte, Carex subgenera Primocarex and Carex pro parte). Phylogenies based on rDNA internal and external transcribed spacer (ITS, ETS1f) sequences indicate that the tribe consists of four primary clades (((A, B) C) D) that support a fundamental split between dioecious and androgynous unispicate taxa. Dioecious species are related to multispicate species of either Carex subgenera Carex (Clade D) or Vignea (Clade C), whereas the androgynous species of Uncinia, Kobresia, Cymophyllus and Carex are related to multispicate species of Schoenoxiphium and Kobresia (Clades A and B). Trees strongly indicate that the genus Carex is artificial. Moreover, analyses support proposals to merge Carex subgenera Carex and Indocarex (Clade D), and they support the monophyly of Carex subgenus Vignea and the polyphyly of Carex subgenus Primocarex. Analyses also reject the common evolutionary link made between Schoenoxiphium and Carex subgenus Indocarex, and the belief that Schoenoxiphium and Kobresia should be merged. The monotypic genera Cymophyllus and Vesicarex do not warrant generic status. The implications of the phylogeny for tribal inflorescence evolution are discussed.
  L3  - 
  JF  - Systematic Botany
  VL  - 
  IS  - 
  ER  -