Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 208, Issue 3–4, pp 197–223 | Cite as

Phylogenetics of the slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae, Orchidaceae): Nuclear rDNA ITS sequences

  • Antony V. CoxEmail author
  • Alec M. Pridgeon
  • Victor A. Albert
  • Mark W. Chase


Cypripedioideae (Orchidaceae) have been the subject of numerous taxonomic treatments with conflicting interpretations of relationships among the five genera and the 150–170 species. We have produced nuclear ribosomal ITS nucleotide sequences for nearly 100 slipper orchid species and used parsimony analysis to investigate their relationships. Our results demonstrate that each genus, as currently circumscribed, is monophyletic (Mexipedium andSelenipedium being represented by a single taxon). LikerbcL data, ITS sequences placeMexipedium sister toPhragmipedium. Relationships at the sectional level inPaphiopedilum are largely as described byCribb. However, the division ofPaphiopedilum into subgg.Brachypetalum andPaphiopedilum is not supported; subg.Brachypetalum is paraphyletic to subg.Paphiopedilum. Phragmipedium species are divided into the same three major clades as in the taxonomic scheme ofMcCook. The plicate-leaved genera,Cypripedium andSelenipedium, are successive sister groups to the rest of the subfamily, confirming generally held opinions that they display plesiomorphic characters compared to the conduplicate-leaved genera. A survey of karyotypes in the context of the ITS tree reveals a general trend toward increased chromosome number, probably brought about by centric fission. These data also accord with a previously suggested biogeographic hypothesis of a widespread Northern Hemisphere distribution, followed by range fragmentation due to Miocene cooling.

Key words

Orchidaceae Cypripedioideae Paphiopedilum Phragmipedium Cypripedium Selenipedium Mexipedium Molecular systematics rDNA ITS cytology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albert, V. A., 1994: Cladistic relationships of the slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae:Orchidaceae) from congruent morphological and molecular data. — Lindleyana9: 115–132.Google Scholar
  2. —, 1992:Mexipedium: a new genus of slipper orchid (Cypripedioideae:Orchidaceae). — Lindleyana7: 172–176.Google Scholar
  3. —, 1994: Expansion of genusPaphiopedilum to include all conduplicate-leaved slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae:Orchidaceae). — Lindleyana9: 133–139.Google Scholar
  4. Atwood, J. T. Jr., 1984: The relationships of the slipper orchids (subfamilyCypripedioideae, Orchidaceae). — Selbyana7: 129–147.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, B. G., 1992: Phylogenetic utility of the internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA in plants: an example from theCompositae. — Molec. Phylogenet. Evol.1: 3–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentham, G., Hooker, J. D., 1883: Genera plantarum3(2): 634–635. — London: Reeve.Google Scholar
  7. Braem, G. J., 1988:Paphiopedilum: Eine Monographie aller Frauenschuh-Orchideen der asiatischen Tropen und Subtropen. — Hildesheim: Schmersow.Google Scholar
  8. Brieger, F. G., 1971: Unterfamilie:Cypripedioideae. — InSchlechter, R., (Ed.): Die Orchideen, pp. 161–198. — Berlin, Hamburg: Parey.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, J. M., 1988: Choosing among multiple equally parsimonious cladograms. — Cladistics4: 291–296.Google Scholar
  10. Chase, M. W., Cameron, K. M., Hills, H. G., Jarrell, D., 1994: DNA sequences and phylogenetics of theOrchidaceae and other lilioid monocots. — InPridgeon, A. M., (Ed.): Proceedings of the 14th World Orchid Conference, pp. 61–73. — Edinburgh: HMSO.Google Scholar
  11. Chase, M. W., Duvall, M. R., Hills, H. G., Conran, J. G., Cox, A. V., Eguiarte, L. E., Hartwell, J., Fay, M. F., Caddick, L. R., Cameron, K. M., Hoot, S., 1995: Molecular phylogenetics ofLilianae. — InRudall, P. J., Cribb, P. J., Cutler, D. F., Humphries, C. J., (Eds): Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution, pp. 217–225. — Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  12. Chase, M. W., Hills, H. G., 1991: Silica gel: an ideal material for field preservation of leaf samples for DNA studies. — Taxon40: 215–220.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, S. C., Tsi, Z. H., 1984: OnPaphiopedilum malipoense sp. nov. — an intermediate form betweenPaphiopedilum andCypripedium. — Acta Phytotax. Sin.22: 119–124.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, A. V., 1995: The utility of 5S rDNA in phylogenetic reconstructions. — Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading, England.Google Scholar
  15. —, 1993: Comparison of plant telomere locations using a PCR-generated synthetic probe. — Ann. Bot.72: 239–247.Google Scholar
  16. Cribb, P. J., 1987: The genusPaphiopedilum. — London: Collingridge.Google Scholar
  17. Dahlgren, R. M. T., Clifford, H. T., Yeo, P. F., 1985: The families of monocotyledons: structure, evolution, and taxonomy. — Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Doyle, J. J., Doyle, J. L., 1987: A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. — Phytochem. Bull. Bot. Soc. Amer.19: 11–15.Google Scholar
  19. Dressler, R. L., 1993: Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. — Cambridge: Dioscorides Press.Google Scholar
  20. —, 1995: Whence the orchids? — InRudall, P. J., Cribb, P. J., Cutler, D. F., Humphries, C. J., (Eds): Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution, pp. 217–225. — Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
  21. —, 1960: Classification and phylogeny in theOrchidaceae. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.47: 25–68.Google Scholar
  22. Farris, J. S., 1969: A successive approximations approach to character weighting. — Syst. Zool.18: 374–385.Google Scholar
  23. —, 1996: Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbour joining. — Cladistics12: 99–124.Google Scholar
  24. Felsenstein, J., 1985: Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. — Evolution39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  25. Fitch, W. M., 1971: Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. — Syst. Zool.20: 406–416.Google Scholar
  26. Garay, L. A., 1979: The genusPhragmipedium. — Orchid Digest43 (July–Aug.): 133–148.Google Scholar
  27. Hallier, H., 1897: ÜberPaphiopedilum amabile und die Hochgebirgsflora des Berges K'Lamm in West Borneo nebst einer Übersicht über die GattungPaphiopedilum. — Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg14: 18–52.Google Scholar
  28. Karasawa, K., 1979: Karyomorphological studies inPaphiopedilum, Orchidaceae. — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.2: 1–149.Google Scholar
  29. —, 1980: Karyomorphological studies inPhragmipedium, Orchidaceae. — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.3: 1–49.Google Scholar
  30. —, 1986: Karyomorphological studies on nine taxa ofPaphiopedilum. — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.8: 23–42.Google Scholar
  31. —, 1986: Karyomorphological studies onCypripedium in Japan and Formosa. — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.31: 1–22.Google Scholar
  32. —, —, 1988: Karyomorphological studies on two species ofPaphiopedilum. — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.10: 1–6.Google Scholar
  33. —, 1982: A revision of the genusPaphiopedilum (Orchidaceae). — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.5: 1–69.Google Scholar
  34. —, 1980: C-banding study on centric fission in the chromosomes ofPaphiopedilum. — Cytologia45: 97–102.Google Scholar
  35. —, —, 1981: A revision of chromosome numbers in some hybrids ofPaphiopedilum. — Bull. Hiroshima Bot. Gard.4: 1–8.Google Scholar
  36. Kraenzlin, F., 1897: Orchidacearum et species plantarum. — Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
  37. Lavin, M., Luckow, M., 1993: Origins and relationships of tropical North America in the context of the boreotropical hypothesis. — Amer. J. Bot.80: 1–14.Google Scholar
  38. Lindley, J., 1840: Genera and species of orchidaceous plants. — London: Ridgway.Google Scholar
  39. Linnaeus, C., 1753: Species plantarum. — Stockholm: Salvius.Google Scholar
  40. McCook, L., 1989: Systematics ofPhragmipedium (Cypripedioideae:Orchidaceae). — Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  41. McDade, L. A., 1990: Hybrids and phylogenetic systematics. I. Patterns of character expression in hybrids and their implications for cladistic analysis. — Evolution44: 1685–1700.Google Scholar
  42. —, 1992: Hybrids and phylogenetic systematics. II. The impact of hybrids on cladistic analysis. — Evolution46: 1329–1346.Google Scholar
  43. Maddison, D. R., 1991: The discovery and importance of multiple islands of mostparsimonious trees. — Syst. Zool.40: 315–328.Google Scholar
  44. Maddison, W. P., Maddison, D. R., 1992: MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution, version 3.0. — Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  45. Pfitzer, E. H. H., 1886: Morphologische Studien über die Orchideenblüthe. — Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  46. —, 1888: Die Orchideen. — InEngler, A., Prantl, K., (Eds): Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien2, pp. 52–96. — Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  47. —, 1894: Beiträge zur Systematik der Orchideen. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.19: 1–42.Google Scholar
  48. —, 1903:Orchidaceae — Pleonandrae. — InEngler, A. (Ed.): Das PflanzenreichIV 50, pp. 1–132. — Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  49. Rafinesque, C. S., 1836: Flora Telluriana4: 45–47. — Philadelphia: Pobasco.Google Scholar
  50. Reichenbach, H. G., 1854: Xenia orchidacea1. — Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
  51. Rieseberg, L. H., 1990: Homoploid reticulate evolution inHelianthus (Asteraceae); Evidence from ribosomal genes. — Amer. J. Bot.78: 1218–1237.Google Scholar
  52. Rolfe, R. A., 1896: TheCypripedium group. — Orchid Rev.4: 327–334, 363–367.Google Scholar
  53. Rosso, S. W., 1966: The vegetative anatomy of theCypripedioideae (Orchidaceae). — J. Linn. Soc. Bot.59: 309–341.Google Scholar
  54. Soto, M. A., Salazar, G. A., Hágsater, E., 1990:Phragmipedium xerophyticum, una nueva especie del sureste de México. — Orquídea (México)12: 1–10.Google Scholar
  55. Stebbins, G. L., 1971: Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. — London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  56. Stern, W. L., Cheadle, V. I., Thorsch, J., 1993: Apostasiads, systematic anatomy, and the origins ofOrchidaceae. — J. Linn. Soc. Bot.111: 411–455.Google Scholar
  57. Swofford, D. L., 1993: PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1.1. — Champaign, Illinois: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  58. Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G., Gibson, T. J., 1995: CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position, specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. — Nucl. Acids Res.22: 4673–4680.Google Scholar
  59. Tiffney, B. H., 1985a: Perspectives on the origin of the floristic similarity between eastern Asia and eastern North America. — J. Arnold Arbor.66: 73–94.Google Scholar
  60. —, 1985b: The Eocene North Atlantic land bridge: its importance in Tertiary and modern phytogeography of the Northern Hemisphere. — J. Arnold Arbor.66: 243–273.Google Scholar
  61. Wimber, D. E., 1993: The chromosome evolution for slipper orchids. — InPridgeon, A. M., (Ed.): Proceedings of the 14th World Orchid Conference, pp. 228–232. — Edinburgh: HMSO.Google Scholar
  62. Wolfe, J. A., 1975: Some aspects of plant geography of the northern hemisphere during late Cretaceous and Tertiary. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 264–279.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antony V. Cox
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alec M. Pridgeon
    • 1
  • Victor A. Albert
    • 2
  • Mark W. Chase
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Systematics, Jodrell LaboratoryRoyal Botanic GardensKew, Richmond, SurreyUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.The Lewis B. & Dorothy Cullman Program for Molecular Systematics StudiesThe New York Botanical GardenBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations