, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 101–111 | Cite as

Nomenclatural changes in Lithospermum (Boraginaceae) and related taxa following a reassessment of phylogenetic relationships



Lithospermum (Boraginaceae) comprises approximately 40 species in both the Old and New Worlds, with a center of diversity in the southwestern United States and Mexico. Using ten cpDNA regions, a phylogeny of Lithospermum and related taxa was reconstructed. Lithospermum (including New World and Old World species) and related New World members of Lithospermeae form a monophyletic group, with Macromeria, Onosmodium, Nomosa, Lasiarrhenum, and Psilolaemus nested among species of Lithospermum. New World Lithospermeae also is a monophyletic group, with Eurasian species of Lithospermum sister to this group. Because Lithospermum is not monophyletic without the inclusion of the other New World genera, species from these genera are transferred to Lithospermum, and appropriate nomenclatural changes are made. New combinations are Lithospermum album, Lithospermum barbigerum, Lithospermum dodrantale, Lithospermum exsertum, Lithospermum helleri, Lithospemum leonotis, Lithospermum notatum, Lithospermum oaxacanum, Lithospermum pinetorum, Lithospermum rosei, Lithospermum trinverium, and Lithospermum unicum; new names are Lithospermum chiapense, Lithospermum johnstonii, Lithospermum macromeria, Lithospermum onosmodium, Lithospermum rzedowskii, and Lithospermum turneri.

Key Words

Lasiarrhenum Lithospermum Macromeria Nomosa Onosmodium Perittostema Psilolaemus Lithospermeae Boraginaceae 

Literature Cited

  1. Barfuss, H. J., R. Samuel, W. Till & T. F. Stuessy. 2005. Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae) based on DNA sequence data from seven plastid regions. American Journal of Botany 92: 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, A. E. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships and corolla size evolution among Macromeria. Systematic Botany 28: 118–129.Google Scholar
  3. Candolle, A. P. de. 1846. Boraginaceaede Candolle. In: A. P. de Candolle and A. L. P. P. de Candolle (eds.), Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis. 10: 1–178. Fortin, Masson et sociorum, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. 2007. Lithospermum L. systematics: Utilizing multiple cpDNA regions and morphological characters. Botany 2007. [Abstract]Google Scholar
  5. Cuénoud, P., V. Savolainen, L. W. Chatrou, M. Powell, R. J. Grayer & M. W. Chase. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 89: 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyle, J. J. & J. L. Doyle. 1990. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus. 12: 13–15.Google Scholar
  7. Edgar, R. C. 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32: 1792–1797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farris, J. S., V. A. Albert, M. Kallersjo, D. Lipscomb & A. G. Kluge. 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 12: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goloboff, P. 1999. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: Solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 15: 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———, J. S. Farris & K. C. Nixon. 2000. TNT (Tree analysis using New Technology) Ver. 1. Published by authors, Tucuman, Argentina.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, T. A. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series. 41:95–98.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, I. M. 1935. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XI. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 16:145–205.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1952. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XXIII. A survey of the genus Lithospemum. With three plates. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 33:299–366.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1953a. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XXIV. A. Three genera segregated from Lithospermum. B. Supplementary notes on Lithospermum. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 34:1–16.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1953b. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XXV. A revaluation of some genera of the Lithospermeae. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 34: 258–300.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1954a. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XXVI. Further revaluations of the genera of the Lithospermeae. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 35:1–81.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1954b. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XXVII. Some general observations concerning the Lithospermeae. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 35: 158–166.Google Scholar
  18. Langstrom, E. & M. W. Chase. 2002. Tribes of Boraginoideae (Boraginaceae) and placement of Antiphytum, Echiochilon, Ogastemma and Sericostoma: A phylogenetic analysis based on atpB plastid DNA sequence data. Plant Systematics and Evolution 234: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehmann, J. G. C. 1818. Plantae e Familia Asperifoliarum Nuciferae. Dümmler, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Muhlenberg, H. 1813. Catalogus Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis. William Hamilton, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  21. Nixon, K. C. 1999. Parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15: 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ochoterena, H. In press. Homology in coding and non-coding DNA sequences: a parsimony perspective. Plant Systematics and Evolution.Google Scholar
  23. Ralston, B. 1993. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Northern Arizona Library, Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
  24. Rechinger, K. H. 1967. Boraginaceae. In: H. Riedl (ed.), Flora Iranica. 48: 1–281. Akademische Druk- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.Google Scholar
  25. Shaw, J., E. B. Lickey, J. T. Beck, S. B. Farmer, W. Liu, J. Miller, K. C. Siripun, C. T. Winder, E. E. Schilling & R. L. Small. 2005. The tortoise and the hare II: Relative utility of 21 noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences for phylogenetic analysis. American Journal of Botany 92: 142–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———, ———, E. E. Schilling & R. L. Small. 2007. Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. American Journal of Botany 94: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simmons, M. P. & H. Ochoterena. 2000. Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Systematic Biology 49: 369–381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas, D. C., M. Weigand & H. H. Hilger. 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Lithodora (Boraginaceae-Lithospermeae) and its affinities to the monotypic genera Mairetis, Halacsya and Paramoltkia based on ITS1 and trnL UAA - sequence data and morphology. Taxon 57: 79–97.Google Scholar
  29. Turner, B. 1994a. Synoptical study of the genus Macromeria (Boraginaceae). Phytologia 77: 393–407.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 1994b. Revisionary study of Lasiarrhenum (Boraginaceae). Phytologia 77: 38–44.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 1995. Synopsis of the genus Onosmodium (Boraginaceae). Phytologia 78: 39–60.Google Scholar
  32. Zhu, G., H. Riedl & R. V. Kamelin. 1995. Boraginaceae. Pp. 329–427. In: Wu, Z. Y. & P. H. Raven (eds.), Flora of China. Vol. 16 (Gentianaceae through Boraginaceae). Science Press, Beijing, and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.L. H. Bailey Hortorium, Department of Plant BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations