Realignment of the genera of Cleveaceae (Marchantiopsida, Marchantiidae)

Thalloid liverworts with a complex anatomy and with star-shaped epidermal pores with strongly thickened radial walls in the surrounding cells have traditionally been accommodated within the Cleveaceae, which comprises three genera: Athalamia, Peltolepis and Sauteria. Based on phylogenetic inferences...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Bryologist 2011-03, Vol.114 (1), p.116-127
Main Authors: Rubasinghe, Sumudu C. K, Milne, Richard, Forrest, Laura L, Long, David G
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Athalamia
Aytoniaceae
Biological taxonomies
Clevea
Cleveaceae
DNA
Evolution
Genera
Liverworts
Marchantiidae
Marchantiophyta
molecular phylogeny
Parsimony
Peltolepis
Phylogenetics
Phylogeny
psbA
rpo C1
rps4
Sauteria
Sequencing
Thallus
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:Thalloid liverworts with a complex anatomy and with star-shaped epidermal pores with strongly thickened radial walls in the surrounding cells have traditionally been accommodated within the Cleveaceae, which comprises three genera: Athalamia, Peltolepis and Sauteria. Based on phylogenetic inferences from three chloroplast genes (psbA, rpoC1 and rps4) sampled for 41 accessions, we tested the circumscription and the relationships of these genera, using six species of the Aytoniaceae as outgroups. Four main lineages are resolved, two corresponding to Peltolepis and Sauteria and two composing a polyphyletic Athalamia. The latter is here divided into Clevea and a narrowly defined Athalamia. The traditional definition of genera of Cleveaceae based on two characters (carpocephalum stalk position and anatomy) is rejected and morphological characters defining the genera are re-assessed. A revised generic delimitation is presented, including a key to the genera. Evolution of the genera of Cleveaceae is re-evaluated in the light of molecular results, and the misleading influence of homoplasy on past morphological classifications and phylogenies is discussed.
ISSN:0007-2745
1938-4378
DOI:10.1639/0007-2745-114.1.116