HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Groppo, M. Articles by Kallunki, J. A. PubMed Articles by Groppo, M. Articles by Kallunki, J. A. Agricola Articles by Groppo, M. Articles by Kallunki, J. A.

Phylogeny of Rutaceae based on twononcoding regions from cpDNA¹

² Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900 14040-901, Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil ³ Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 11461 05499 São Paulo, SP, Brazil ⁴ The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York 10458-5126 USA

ABSTRACT

Primarily known only by the edible fruits of Citrus, Rutaceae comprise a large (c. 160 genera and 1900 species), morphologically diverse, cosmopolitan family. Of its extraordinary array of secondary chemical compounds, many have medicinal, antimicrobial, insecticidal, or herbicidal properties. To assist with the much-needed suprageneric reclassification and with studies of evolution of chemical compounds and biogeographic history of the family, here we included sequence data (from two noncoding regions of the chloroplast genome—rps16 intron and trnL-trnF region) from 65 species in 59 genera (more than one third of those in the family) that represented all subfamilies and tribes and more genera of Toddalioideae and of neotropical groups than previous studies. Results confirmed that Cneorum, Ptaeroxylon, Spathelia, and Dictyoloma form a clade sister to the remaining Rutaceae, none of the subfamilies with more than one genus (except Aurantioideae) is monophyletic, and characters of the ovary and fruit are not reliable for circumscription of subfamilies. Furthermore, clades are better correlated with geographic distributions of the genera than with ovary and fruit characters. Circumscriptions of subfamilies and tribes (and some subtribes of Rutoideae) must be reevaluated. Results are discussed in light of geographic distributions, caryology, chemotaxonomy, and other molecular studies.

Key Words: Cneoraceae • cpDNA • phylogeny • Ptaeroxylaceae • rps16 • Rutaceae • trnL-trnF