Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 210, Issue 3–4, pp 249–270 | Cite as

TheUlmaceae, one family or two? Evidence from chloroplast DNA restriction site mapping

  • Susan J. Wiegrefe
  • Kenneth J. Sytsma
  • Raymond P. Guries
Article

Abstract

The Ulmaceae is usually split into two subgroups, referred to as either tribes or more commonly subfamilies (Ulmoideae andCeltidoideae). The two groups are separated, with some exceptions, on the basis of leaf venation, fruit type, seed morphology, wood anatomy, palynology, chemistry, and chromosome number. Propositions to separate the two groups as distinct families have never gained general acceptance. Recent morphological and anatomical data have suggested, however, that not only is family status warranted but thatCeltidaceae are more closely related toMoraceae and otherUrticales than toUlmaceae. In order to test these alternative sets of relationships, restriction site mapping of the entire cpDNA was done with nine rare cutting enzymes using 11 genera ofUlmaceae s. l., three other families of theUrticales, and an outgroup family from theHamamelidae. Cladistic analysis of the data indicates thatUlmaceae s. l. is not monophyletic and that distinct families (Ulmaceae andCeltidaceae) are warranted; thatUlmaceae is the sister group toCeltidaceae plus all other families in the order; and thatCannabaceae might be nested withinCeltidaceae. Familial placements of various problematic genera (e.g.Ampelocera, Aphananthe) are resolved and character evolution of key morphological, anatomical, chemical, and chromosomal features are discussed.

Key words

Ulmaceae Celtidaceae Urticales Cannabis Chloroplast DNA cladistics restriction site mapping 

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. Baum, D. A., Sytsma, K. J., Hoch, P. C., 1994: The phylogeny ofEpilobium L. (Onagraceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. — Syst. Bot.19: 363–388.Google Scholar
  3. Behnke, H.-D., 1989: Sieve-element plastids, phloem proteins, and the evolution of flowering plants. IV.Hamamelidae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae,2: ‘Higher’Hamamelidae. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40-A, pp. 105–128. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, C. C., 1977:Urticales, their differentiation and systematic position. — Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl.1: 349–374.Google Scholar
  5. , 1989: Systematics and phylogeny of theUrticales. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae,2: ‘Higher’Hamamelidae. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40-B, pp. 193–220. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bremer, K., 1988: The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. — Evolution42: 795–803.Google Scholar
  7. Chase, M. W., Soltis, D. E., Olmstead, R. G., Morgan, D., Les, D. H., Mishler, B. D., Duvall, M. R., Price, R. A., Hills, H. G., Qiu, Y., Kron, K. A., Rettig, J. H., Conti, E., Palmer, J. D., Manhart, J. R., Sytsma, K. J., Michaels, H. J., Kress, W. J., Karol, K. G., Clark, W. D., Hedrén, M., Gaut, B. S., Jansen, R. K., Kim, K.- J., Wimpee, C. F., Smith, J. F., Furnier, G. R., Strauss, S. H., Xiang, Q.-Y., Plunkett, G. M., Soltis, P. S., Swensen, S. M., Williams, S. E., Gadek, P. A., Quinn, C. J., Eguiarte, L. E., Golenberg, E., Learn, G. H., Graham, S. W., Barrett, S. C. H., Dayanandan, S., Albert, V. A., 1993: Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid generbcL. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.80: 528–580.Google Scholar
  8. Chernik, V. V., 1975: Arrangements and reduction of perianth and androecium parts in representatives ofUlmaceae Mirbel andCeltidaceae Link. — Bot. Zhurn. (Leningrad)60: 1561–1573.Google Scholar
  9. , 1980: Peculiarities of structure and development of the pericarp of the representatives of the familyUlmaceae andCeltidaceae. — Bot. Zhurn. (Leningrad)65: 521–531.Google Scholar
  10. Cronquist, A., 1981: An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. — New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. , 1988: The evolution and classification of flowering plants. 2nd edn. — Bronx, NY: New York Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlgren, R., 1983: General aspects of angiosperm evolution and macrosystematics. — Nordic J. Bot.3: 119–149.Google Scholar
  13. Donoghue, M. J., Olmstead, R. G., Smith, J. F., Palmer, J. D., 1992: Phylogenetic relationships ofDipsacales based onrbcL sequences. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.79: 333–345.Google Scholar
  14. , Sanderson, M. J., 1992: The suitability of molecular and morphological evidence in reconstructing plant phylogeny. — InSoltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., Doyle, J. J., (Eds): Molecular systematics of plants, pp. 340–368. — New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Engler, A., Prantl, K., 1893: Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien.3. — Berlin: Bornträger.Google Scholar
  16. Erdtman, G., 1971: Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. — New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  17. Farris, J. S., 1970: Methods for computing Wagner trees. — Syst. Zool.19: 83–92.Google Scholar
  18. , 1989: The retention index and homoplasy excess. — Syst. Zool.38: 406–407.Google Scholar
  19. Felsenstein, J., 1978: Cases in which parsimony or compatibility will be positively misleading. — Syst. Zool.27: 401–410.Google Scholar
  20. , 1985: Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. — Syst. Zool.39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  21. , 1992: PHYLIP manual version 3.4. — Berkeley: University of California Herbarium.Google Scholar
  22. Giannasi, D. E., 1978: Generic relationships in theUlmaceae based on flavonoid chemistry. — Taxon27: 331–344.Google Scholar
  23. Givnish, T. J., 1987: Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. — New Phytol.106, Suppl.: 131–160.Google Scholar
  24. , Sytsma, K. J., 1997a: Homoplasy in molecular vs. morphological data: the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. — InGivnish, T. J., Sytsma, K. J., (Eds): Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation. — New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. ,, 1997b: Consistency, characters, and the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. — Molec. Phylogenet. Evol.7: 320–333.Google Scholar
  26. Grudzinskaya, I. A., 1967:Ulmaceae and reasons for distinguishingCeltidoideae as a separate familyCeltidaceae Link. — Bot. Zhurn. (Leningrad)52: 1723–1749.Google Scholar
  27. Gunter, L. E., Kochert, G., Giannasi, D. E., 1994: Phylogenetic relationships of theJuglandaceae. — Pl. Syst. Evol.192: 11–29.Google Scholar
  28. Holsinger, K. E., Jansen, R. K., 1993: Phylogenetic analysis of restriction site data. — Meth. Enzymol224: 23–37.Google Scholar
  29. Hufford, L., 1992:Rosidae and their relationships to other nonmagnoliid dicotyledons: a phylogenetic analysis using morphological and chemical data. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.79: 218–248.Google Scholar
  30. Humphries, C. J., Blackmore, S., 1989: A review of the classification of theMoraceae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae,2: ‘Higher’Hamamelidae. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40-B, pp. 267–277. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hutchinson, J., 1967: The genera of flowering plants.2. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jansen, R. K., Michaels, H. J., Wallace, R. S., Kim, K. -J., Keeley, S. C., Watson, L. E., Palmer, J. D., 1992: Chloroplast DNA variation in theAsteraceae: phylogenetic and evolutionary implications. — InSoltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., Doyle, J. J., (Eds): Molecular systematics of plants, pp. 252–279. — New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Palmer, J. D., 1988: Phylogenetic implications of chloroplast DNA restriction site variation in theMutisieae (Asteraceae). — Amer. J. Bot.75: 753–766.Google Scholar
  34. Judd, W. S., Sanders, R. W., Donoghue, M. J., 1994: Angiosperm family pairs: preliminary phylogenetic analyses. — Harvard Pap. Bot.5: 1–51.Google Scholar
  35. Klotzsch, J. F., 1847: Beiträge zu einer Flora der Aequinoctial-Gegenden der Neuen Welt. — Linnaea20: 337–542.Google Scholar
  36. Kluge, A. G., Farris, J. S., 1969: Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. — Syst. Zool.18: 1–32.Google Scholar
  37. Kuprianova, L. A., 1962: [Palynological data for the systematics of the ordersFagales andUrticales.] k pervoi mezhdunarodnoi palinologicheskoi konferentsii doklady sovetskikh palinologov. — Proceedings of the First International Conference on Palynology 1962, Tucson, AZ, pp. 17–25 (In Russian).Google Scholar
  38. Lindley, J., 1853: The vegetable kingdom. 3rd edn. — London: Bradbury & Evans.Google Scholar
  39. Link, D. H. F., 1831: Handbuch zur Erkennung der nutzbarsten und am häufigsten vorkommenden Gewächse2. — Berlin: Haude & Spener.Google Scholar
  40. Mabberely, D. J., 1987: The plant-book: a portable dictionary of the higher plants. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Maddison, W. P., Maddison, D. R., 1992: MacClade: Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution, version 3.0. — Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  42. Manchester, S. R., 1989: Systematics and fossil history of theUlmaceae. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae,2: ‘Higher’Hamamelidae. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40-B, pp. 221–251. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mehra, P. N., Gill, R. S., 1974: Cytological studies inUlmaceae, Moraceae andUrticaceae. — J. Arnold Arbor.55: 663–677.Google Scholar
  44. Mirbel, C. F., 1815: Éléments de physiologie végétale et de botanique. — Paris: Magimel.Google Scholar
  45. Nei, M., Li, W. -H., 1979: Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA76: 5269–5273.Google Scholar
  46. , Tajima, F., 1985: Evolutionary change of restriction cleavage sites and phylogenetic inference for man and apes. — Molec. Biol. Evol.2: 189–205.Google Scholar
  47. Oginuma, K., Raven, P., Tobe, H., 1990: Karyomorphology and relationships ofCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)103: 113–131.Google Scholar
  48. Olmstead, R. G., Palmer, J. D., 1992: A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of theSolanaceae: subfamilial relationships and character evolution. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.79: 346–360.Google Scholar
  49. ,, 1994: Chloroplast DNA systematics: a review of methods and data analysis. — Amer. J. Bot.81: 1205–1224.Google Scholar
  50. , Sweere, J. A., 1994: Combining data in phylogenetic systematics: an empirical approach using three molecular data sets in theSolanaceae. — Syst. Biol.43: 467–481.Google Scholar
  51. Omori, Y., Terabayashi, S., 1993: Gynoecial vascular anatomy and its systematic implications inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — J. Pl. Res.106: 249–258.Google Scholar
  52. Palmer, J. D., Jansen, R. K., Michels, H. J., Chase, M. W., Manhart, J. R., 1988: Chloroplast DNA variation and plant phylogeny. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.75: 1180–1206.Google Scholar
  53. Planchon, J. -E., 1873:Ulmaceae. — InCandolle, A. P. De, (Ed.): Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis.17. — Paris: Truettel & Würtz.Google Scholar
  54. Raven, P. H., 1975: The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: cytology. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.62: 724–764.Google Scholar
  55. Saitou, N., Nei, M., 1987: The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing evolutionary trees. — Molec. Biol. Evol.4: 406–425.Google Scholar
  56. Sanderson, M. J., 1989: Confidence limits in phylogenies: the bootstrap revisited. — Cladistics5: 113–129.Google Scholar
  57. , Donoghue, M. J., 1989: Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. — Evolution43: 1781–1795.Google Scholar
  58. Shinozaki, K., Ohme, M., Tanaka, M., & al., 1986: The complete nucleotide sequence of the tobacco chloroplast genome: its gene organization and expression. — EMBO J.5: 2043–2049.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, J. F., Sytsma, K. J., Smith, R. S., Shoemaker, J. S., 1992: A qualitative comparison of total cellular DNA extraction protocols. — Phytochem. Bull.23: 2–9.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, R. L., Sytsma, K. J., 1990: Evolution ofPopulus nigra (sect.Aigeiros): introgressive hybridization and the chloroplast contribution ofPopulus alba (sect.Populus). — Amer. J. Bot.77: 1176–1187.Google Scholar
  61. Sweitzer, E. M., 1971: Comparative anatomy ofUlmaceae. — J. Arnold Arbor.52: 523–585.Google Scholar
  62. Swofford, D., 1993: PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1.1. — Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  63. Sytsma, K. J., Conti, E., Nepokroeff, M., Pires, J. C., Qiu, Y.-L., Chase, M. W., 1996:Urticales:rbcL sequences clarify placement inRosidae, composition, and familial relationships. — Amer. J. Bot.83 (Suppl. 6): 197.Google Scholar
  64. , Gottlieb, L. D., 1986: Chloroplast DNA evolution and phylogenetic relationships inClarkia sectionPeripetasma (Onagraceae). — Evolution40: 1248–1261.Google Scholar
  65. , Hahn, W. J., 1994: Molecular systematics: 1991–1993. — Progr. Bot.55: 307–333.Google Scholar
  66. ,, 1996: Molecular systematics: 1994–1995. — Progr. Bot.58: 470–499.Google Scholar
  67. , Schaal, B. A., 1985: Phylogenetics ofLisianthius skinneri (Gentianaceae) species complex in Panama utilizing DNA restriction fragment analysis. — Evolution39: 594–608.Google Scholar
  68. Takahashi, M., 1989: Pollen morphology ofCeltidaceae andUlmaceae; a reinvestigation. — InCrane, P. R., Blackmore, S., (Eds): Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of theHamamelidae,2: ‘Higher’Hamamelidae. — Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol.40-B, pp. 253–265. — Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  69. Takaso, T., 1987: Ovule ontogeny and morphology inUlmaceae. — InGreuter, W., Zimmer, B., Behnke, H.-D., (Eds): Abstracts, XIV International Botanical Congress, Berlin (West), Germany, p. 220. — Berlin.Google Scholar
  70. , Tobe, H., 1990: Seed coat morphology and evolution inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales). — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)103: 25–41.Google Scholar
  71. Terabayashi, S., 1991: Vernation patterns inCeltidaceae andUlmaceae (Urticales), and their evolutionary and systematic implications. — Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)104: 1–13.Google Scholar
  72. Thorne, R. F., 1968: Synopsis of a putatively phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants. — Aliso6: 75–76.Google Scholar
  73. , 1983: Proposed new realignments in angiosperms. — Nordic J. Bot.3: 85–117.Google Scholar
  74. , 1992: An updated phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants. — Aliso13: 365–389.Google Scholar
  75. Tippo, O., 1938: Comparative anatomy of theMoraceae and their presumed allies. — Bot. Gaz.100: 1–99.Google Scholar
  76. Todzia, C. A., 1989: A revision ofAmpelocera (Ulmaceae). — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.76: 1087–1102.Google Scholar
  77. Watrous, L. E., Wheeler, Q. D., 1981: The outgroup comparison method of character analysis. — Syst. Zool.30: 1–11.Google Scholar
  78. Wiegrefe, S. J., Sytsma, K. J., Guries, R. P., 1994: Phylogeny of elms (Ulmus, Ulmaceae): molecular evidence for a sectional classification. — Syst. Bot.19: 590–612.Google Scholar
  79. Willis, J. C., 1966: A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns, 2nd edn. (Revised byH. K. Airy Shaw). — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Zavada, M. S., 1983: Pollen morphology ofUlmaceae. — Grana22: 23–30.Google Scholar
  81. , Crepet, W. L., 1981: Investigation of angiosperms from the Eocene of North America: flowers of theCeltidoideae. — Amer. J. Bot.68: 924–933.Google Scholar
  82. Zhong, Y., Baas, P., Wheeler, E. A., 1992: Wood anatomy of trees and shrubs from China. IV.Ulmaceae. — I.A.W.A. Bull. n.s.13: 419–453.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan J. Wiegrefe
    • 1
  • Kenneth J. Sytsma
    • 2
  • Raymond P. Guries
    • 3
  1. 1.The Morton ArboretumLisleUSA
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of ForestryUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations