Ledebouria, Resnova and Drimiopsis: A tale of three genera

Taxon

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 643-652

  Lebatha, Pearl ^a   Buys, Matt H ^a   Stedje, Brita ^b  

^a Plantkunde   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cladistics; Drimiopsis; Hyacinthaceae; Ledebouria; Morphology; Resnova; trnL F

Indexed keywords

ANGIOSPERM; CLADISTICS; DATA SET; MORPHOLOGY; PHYLOGENETICS; TAXONOMY;

DRIMIOPSIS; HYACINTHACEAE; LEDEBOURIA; RESNOVA;

EID: 33749563544     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/25065640     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baker, R. H. & Gatesy, J. 2002. Is morphology still relevant? Pp. 163-174 in: DeSalle, R., Giribet, G., & Wheeler, W. (eds.), Molecular Systematics and Evolution: Theory and Practice. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
2. Baker, R. H., Yu, X. & DeSalle, R. 1998. Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 9: 427-436.
3. Colles, D. H. 1982. Review of "Phylogenetics": the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Syst. Zool. 31: 100-104.
4. Dallwitz, M., Paine, T. A. & Zurcher, E. J. 1993. User's Guide to the DELTA System: a General System for Processing Taxonomic Descriptions. Ed. 4. http://delta-intkey.com
5. De Queiroz, K. 2000. Logical problems associated with including and excluding characters during tree reconstruction and their implications for the study of morphological character evolution. Pp. 192-212 in: Wiens, J. J. (ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
6. De Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 449-480.
7. Doyle, J. J. & Doyle, J. L. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19: 11-15.
8. Forey, P. L. & Kitching, I. J. 2000. Experiments in coding multistate characters. Pp. 54-80 in: Scotland, R. W. & Pennington, R. T. (eds.), Homology and Systematics. Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor & Francis, London.
9. Givnish, T. J. & Sytsma, K. J. 1997. Consistency, characters, and the likelihood of correct phylogeny inference. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 7: 320-330.
10. Goloboff, P. A. 1996. NONA. Published by the author, M. de Tucumán, Argentina.
11. Hall, T. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41: 95-98.
12. Hawkins, J. A. 2000. A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways. Pp. 22-53 in: Scotland, R. W. & Pennington, R. T. (eds.), Homology and Systematics. Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor & Francis, London.
13. Hillis, D. M. 1987. Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 23-42.
14. Hillis, D. M. & Wiens, J. J. 2000. Molecules versus morphology in systematics: conflicts, artefacts and misconceptions. Pp. 1-19 in: Wiens, J. J. (ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
15. Jenner, R. A. 2004a. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millennium. Syst. Biol. 53: 333-342.
16. Jenner, R. A. 2004b. The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change. Zool. Scr. 33: 293-310.
17. Lebatha, P. D. 2005. A Systematic Revision of Drimiopsis (Hyacinthaceae). Ph.D. thesis, North-West Univ., Potchefstroom.
18. th plenary meeting of AETFAT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
19. Lee, M. S. J. 2004a. Molecular and morphological datasets have similar numbers of relevant phylogenetic characters. Taxon 53: 1019-1022.
20. Lee, M. S. J. 2004b. The molecularisation of taxonomy. Invertebr. Syst. 18: 1-6.
21. Manning, J. C. & Goldblatt, P. 2003. Hyacinthaceae. Pp. 313-320 in: Germishuizen, G. & Meyer, N. L. (eds.), Plants of Southern Africa: an Annotated Checklist. National Botanical Institute, Pretoria. [Strelitzia 14].
22. Manning, J. C., Goldblatt, P. & Fay, M. F. 2004. A revised generic synopsis of Hyacinthaceae in sub-Saharan Africa, based on molecular evidence, including new combinations and the new tribe Pseudoprospereae. Edinburgh J. Bot. 60: 533-568.
23. Manning, J. C. & Van der Merwe, A. M. 2002. Systematics of the genus Daubenya (Hyacinthaceae: Massonieae). Bothalia 32: 133-150.
24. McCarthy, C. 1996. Chromas: version 1. 45. Griffith Univ., Brisbane.
25. Müller-Doblies, U. & Müller-Doblies, D. 1997. A partial revision of the tribe Massonieae (Hyacinthaceae). Feddes Repert. 108: 49-96.
26. Nixon, K. C. 1999. Winclada (BETA). Published by the author, New York.
27. Pfosser, M. & Speta, F. 1999. Phylogenetics of Hyacinthaceae based on plastid DNA sequences. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 86: 852-875.
28. Pfosser, M., Wetschnig, W., Ungar, S. & Prenner, G. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among genera of the Massonieae (Hyacinthaceae) inferred from plastid DNA and seed morphology. J. Pl. Res. 116: 115-132.
29. Rosenberg, M. S. & Kumar, S. 2001. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98: 10751-10756.
30. Scotland, R. W., Olmstead, R. G. & Bennert, J. R. 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: The role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52: 539-548.
31. Soltis, D. E. & Soltis, P. S. 2004. Amborella not a "basal angiosperm"? Not so fast. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 997-1001.
32. Speta, F. 1998a. Hyacinthaceae. Pp. 261-285 in: Kubitzki, K. (ed.), The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, vol. 3. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
33. Speta, F. 1998b. Systematische Analyse der Gattung Scilla L. s.l. (Hyacinthaceae). Phyton (Horn) 38: 1-141.
34. Stedje, B. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships and generic delimitation of sub-Saharan Scilla (Hyacinthaceae) and allied African genera as inferred from morphological and DNA sequence data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 211: 1-11.
35. Stedje, B. 2001. The generic delimitation within Hyacinthaceae. a comment on works by Speta. Bothalia 31: 4-7.
36. Stevens, P. F. 2002. Money, morphology and molecules. Edinburgh J. Bot. 59: 451-457.
37. Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pautou, G. & Bouvet, J. 1991. Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Molec. Biol. 17: 1105-1109.
38. Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. 1994. Clustal W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 11: 4673-4680.
39. Van der Merwe, F. 1946. Aantekeninge vir die hersiening van die genus Scilla L. in Suid-Afrika. 'n Nuwe genus: Resnova. Tydskr. Wetens. Kuns 6: 41-46.
40. Venter, S. 1993. A Revision of the Genus Ledebouria Roth (Hyacinthaceae) in South Africa. M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
41. Wagner, G. P. 2001. The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego.
42. Wetschnig, W. & Pfosser, M. 2003. The Scilla plumbea puzzle-present status of the genus Scilla sensu lato in southern Africa and descriptions of Spetaea lachenaliiflora, a new genus and species of Massonieae (Hyacinthaceae). Taxon 52: 75-91.
43. Wetschnig, W., Pfosser, M. & Prenner, G. 2002. Zur Samenmorphologie der Massonieae Baker 1871 (Hyacinthaceae) im Lichte phylogenetisch interpretierter molekularer Befunde. Stapfia 80: 349-379.
44. Wiens, J. J. 2003. Incomplete taxa, incomplete characters, and phylogenetic accuracy: is there a missing data problem? J. Vertebr. Paleont. 23: 297-310.
45. Zwickl, D. J. & Hillis, D. M. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51: 588-598.