Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 166, Issue 1–2, pp 69–78 | Cite as

Karyotypic and chloroplast genomic diversity inMedicago sect.Lupularia (Leguminosae)

  • S. E. Schlarbaum
  • R. J. Rose
  • E. Small
  • Lowell B. Johnson


Studies were made on the chromosome complements and chloroplast genomes ofMedicago lupulina andM. secundiflora, which comprise sectionLupularia ofMedicago. Both types of analyses indicated more substantial differences between these species than suggested by external morphology.Medicago lupulina has a relatively asymmetrical karyotype in terms of centromeric position and relative length. The karyotype ofM. secundiflora is comparatively more asymmetrical in centromeric position and reduced in absolute size but exhibits greater symmetry in relative length. The restriction endonuclease fragmentation patterns of the chloropiast DNA of these two species (with Bam HI, Eco RI, Bgl II, and Xho I) show little similarity, with only 17% of the fragments matching in size. The lack of interspecific congruence among data of morphology, karyology and cpDNA inLupularia is contrary to consistency exhibited among these data inMedicago subsect.Intertextae.

Key words

Angiosperms Leguminosae Medicago lupulina M. secundiflora Chromosomes karyotypes chloroplast DNA evolution phylogeny 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berthou, F., Mathieu, C., Vedel, F., 1983: Chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA variation as indicator of phylogenetic relationships in the genusCoffea L. — Theor. Appl. Genet.65: 77–84.Google Scholar
  2. Bowman, C. M., Bonnard, G., Dyer, T. A., 1983: Chloroplast DNA variation between species ofTriticum andAegilops. Location of the variation on the chloroplast genome and its relevance to the inheritance and classification of the cytoplasm. — Theor. Appl. Genet.65: 247–262.Google Scholar
  3. Classen, D., Nozzolillo, C., Small, E., 1982: A phenolic-taxometric study ofMedicago (Leguminosae). — Canad. J. Bot.60: 2477–2495.Google Scholar
  4. Clement, W. M., Jr., 1962: Chromosome numbers and taxonomic relationships inMedicago. — Crop Sci.2: 25–28.Google Scholar
  5. Fryer, J. R., 1930: Cytological studies inMedicago, Melilotus andTrigonella. — Canad. J. Res.3: 3–50.Google Scholar
  6. Ghimpu, M. B., 1928: Contribution a l'étude caryologue du genreMedicago. — Compt. Rend.187: 245–247. (fideFryer 1930).Google Scholar
  7. Heyn, C. C., 1963: The annual species ofMedicago. — Scripta Hierosolymitana12: 1–154.Google Scholar
  8. Ingham, J. L., 1979: Isoflavonoid phytoalexins of the genusMedicago. — Biochem. Syst. Ecol.7: 29–34.Google Scholar
  9. Kemble, R. J., Gunn, R. E., Flavell, R. B., 1980: Classification of normal and malesterile cytoplasms in maize 2. Electrophoretic analysis of DNA species in mitochondira. — Genetics95: 451–458.Google Scholar
  10. Lesins, K. A., Lesins, I., 1965: Little-known Medicagos and their chromosome complements. III. Some Mediterranean species. — Canad. J. Genet. Cytol.7: 97–102.Google Scholar
  11. —, —, 1979: GenusMedicago (Leguminosae). A taxogenetic study. — The Hague, Boston, London: Dr W. Junk.Google Scholar
  12. Levan, A., Fredga, K., Sandberg, A. A., 1964: Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. — Hereditas52: 201–220.Google Scholar
  13. Palmer, J. D., 1982: Physical and gene mapping of chloroplast DNA fromAtriplex triangularis andCucumis sativa. — Nucleic Acids Res.10: 1593–1605.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. —,Thompson, W. F., 1982: Chloroplast DNA rearrangements are more frequent when a large inverted repeat sequence is lost. — Cell29: 537–550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. —,Zamir, D., 1982: Chloroplast DNA evolution and phylogenetic relationships inLycopersicon. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.79: 5006–5010.Google Scholar
  16. —,Osorio, B., Aldrich, J., Thompson, W. F., 1987: Chloroplast DNA evolution among legumes: Loss of a large inverted repeat occurred prior to other sequence rearrangements. — Curr. Genet.11: 275–286.Google Scholar
  17. Rose, R. J., Schlarbaum, S. E., Small, E., Johnson, L. B., 1988: Chloroplast genomic diversity and phylogeny inMedicago, sectionIntertextae. — Canad. J. Bot.66: 1352–1358.Google Scholar
  18. Schlarbaum, S. E., Tsuchiya, T., 1984: The chromosome study ofCunninghamia konishii, C. lanceolata, andTaiwania cryptomerioides. — Pl. Syst. Evol.145: 169–181.Google Scholar
  19. —,Small, E., Johnson, L. B., 1984a: Karyotypic evolution, morphological variability and phylogeny inMedicago, sectionIntertextae. — Pl. Syst. Evol.145: 203–222.Google Scholar
  20. —,Johnson, L. B., Gorz, H. J., Haskins, F. A., 1984b: Identification of secondary constrictions inMelilotus species. — J. Heredity75: 23–26.Google Scholar
  21. Shepard, J. F., Bidney, D., Barsby, T., Kemble, R., 1983: Genetic transfer in plants through interspecific protoplast fusion. — Science219: 683–688.Google Scholar
  22. Simon, J. P., 1969: Serological studies inMedicago, Melilotus, Trigonella and certain other genera. — Bot. Gaz.130: 127–141.Google Scholar
  23. Simon, J. P., 1979: Serological studies inMedicago, Melilotus, andTrigonella (Leguminosae). II. Relationships of critical taxa of sectionsMedicago andLupularia of the genusMedicago. — Bot. Gaz.140: 452–460.Google Scholar
  24. Sinskaya, E. N., 1950: Medic-Medicago L. Em. — InSinskaya, E. N., (Ed.): Flora of cultivated plants of the U.S.S.R.13, pp. 7–425 (Translation from Russian as OTS 60–51198.). — Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. Commerce.Google Scholar
  25. Small, E., 1981: A numerical analysis of major groupings inMedicago employing traditionally used characters. — Canad. J. Bot.59: 1553–1577.Google Scholar
  26. - 1987a: Generic changes inTrifolieae subtribeTrigonelleae. — InStirton, D. H., (Ed.): Advances in legume systematics 3 (in press). — Missouri Botanical Garden and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.Google Scholar
  27. —, 1987b: Pollen-ovule patterns in tribeTrifolieae (Leguminosae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.160: 195–205.Google Scholar
  28. —,Bauchan, G. R., 1984: Chromosome numbers of theMedicago sativa complex in Turkey. — Canad. J. Bot.62: 749–752.Google Scholar
  29. —,Bassett, I. J., Crompton, C. W., 1982: Pollen variation in tribeTrigonelleae (Leguminosae) with special reference toMedicago. — Pollen & Spores23: 295–320.Google Scholar
  30. —,Crompton, C. W., Brookes, B. S., 1981: The taxonomic value of floral characters in tribeTrigonelleae (Leguminosae), with special reference toMedicago. — Canad. J. Bot.59: 1578–1598.Google Scholar
  31. —,Lassen, P., Brookes, B. S., 1987: An expanded circumscription ofMedicago (Leguminosae, Trifolieae) based on explosive flower tripping. — Willdenowia16: 415–437.Google Scholar
  32. Stevenson, G. A., 1969: An agronomic and taxonomic review of the genusMelilotus Mill. — Canad. J. Plant Sci.49: 1–20.Google Scholar
  33. Timothy, D. H., Levings, C. S., III, Pring, D. R., Conde, M. F., Kermicle, J. M., 1979: Organelle DNA variation and systematic relationships in the genusZea: Teosinte. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.76: 4220–4224.Google Scholar
  34. Tischler, G., 1927: Pflanzliche Chromosomen-Zahlen. — Tabulae Biologicae4: 1–83 (fideFryer 1930,Clement 1962).Google Scholar
  35. Tschechow, W., 1932: Karyo-systematic analysis of the tribeTrifolieae D. C. (FamilyLeguminosae Juss.). — Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Plant Breed.2: 119–143. (In Russian) (fideLesins & Lesins 1979).Google Scholar
  36. Vedel, F., Quetier, F., Dosba, F., Doussinault, G., 1978: Study of wheat phylogeny by Eco RI analysis of chloroplastic and mitochondrial DNAs. — Plant Sci. Lett.13: 97–102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. E. Schlarbaum
    • 1
  • R. J. Rose
    • 2
  • E. Small
    • 3
  • Lowell B. Johnson
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forestry, Wildlife and FisheriesThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesThe University of NewcastleAustralia
  3. 3.Biosystematics Research CentreAgriculture CanadaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Department of Plant Pathology, Throckmorton HallKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations