Am. J. Bot. Cornell
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Doust, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Drinnan, A. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Doust, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Drinnan, A. N.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Doust, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Drinnan, A. N.
(American Journal of Botany. 2004;91:321-331.)
© 2004 Botanical Society of America, Inc.

Structure and Development

Floral development and molecular phylogeny support the generic status of Tasmannia (Winteraceae)1

Andrew N. Doust2 and Andrew N. Drinnan

School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia

The taxonomic status of and evolutionary relationship between Tasmannia and Drimys (Winteraceae) have been subjects of controversy for many years. In this paper, a molecular phylogenetic analysis of the family with sequences of previously unpublished Tasmannia and Drimys species confirms earlier conclusions that Tasmannia and Drimys do not form a monophyletic group, despite the fact that they appear to share distinctive inflorescence and floral morphological attributes. Examination of alternative hypotheses of relationships with likelihood-ratio tests and parametric bootstrapping supports the separation of Tasmannia and Drimys. A detailed analysis of floral development in Tasmannia lanceolata and T. xerophila indicates that timing and position of sepal initiation differs between them, but that the position of subsequent organ initiation predictably follows from sepal position. This is in contrast to Drimys winteri, where a prolonged delay between sepal and petal initiation leads to the production of many phyllotactic patterns. The prolonged period of calyx tube growth leading to the formation of a calyptra in Tasmannia and Drimys probably evolved in parallel in the two lineages.

Key Words: Drimys • floral development • molecular phylogeny • parametric bootstrapping • SH test • Tasmannia • Winteraceae






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.