Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 204, Issue 1–2, pp 75–98 | Cite as

The phylogeny ofPapaver s. l. (Papaveraceae): Polyphyly or monophyly?

  • Joachim W. Kadereit
  • Andrea E. Schwarzbach
  • Kirstin B. Jork
Article

Abstract

An RFLP analysis of the chloroplast genetrnK of 32 species of the generaPapaver, Roemeria, Stylomecon, andMeconopsis leads to the following conclusions: (1) AsianMeconopsis consists of two distinct clades and is paraphyletic in relation toPapaver, Roemeria, Stylomecon, and the W EuropeanMeconopsis cambrica. (2) Sister group relationships ofRoemeria toPapaver sect.Argemonidium and ofStylomecon toPapaver californicum are well-supported. (3)Meconopsis cambrica is nested withinPapaver (incl.Roemeria andStylomecon). The consideration of morphology, geographical distribution and ecology leads to the conclusion thatM. cambrica is best regarded as a member ofMeconopsis, and thatPapaver arose polyphyletically from within a paraphyleticMeconopsis in response to Tertiary climatic aridification. — The removal ofM. cambrica from the taxon matrix is discussed. It is concluded that this experiment illuminates the importance of critical taxon sampling, and shows that at least potentially the assessment of taxa as mono-, para-, or polyphyletic may characterize their present status only and need not reflect their phylogenetic history.

Key words

Papaveraceae Papaver Meconopsis Roemeria Stylomecon cpDNA phylogeny polyphyly extinction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, V. A., Mishler, B. D., Chase, M. W., 1992: Character state weighting for restriction site data in phylogenetic reconstruction, with an example from chloroplast DNA. — InSoltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., Doyle, J. J., (Eds): Molecular systematics of plants, pp. 369–403. — New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Baytop, A., 1983: A newRoemeria from Turkey. — Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh41: 281.Google Scholar
  3. , 1989: The genusRoemeria in Turkey. — InKit Tan, (Ed.): TheDavis andHedge Festschrift, pp. 65–70. — Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blattner, F., Kadereit, J. W., 1991: Patterns of seed dispersal in two species ofPapaver L. under near-natural conditions. — Flora185: 55–64.Google Scholar
  5. Brückner, C., 1982: Zur Kenntnis der Fruchtmorphologie derPapaveraceae Juss. s. str. und derHypecoaceae (Prantl & Kündig)Nak. — Feddes Repert.93: 153–212.Google Scholar
  6. , 1983: Zur Morphologie der Samenschale in denPapaveraceae Juss. s. str. undHypecoaceae (Prantl & Kündig)Nak. — Feddes Repert.94: 361–405.Google Scholar
  7. Burtt, B. L., 1971: From the South: an African view of the floras of Western Asia. — InDavis, P. H., Harper, P. C., Hedge, I. C., (Eds): Plant life of South-West Asia, pp. 135–149. — The Botanical Society of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, C., 1993:Papaveraceae. — InHickman, J. C., (Ed.): The Jepson manual. Higher plants of California, pp. 810–816. — Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Donoghue, M. J., Doyle, J. A., Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., Rowe, T., 1989: The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. — Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst.20: 431–460.Google Scholar
  10. Engler, A., 1879: Versuch einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der Pflanzenwelt, insbesondere der Florengebiete seit der Tertiärperiode. — Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  11. Ernst, W. R., 1962: A comparative morphology of thePapaveraceae. — Ph.D. Thesis (unpubl.), Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  12. Fairbairn, J. W., Williamson, E. M., 1978: Meconic acid as a chemotaxonomic marker in thePapaveraceae. — Phytochemistry17: 2087–2089.Google Scholar
  13. Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., Rowe, T., 1988: Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. — Cladistics4: 105–209.Google Scholar
  14. Goldblatt, P., 1974: Biosystematic studies inPapaver sectionOxytona. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.61: 264–296.Google Scholar
  15. Greene, E. L., 1888: New or noteworthy species, II. — Pittonia1: 168.Google Scholar
  16. Günther, K.-F., 1975: Beiträge zur Morphologie und Verbreitung derPapaveraceae. 2. Teil: Die Wuchsformen derPapavereae, Eschscholzieae undPlatystemonoideae. — Flora164: 393–436.Google Scholar
  17. Hanelt, P., 1969: Revision der mongolischen Taxa vonPapaver L. sect.Scapiflora Rchb. sowie Studien zur Systematik und Evolution dieser Sektion. — Habilitationsschrift, Martin Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
  18. Harborne, J. B., 1967: Comparative biochemistry of the flavonoids. — London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson, D. M., 1965: The pollen morphology ofMeconopsis. — Grana Palynol.6: 191–209.Google Scholar
  20. Jork, K. B., Kadereit, J. W., 1995: Molecular phylogeny of the Old World representatives ofPapaveraceae subf.Papaveroideae with special emphasis on the genusMeconopsis Vig. — InJensen, U., Kadereit, J. W., (Eds): Systematics and evolution of theRanunculiflorae. — Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.9: 171–180.Google Scholar
  21. Kadereit, J. W., 1986a: A revision ofPapaver sectionArgemonidium. — Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh44: 25–43.Google Scholar
  22. , 1986b: A revision ofPapaver L. sectionPapaver (Papaveraceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.108: 1–16.Google Scholar
  23. , 1987a: The taxonomy, distribution and variability of the genusRoemeria Medic. (Papaveraceae). — Flora179: 135–153.Google Scholar
  24. , 1987b: A revision ofPapaver sect.Carinatae (Papaveraceae). — Nordic J. Bot.7: 501–504.Google Scholar
  25. , 1988a: Sectional affinities and geographical distribution in the genusPapaver L. (Papaveraceae). — Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen63: 139–156.Google Scholar
  26. , 1988b: The affinities of the south-hemisphericalPapaver aculeatum Thunb. (Papaveraceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.109: 335–341.Google Scholar
  27. , 1988c:Papaver L. sect.Californicum Kadereit, a new section of the genusPapaver. — Rhodora90: 7–13.Google Scholar
  28. , 1989: A revision ofPapaver L. sect.Rhoeadium Spach (Papaveraceae). — Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh45: 225–286.Google Scholar
  29. , 1990: Notes on the taxonomy, distribution, phylogeny and ecology ofPapaver alpinum L. (Papaveraceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.112: 79–97.Google Scholar
  30. , 1993: A revision ofPapaver sect.Meconidium. — Edinburgh J. Bot.50: 125–148.Google Scholar
  31. , 1996: A revision ofPapaver L. sects.Pilosa Prantl andPseudopilosa M. Pop. exGünther. — Edinburgh J. Bot.53: 285–309.Google Scholar
  32. , 1990: The taxonomy and affinities ofPapaver gorgoneum Cout. from the Cape Verde Islands. — Nordic J. Bot.9: 643–648.Google Scholar
  33. , 1992: DisassemblingPapaver: a restriction site analysis of chloroplast DNA. — Nordic J. Bot.12: 205–217.Google Scholar
  34. , 1994: Phylogenetic analysis of thePapaveraceae s. l. (incl.Fumariaceae, Hypecoaceae andPteridophyllum) based on morphological characters. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.116: 361–390.Google Scholar
  35. ,, , , 1995: The phylogeny of thePapaveraceae s. l.: morphological, geographical and ecological implications. — InJensen, U., Kadereit, J. W., (Eds): Systematics and evolution of theRanunculiflorae. — Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.9: 133–145.Google Scholar
  36. Lamboy, W. F., 1994: The accuracy of the maximum parsimony method for phylogeny reconstruction with morphological characters. — Syst. Bot.19: 489–505.Google Scholar
  37. Lecointre, G., Philippe, H., Lê, H. L. V., Le Guyader, H., 1993: Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. — Molec. Phylogenet. Evol.2: 205–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lidén, M., 1986: Synopsis ofFumarioideae (Papaveraceae) with a monograph of the tribeFumarieae. — Opera Bot.88: 1–133.Google Scholar
  39. Maddison, D. R., 1991: The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. — Syst. Zool.40: 315–328.Google Scholar
  40. Maddison, W. P., Maddison, D. R., 1992: MacClade. Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Version 3. — Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  41. Markgraf, F., 1958:Papaveraceae. — InHegi, G., (Ed.): Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa,IV 1/2, pp. 15–49. 2nd edn. — München: Hanser.Google Scholar
  42. Meusel, H., 1969: Beziehungen in der Florendifferenzierung von Eurasien und Nordamerika. — Flora158: 537–564.Google Scholar
  43. Morales Torres, C., Mendoza Castellon, R., Romero Garcia, A. T., 1988: La posicion sistematica dePapaver argemone L.: interes evolutivo del ordenPapaverales: 1. — Lagascalia15 [Suppl.]: 181–189.Google Scholar
  44. Novak, J., Preininger, V., 1980: Sect.Glauca — nova sekce roduPapaver. — Preslia52: 97–101.Google Scholar
  45. Öztekin, A., Baytop, A., Hutin, M., Foucher, J. P., Hocquemiller, R., Cave, A., 1985: Comparison of chemical and botanical studies of TurkishPapaver belonging to sectionPilosa. — Pl. Med. (Stuttgart)51: 431–434.Google Scholar
  46. Preininger, V., Novak, J., Santavy, F., 1981: Isolierung und Chemie der Alkaloide aus Pflanzen derPapaveraceae LXXXXI.Glauca, eine neue Sektion der GattungPapaver. — Pl. Med. (Stuttgart)41: 119–123.Google Scholar
  47. Price, J. R., Robinson, R., Scott-Moncrieff, R., 1939: The yellow pigment ofPapaver nudicaule L. — J. Chem. Soc.1939: 1465–1468.Google Scholar
  48. Rändel, U., 1974a: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Sippenstruktur der GattungPapaver L. sectioScapiflora Reichenb. (Papaveraceae). — Feddes Repert.84: 665–732.Google Scholar
  49. , 1974b:Papaver pygmaeum Rydb. aus den Rocky Mountains und seine Beziehung zum europäischenPapaver alpinum L. (Papaveraceae). — Feddes Repert.85: 745–758.Google Scholar
  50. , 1975: Die Beziehungen vonPapaver pygmaeum Rydb. aus den Rocky Mountains zum nordamerikanischenP. kluanense D. Löve sowie zu einigen nordostasiatischen Vertretern der SektionScapiflora Reichenb. im Vergleich mitP. alpinum L. (Papaveraceae). Feddes Repert.86: 19–37.Google Scholar
  51. , 1977a: Über Sippen des subarktisch-arktischen Nordamerikas, des Beringia Gebietes und Nordost-Asiens der SektionLasiotrachyphylla Bernh. (Papaveraceae) und deren Beziehungen zueinander und zu Sippen anderer Arealteile der Sektion. — Feddes Repert.88: 421–450.Google Scholar
  52. , 1977b: Über die grönländischen Vertreter der SektionLasiotrachyphylla Bernh. (Papaveraceae) und deren Beziehungen zu Vertretern anderer arktischer Arealteile der Sektion. — Feddes Repert.88: 451–464.Google Scholar
  53. Reckin, J., 1973: A contribution to the cytology ofPapaver gracile Auch. including proposals for a revision of the SectionMecones. — Caryologia26: 245–251.Google Scholar
  54. Schwarzbach, A. E., Kadereit, J. W., 1995: Rapid radiation of North American desert genera of thePapaveraceae: evidence from restriction site mapping of PCR-amplified chloroplast DNA fragments. — InJensen, U., Kadereit, J. W., (Eds): Systematics and evolution of theRanunculiflorae. — Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.9: 159–170.Google Scholar
  55. Swofford, D. L., 1993: PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1, 3.1.1. Updater. — Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  56. Taylor, G., 1930:Stylomecon: a new genus ofPapaveraceae. — J. Bot.68: 138–140.Google Scholar
  57. , 1934: An account of the genusMeconopsis. — London: New Flora Silva.Google Scholar
  58. Tolmacev, A. I., 1960: Der authochthone Grundstock der arktischen Flora und ihre Beziehungen zu den Hochgebirgsfloren Nord- und Zentralasiens. — Bot. Tidsskr.55: 269–276.Google Scholar
  59. Viguier, L. G. A., 1814: Histoire naturelle, médicale et économique des Pavots et des Argémones. — Montpellier.Google Scholar
  60. Wendt, N., 1976: Beiträge zur Sippenstrukturforschung an der GattungPapaver L., SektionPilosa Prantl, SektionPseudopilosa Popov exGünther und SektionOxytona Bernh. — Ph.D. Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  61. Wheeler, W. C., 1992: Extinction, sampling and molecular phylogenetics. — InNovacek, M. J., Wheeler, Q. D., (Eds): Extinction and phylogeny, pp. 205–215. — New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim W. Kadereit
    • 1
  • Andrea E. Schwarzbach
    • 1
  • Kirstin B. Jork
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Spezielle Botanik und Botanischer GartenJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations