Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 209, Issue 3–4, pp 265–274 | Cite as

Phylogeny inLabiatae s. l., inferred from cpDNA sequences

  • Steven J. Wagstaff
  • Laura Hickerson
  • Russ Spangler
  • Patrick A. Reeves
  • Richard G. Olmstead


Sequences ofrbcL andndhF were analysed independently and in combination to resolve phylogenetic relationships inLabiatae s. l. Monophyly ofLabiatae s. l was supported by all three analyses.Congea tomentosa (Symphoremataceae) is nested withinLabiatae s. l. in therbcL analysis, but emerges as the sister group ofLabiatae s. l. in thendhF and combined analyses. Four noteworthy clades ofLabiate s. l. also are supported by all analyses corresponding to subfamiliesNepetoideae, Lamioideae, Pogostemonoideae andScutellarioideae. Monophyly of subfamiliesChloanthoideae andViticoideae is not supported. A clade comprisingTeucrioideae plusAjuga is supported byndhF and the combined analysis.

Key words

Labiatae Phylogeny cladistics cpDNA rbcndh


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bentham, G., 1876:Verbenaceae andLabiatae. — InBentham, G., Hooker, J. D., (Eds): Genera plantarum,2, pp. 1131–1223. — London: Reeve.Google Scholar
  2. Briquet, J., 1895:Verbenaceae. — InEngler, A., Prantl, K., (Eds): Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien,4/3a, pp. 132–182. — Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  3. —, 1895–1897:Labiatae. — InEngler, A., Prantl, K., (Eds): Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien,4/3a, pp. 183–375. — Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  4. Cantino, P. D., Sanders, R. W., 1986: Subfamilial classification ofLabiatae. — Syst. Bot.11: 163–185.Google Scholar
  5. —, 1992a: Evidence for a polyphyletic origin of theLabiatae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.79: 361–379.Google Scholar
  6. —, 1992b: Toward a phylogenetic classification of theLabiatae. — InHarley, R. M., Reynolds, T., (Eds): Advances in Labiate science, pp. 27–37. — Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  7. —, 1992: Genera ofLabiatae: status and classification. — InHarley, R. M., Reynolds, T., (Eds): Advances in Labiate science, pp. 511–522. — Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.Google Scholar
  8. -Olmstead, R. G., Wagstaff, S. J., 1997: A comparison of phylogenetic nomenclature with the current system: a botanical case study. — Syst. Biol. (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Cronquist, A., 1981: An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. — New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. De Queiroz, A., Donoghue, M. J., Junhyong, K., 1995: Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. — Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst.26: 657–681.Google Scholar
  11. Felsenstein, J., 1985: Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. — Evolution39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  12. Junell, S., 1934: Zur Gynäceummorphologie und Systematik der Verbenaceen und Labiaten. — Symb. Bot. Upsal.4: 1–219.Google Scholar
  13. Huelsenbeck, J. P., Bull, J. J., Cunningham, C. W., 1996: Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. — Trends Ecol. Evol.11: 152–157.Google Scholar
  14. Kaufman, M., Wink, M., 1995: Molecular systematics of theNepetoideae (familyLabiatae): phylogenetic implications fromrbcL gene sequences. — Z. Naturf., C49: 635–645.Google Scholar
  15. Maddison, D. R., 1991: The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. — Syst. Zool.40: 315–328.Google Scholar
  16. Maddison, W. P., Maddison, D. R., 1992: MacClade vers. 3.1: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. — Sunderland, Massachussetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  17. Miyamoto, M. M., Fitch, W. M., 1995: Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. — Syst. Biol.44: 64–76.Google Scholar
  18. Olmstead, R. G., Michaels, H. S., Scott, K. M., Palmer, J. D., 1992: Monophyly of theAsteridae and identification of their major lineages inferred from DNA sequences ofrbcL. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Grad.79: 249–265.Google Scholar
  19. —, 1993: A parsimony analysis of theAsteridae sensu lato based onrbcL sequences. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.80: 700–722.Google Scholar
  20. —, 1994: Chloroplast DNA systematics: a review of methods and data analysis. — Amer. J. Bot.81: 1205–1224.Google Scholar
  21. —, 1995: Polyphyletic origin of theScrophulariaceae: evidence fromrbcL andndhF sequences. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.82: 176–193.Google Scholar
  22. Ryding, O., 1995: Pericarp structure and phylogeny of theLamiaceae-Verbenaceae complex. — Pl. Syst. Evol.198: 101–141.Google Scholar
  23. Steane, D. A., Scotland, R. W., Mabberley, D. J., Wagstaff, S. J., Reeves, P. A., Olmstead, R. G., 1997: Phylogenetic relationships ofClerodendrum s. l. (Lamiaceae) inferred from chloroplast DNA. — Syst. Bot. (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Swofford, D. L., 1993: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (PAUP vers. 3.1.1). — Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  25. Thorne, R. F., 1992: Classification and geography of the flowering plants. — Bot. Rev.58: 225–348.Google Scholar
  26. Valdés III, L. J., Hatfield, G. M., Koreeda, M., Paul, A. G., 1987a: Studies ofSalvia divinorum (Lamiaceae), an hallucinogenic mint from the Sierra Mazateca in Oaxaca, Central Mexico. — Econ. Bot.41: 283–291.Google Scholar
  27. —, 1987b:Coleus barbatus (C. forskohlii) (Lamiaceae) and the potential new drug forskolin (coleonol). — Econ. Bot.41: 474–483.Google Scholar
  28. Wagstaff, S. J., Olmstead, R. G., 1997: Phylogeny ofLabiatae andVerbenaceae inferred fromrbcL sequences. — Syst. Bot. (in press).Google Scholar
  29. —, 1995: A phylogenetic analysis of restriction site variation in subfamilyNepetoideae (Labiatae). — Amer. J. Bot.82: 886–892.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Wagstaff
    • 1
  • Laura Hickerson
    • 1
  • Russ Spangler
    • 1
  • Patrick A. Reeves
    • 1
  • Richard G. Olmstead
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations