Misleading fruits: The non-monophyly of Pseudopiptadenia and Pityrocarpa supports generic re-circumscriptions and a new genus within mimosoid legumes

Generic delimitation in and allies (mimosoid legumes) has been in a state of flux, particularly caused by over-reliance on fruit and seed morphology to segregate species out of into the genera , and . Although supporting their segregation from , previous phylogenetic analyses suggested that some of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PhytoKeys 2022-08, Vol.205, p.239-259
Main Authors: Borges, Leonardo M, Inglis, Peter W, Simon, Marcelo F, Ribeiro, Pétala Gomes, de Queiroz, Luciano P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Americas
Fabaceae
Legumes
Morphology
New genera
Phylogenetics
Phylogeny
Species
Taxonomy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Generic delimitation in and allies (mimosoid legumes) has been in a state of flux, particularly caused by over-reliance on fruit and seed morphology to segregate species out of into the genera , and . Although supporting their segregation from , previous phylogenetic analyses suggested that some of these segregated genera are not monophyletic. Here, we test the monophyly of , and with dense taxon sampling across these genera, including the type species of each genus. Our analysis recovers as monophyletic, but places species in two distinct lineages, one of which includes all three species of . Given that the type species of both and are nested in the same clade, we subsume under the older name . The remaining species are assigned to the new genus . Alongside high molecular phylogenetic support, recognition of , and as distinct genera is also supported by combinations of morphological traits, several of which were previously overlooked.
ISSN:1314-2011
1314-2003
DOI:10.3897/PHYTOKEYS.205.82275