@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref14712, author = {Charles D. Bell and R. W. Patterson and Laura A. Hamilton}, title = {Sectional intergrety in Linanthus (Polemoniaceae): a molecular phylogeny of section Dianthoides.}, year = {1999}, keywords = {}, doi = {}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/2419647}, pmid = {}, journal = {Systematic Botany}, volume = {24}, number = {}, pages = {632--644}, abstract = {The 44 species of Linanthus are arranged into six sections based on morphological features. Five of the sections are readily circumscribed and have not presented infrageneric problems to botanists. Section Dianthoides, however, is not morphologically cohesive. It consists of eight annual species sensu Grant, with diverse ranges and habitats in southern California and northern Baja California. Vegetative and floral features suggest that the section, as traditionally defined, may not be monophyletic. However, these data do not offer a clear view of relationships among these species or of these species within the genus. To test the monophyly of sect. Dianthoides and to decipher relationships among the species, we conducted a phylogenetic analysis using sequence data from the ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA. We sampled all ten species from both Grant and Patterson's treatments of sect. Dianthoides and at least one species from each of the other five sections. These data support a paraphyletic Linanthus, which is consistent with the findings of other molecular studies. Trees obtained show two lineages of Linanthus: one comprising sect. Dianthoides, two species of sect. Linanthus (sensu Grant), members of Leptodactylon and two species of Gilia included in the analyses and a second lineage composed of the remaining four sections of Linanthus and Phlox.} }

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

CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea