Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 212, Issue 3–4, pp 185–213 | Cite as

Morphometrics and character state recognition for cladistic analyses in theBletia reflexa complex (Orchidaceae)

  • Victoria Sosa
  • Efrain De Luna


Different criteria have been suggested for decisions on character state recognition for morphological characters showing continuous variation from taxon to taxon. A method proposed byMishler andDe Luna seeks to recognize as many character states as the groups of taxon means that are revealed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by multiple range tests. We apply this method as a guide in decisions of selecting taxonomic characters in species of theBletia reflexa complex. Seven species of the complex, represented by 156 individuals belonging to 54 populations, were the terminal taxa of the study. Character state codes were assigned to 20 characters. These characters together with 12 non-quantitative characters were incorporated into cladistic analyses. Results indicate that the complex is monophyletic only under one outgroup combination.

Key words

Orchidaceae Bletia Morphometrics character-states analysis-of-variance multiple-range-test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almeida, M. T., Bisby, F. A., 1984: A simple method for establishing taxonomic characters from measurement data. — Taxon33: 405–409.Google Scholar
  2. Ames, O., Correll, D. S., 1985: Orchids of Guatemala and Belize. — New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  3. Archie, J. W., 1985: Methods for coding variable morphological features for numerical taxonomic analyses. — Syst. Zool.34: 326–345.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, B., 1988: A simple procedure for establishing discrete characters from measurement data, applicable to cladistics. — Taxon37: 63–70.Google Scholar
  5. Burns-Balogh, P., Funk, V., 1986: A phylogenetic analysis of theOrchidaceae. — Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chappill, J. A., 1989: Quantitative characters in phylogenetic analysis. — Cladistics6: 217–234.Google Scholar
  7. De Luna, E., 1992: Integrating morphometric and cladistic analyses and the phylogenetic relationships within theHedwigiaceae (Musci). — Amer. J. Bot.79(6): 141 (abstract).Google Scholar
  8. —,Mishler, B., 1991: Homology and the recognition of character states. — Amer. J. Bot.78(6): 178 (abstract).Google Scholar
  9. Donoghue, M. J., Cantino, P. D., 1984: The logic and limitations of the outgroup substitution approach to cladistic analysis. — Syst. Bot.9: 192–202.Google Scholar
  10. —,Olmstead, R. G., Smith, J. F., Palmer, J., 1992: Phylogenetic relationships ofDipsacales based onrbcL sequences. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.79: 33–345.Google Scholar
  11. Dressler, R. L., 1968: Notes onBletia (Orchidaceae). — Brittonia20: 182–190.Google Scholar
  12. —, 1993: Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. — Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dunsterville, G. C. K., Garay, L. A., 1961: Venezuelan orchids illustrated. — London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar
  14. Felsenstein, J., 1985: Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. — Evolution39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  15. Foldats, E., 1970:Orchidaceae. — InLasser, T., (Ed.): Flora de Venezuela, pp. 486–493. — Caracas: Instituto Botánico.Google Scholar
  16. Freudenstein, J. V., Rasmussen, F. N., 1996: Pollinium development and number in theOrchidaceae. — Amer. J. Bot.83: 813–824.Google Scholar
  17. Garay, L. A., Sweet, H., 1964:Orchidaceae. — InHoward, R. A., (Ed.): Flora of Lesser Antilles. pp. 183–186. — Jamaica Plain: Harvard University, Arnold Arboretum.Google Scholar
  18. Goldman, N., 1988: Methods for discrete coding of morphological characters for numerical analysis. — Cladistics4: 59–71.Google Scholar
  19. Heijden, G. W. A. M. Van Der, Berg, R. G. Van Den, 1997: Quantitative assessment of corolla shape variation inSolanum sect.Petota by computer image analysis. — Taxon46: 49–64.Google Scholar
  20. Kores, P. J., Movray, M., Darwin, S. P., 1993: Morphometric variation in three species ofCyrtostylis (Orchidaceae). — Syst. Bot.18: 274–282.Google Scholar
  21. Maddison, W. P., Maddison, D. R., 1992: MacClade version 3. — Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Mishler, B., De Luna, E., 1991: The use of ontogenetic data in phylogenetic analyses of mosses. — Advances Bryol.4: 121–167.Google Scholar
  23. Nilsson, L. A., 1992: Orchid pollination biology. — Trends Ecol. Evol.7: 255–259.Google Scholar
  24. Patterson, C., 1982: Morphological characters and homology. — InJoysey, K. A., Friday, A. E., (Eds): Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction, pp. 21–74. — London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pijl, L. van der, Dodson, C. H., 1966: Orchid flowers: their pollination and evolution. — Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami.Google Scholar
  26. Pimentel, R. A., Riggins, R., 1987: The nature of cladistic data. — Cladistics3: 201–209.Google Scholar
  27. Rohlf, F. J., Sokal, R. R., 1981: Statistical tables. — New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  28. Schweinfurth, C., 1958: Orchids of Peru. — Fieldiana, Bot.30: 562–566.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, C., 1983: A new coding procedure for morphometric data with an example from periodical cicada wing veins. — InFelsenstein, J., (Ed.): Numerical taxonomy, pp. 378–382. — Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Sokal, R. R., Rohlf, F. J., 1981: Biometry. — San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  31. Sosa, V., 1992: Systematic studies ofBletia (Orchidaceae). — Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  32. —, 1994: A revision of theBletia reflexa complex (Orchidaceae). — Lindleyana9: 7–18.Google Scholar
  33. Stevens, P. F., 1984: Homology and phylogeny: morphology and systematics. — Syst. Bot.9: 395–409.Google Scholar
  34. —, 1991: Character states, morphological variation, and phylogenetic analysis: a review. — Syst. Bot.16: 553–583.Google Scholar
  35. Stsc, 1993: Statgraphics, version 6. Reference manual. — Rockville, Maryland: STSC.Google Scholar
  36. Swofford, D. L., 1993: PAUP, phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. — Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.Google Scholar
  37. —,Maddison, W. P., 1987: Reconstructing ancestral states under Wagner parsimony. — Math. Biosci.87: 199–299.Google Scholar
  38. Thiele, K., 1993: The holy grail of the perfect character: the cladistic treatment of morphometric data. — Cladistics9: 275–304.Google Scholar
  39. Thorpe, R. S., 1984: Coding morphometric characters for constructing distance Wagner networks. — Evolution38: 244–255.Google Scholar
  40. Tremblay, R. L., 1992: Trends in the pollination ecology of theOrchidaceae: evolution and systematics. — Canad. J. Bot.70: 642–650.Google Scholar
  41. Vrba, E. S., Vaisnys, J. R., Gatesy, J. E., Desalle, R., Wei, K.-Y., 1994: Analysis of paedomorphosis using allometric characters: the example of Reduncini antelopes (Bovidae, Mammalia). — Syst. Biol.43: 92–116.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, L. O., Allen, P. A., 1980:Orchidaceae of Panama. — Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard.4: 1–115.Google Scholar
  43. Zelditch, M. L., Fink, W. L., Swiderski, D. L., 1995: Morphometrics, homology, and phylogenetics: quantified characters as synapomorphies. — Syst. Biol.44: 179–189.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria Sosa
    • 1
  • Efrain De Luna
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemática VegetalInstituto de EcologíaXalapaMéxico

Personalised recommendations