Advertisement

Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 200, Issue 1–2, pp 41–60 | Cite as

Two new species of the carnivorous genusPinguicula, (Lentibulariaceae) from Mediterranean habitats

  • Regino Zamora
  • Manuel Jamilena
  • Manuel Ruiz Rejón
  • Gabriel Blanca
Article

Abstract

Two species ofPinguicula (P. submediterranea andP. mundi) are newly described from the south and east of the Iberian Peninsula. We analysed morphometric, cytogenetic, RAPD, ecological, and breeding system data to support the distinctness of these taxa.Pinguicula submediterranea andP. mundi are both hexaploid (2n = 48), a chromosome number previously not reported for the genus. Biometric, cytogenetical and molecular results distinguishP. submediterranea andP. mundi from otherPinguicula species, and from each other.Pinguicula mundi is predominantly outbreeding, whereasP. submediterranea both inbreeds and outbreeds.Pinguicula submediterranea andP. mundi appear to be isolated reproductively, although gene flow between the allopatricP. submediterranea andP. mundi is unlikely. BothP. submediterranea andP. mundi are threatened with extinction because suitable habitats are diminishing in size, or even disappearing, due to current aridity in the region.

key words

Lentibulariaceae Pinguicula Taxonomy morphology cytogenetic and molecular analysis ecology breeding system Flora of the Mediterranean area 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, V. A., Williams, S. E., Chase, M. W., 1992: Carnivorous plants — phylogeny and structural evolution. — Science257: 1491–1495.Google Scholar
  2. Barret, C. H., Kohn, J. R., 1991: Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. — InFalk, D. A., Holsinger, K. E. (Eds): Genetics and conservation of rare plants, pp 3–30. — New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brauner, S. D., Crawford, J., Stuessy, T. F., 1992: Ribosomal DNA and RAPD variation in the rare plant familyLactoridaceae. — Amer. J. Bot.79: 1436–1439.Google Scholar
  4. Casper, S. J., 1962: Revision der GattungPinguicula in Eurasien. — Feddes Repert.66: 1–148.Google Scholar
  5. —, 1963: Gedanken zur Gliederung der GattungPinguicula L. — Bot. Jahrb.82: 321–335.Google Scholar
  6. —, 1966: Monographie der GattungPinguicula L. — Biblioth. Bot.127/128: 1–209.Google Scholar
  7. —, 1972:Pinguicula L. — InTutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Moore, D. M., Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M., Webb., D. A. (Eds): Flora Europaea,3, pp. 294–296.—Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Charlesworth, D., Charlesworth, B., 1987: Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. — Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst.18: 237–268.Google Scholar
  9. Contandriopoulous, J., 1962: Recherches sur la flore endemique de la Corse et sur ses origines. — Ann. Fac. Sc. Marseille32: 1–354.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford, D. J., Brauner, S., Cosner, M. B., Stuessy, T. F., 1994: Use of RAPD markers to document the origin of the intergeneric hybrid ×Margyracaena skottsbergii (Rosaceae) on the Juan Fernandez Islands. — Amer. J. Bot.80: 89–92.Google Scholar
  11. Darwin, C., 1874: Insectivorous plants. — London: Murray.Google Scholar
  12. Darlington, C. D., La Cour, L. F., 1969: The handling of chromosomes. — London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Dellaporta, S. L., Wood, J., Hicks, J. B., 1983: A plant DNA minipreparation. Version II. — Pl. Molec. Bio. Rep.1: 19–21.Google Scholar
  14. Doulat, E., 1947: Recherches caryologiques sur quelquesPinguicula. — Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. (Paris)225: 354–356.Google Scholar
  15. Falk, D. A., Holsinger, K. E., 1991: Genetics and conservation of rare plants. — New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Felsenstein, J., 1993: PHYLIP manual, ver. 3.5. — University Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  17. Gilpin, M. E., Soule., M. E., 1986: Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. — InSoule, M.E., (Ed.): Conservation biology, pp. 19–34. — Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  18. Givnish, T. J., 1989: Ecology and evolution of carnivorous plants. — InAbrahamson, W.G., (Ed.): Plant-animal interactions, pp. 243–290. — New York: Mc Graw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Juniper, B. E., Robins, R. J., Joel, D. M., 1989: The carnivorous plants. — New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Karron, J. D., 1991: Patterns of genetic variation and breeding systems in rare plant species. — InFalk, D. A., Holsinger, K.E., (Eds): Genetics and conservation of rare plants. pp.87–98. — New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Laane, M. M., 1969: Further chromosome studies in Norwegian vascular plants. — Blyttia27: 5–17.Google Scholar
  22. Löve, A., Löve, D., 1956: Cytotaxonomical conspectus of the Iceland flora. — Acta Horti Gothob.20: 65–291.Google Scholar
  23. —, —, 1982: IOPB chromosome number reports LXXV. — Taxon31: 344–360.Google Scholar
  24. —, 1974: Cytotaxonomy of Spanish plants. IV. Dicotyledons:Caesalpiniaceae-Asteraceae. — Lagascalia4: 153–211.Google Scholar
  25. Mayr, E., 1992: A local flora and the biological species concept. — Amer. J. Bot.79: 222–238.Google Scholar
  26. Menges, E. S., 1991: The application of minimum viable theory to plants. — InFalk, D.A., Holsinger, K. E., (Eds): Genetics and conservation of rare plants. 45–61. — New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Murin, A., 1976: Index of chromosome numbers of Slovakian flora. Part. 5. — Acta Fac. Rerum Nat. Univ. Camenianae, Bot.25: 1–18.Google Scholar
  28. Ravinowitz, D., 1981: Seven forms of rarity. — InSynge, H., (Ed.): The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. — Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Schemske, D. W., Husban, B. C., Ruckelshaus, M. H., Goodwillie, C., Parker, I. M., Bishop, J., 1994: Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. — Ecology75: 584–606.Google Scholar
  30. Studnicka, M., 1991: Interesting succulent features in thePinguicula species from the Mexican evolutionary centre. — Folia Geobot. Phytotax.26: 459–462.Google Scholar
  31. Thornill, J. W., Matta, R. K., Wood, W. H., 1965: Examining three dimensional microstructures with the scanning electron microscope. — Grana Palynol.6: 3–6.Google Scholar
  32. Van Buren, R., Harper, K. T., Andersen, W. R., Stanton, D. J., Seyoum, S., England, J. L., 1994: Evaluating the relationships of autumn buttercup (Ranunculus acriformis var.aestivales) to some close congeners using random amplified polymorphic DNA. — Amer. J. Bot.81: 514–519.Google Scholar
  33. Wilkie, S. E., Isaac, P. G., Stater, R.J., 1993: Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers for genetic analysis inAllium. — Theor. Appl. Genet.86: 497–504.Google Scholar
  34. Wood, C. E., Godfrey, R. K., 1957:Pinguicula (Lentibulariaceae) in the southeastern United States. — Rhodora59: 217–230.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regino Zamora
    • 1
  • Manuel Jamilena
    • 2
  • Manuel Ruiz Rejón
    • 2
  • Gabriel Blanca
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia Animal y Ecología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Genética, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Biología Vegetal, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations