INVESTIGADORES
URTUBEY Estrella
artículos
Título:
. The Lucilia group (Asteraceae, Gnaphalieae): phylogenetic and taxonomic considerations based on molecular and morphological evidence.
Autor/es:
FREIRE, S. E.; CHEMISQUY, M. A.; ANDERBERG, A. A.; BECK, S. ; MENESE, R. I; LEOUILLE, B.; URTUBEY, E.
Revista:
Plant Syst Evol
Editorial:
Springer
Referencias:
Lugar: Viena; Año: 2015 vol. 301 p. 1227 - 1247
Resumen:
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.