. The Lucilia group (Asteraceae, Gnaphalieae): phylogenetic and taxonomic considerations based on molecular and morphological evidence.

FREIRE, S. E.; CHEMISQUY, M. A.; ANDERBERG, A. A.; BECK, S. ; MENESE, R. I; LEOUILLE, B.; URTUBEY, E.

Plant Syst Evol

Springer

Lugar: Viena; Año: 2015 vol. 301 p. 1227 - 1247

Abstract The Lucilia group sensu Anderberg and Freire comprises nine South American genera: Belloa, Berroa, Chevreulia, Cuatrecasasiella, Facelis, Gamochaetopsis, Jalcophila, Lucilia and Luciliocline. The aims of this contribution were, using DNA sequences from plastid (rpl32-trnL, trnL-F) and nuclear (ITS and ETS) markers, together with morphological characters, to test the monophyly of the Lucilia group and provide new insight into generic circumscriptions. Our studies, including a broad taxon sampling of Gnaphalieae species, suggest that the Lucilia group is paraphyletic, since Antennaria, Chionolaena, Gamochaeta, Loricaria, Micropsis, Mniodes and Stuckertiella are all nested within the Lucilia group. Morphology and molecular analyses combined showed that the traditional generic circumscription of most of the genera (e.g., Berroa, Chevreulia, Chionolaena, Cuatrecasasiella, Facelis, Jalcophila and Micropsis) correlates with the inferred phylogenetic relationships. Conversely, Lucilia and Luciliocline are non-monophyletic. Lucilia is nested in a clade with Berroa, Facelis and Micropsis. Luciliocline is strongly embedded within the clade Belloa pp ? Mniodes. Our results are consistent with Dillon?s study that considered Belloa as a montotypic genus (B. chilensis). Luciliocline and the remaining species of Belloa are accommodated in the genus Mniodes, and the necessary combinations are proposed for the expanded Mniodes. All the analyses showed that the monotypic genera Stuckertiella and Gamochaetopsis are in a well-supported clade nested within Gamochaeta, which implies that taxonomic changes are required also for these genera. Internal relationships in the group and the key morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the group, as well as incongruences found between morphological and molecular analyses, are discussed.