@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref20070, author = {Julissa Roncal and Andrew J Henderson and Finn Borchsenius and Sergio Ricardo Sodre Cardoso and Henrik Balslev}, title = {Can phylogenetic signal, character displacement or random phenotypic drift explain the morphological variation in the genus Geonoma (Arecaceae)?}, year = {2012}, keywords = {ancestral character state - Blomberg?s K-statistic - low-copy nuclear genes ? Neotropics - Palmae - quantitative morphological variables - trait evolution}, doi = {10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01879.x}, url = {http://}, pmid = {}, journal = {Biological Journal of the Linnean Society}, volume = {106}, number = {3}, pages = {528--539}, abstract = {Plant clades may exhibit little or wide morphological variation as a result of 1) the retention of ancestral characteristics or phylogenetic signal, 2) character displacement, or 3) random phenotypic drift. The taxonomy and systematics of many plant lineages has been challenging due to a continuous intra and interspecific morphological variation. To assess which evolutionary hypothesis could explain the morphological diversity in the genus Geonoma (Arecaceae), we performed a Mantel test between phylogenetic and morphological distances of 54 taxa, and tested for phylogenetic signal using Blomberg?s K-statistic. To obtain a phylogenetic (patristic) distance matrix for Geonoma, we constructed a molecular phylogeny of tribe Geonomateae using three nuclear DNA regions. A positive relationship between the patristic and a 26-discrete-character distance matrix (R2=0.55, p<0.001) supported the phylogenetic signal hypothesis. The signal was rendered by only four characters: fruit operculum, staminodial tube, connective shape and anthers shape. No relationship was evident using a 17-quantitative-variable distance matrix (R2=0.07, p=0.13), supporting the random drift hypothesis, and all 17 K-values were close to 0, suggesting less phylogenetic signal than under the Brownian model. If most morphological variables traditionally used to classify Geonoma evolved randomly, their low selective value might explain Geonoma?s challenging taxonomy.} }

• Go to search
• Citation
• Taxa
• Matrices
• Trees
• Analyses
• 

CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea