| Literature DB >> 23251681 |
Xiaoguo Xiang1, Dezhu Li, Xiaohua Jin, Hao Hu, Hailang Zhou, Weitao Jin, Yangjun Lai.
Abstract
Recently, there have been a lot of intense debates about the acceptance/rejection of paraphyletic groups in biological classification. On the one hand, evolutionary classification states that similarity and common descent are two criteria for biological classification and paraphyletic groups are natural units of biological classification. On the other hand, cladistic classification considers that common descent is the only criterion in biological classification and monophyly should be strictly adhered to. Holcoglossum is used herein as a case to illustrate this problem. Although Holcoglossum is a small orchid genus of less than 20 species, there is little consensus about its generic circumscription since it was established, which leads to confusion in taxonomic treatments in the Aerides-Vanda group. Based on the analyses of molecular and morphological evidence, our results suggest that the clade comprising Holcoglossum s.s., Ascolabium, Penkimia and Ascocentrum himalaicum is strongly supported as a monophyly, and that the three taxa are nested within different subclades of Holcoglossum s.s. Thus, it is reasonable to recognize a monophyletic circumscription of Holcoglossum, which is also well supported by some vegetative and floral characters. The Holcoglossum s.l. would facilitate a better understanding of pollinator-driven floral divergence and vegetative stasis than a paraphyletic and narrowly defined genus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23251681 PMCID: PMC3522637 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Average pairwise sequence distances between Holcoglossum s.s. and related genera.
| Average genetic distance | ITS |
|
|
|
| 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
|
| 0.010 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
|
| 0.011 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
|
| 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
|
| 0.052 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
|
| 0.035 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
|
| 0.020 | 0.038 | 0.010 |
|
| 0.035 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
|
| 0.045 | 0.023 | 0.027 |
|
| 0.032 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
|
| 0.015 | 0.045 | 0.009 |
|
| 0.032 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
|
| 0.045 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
|
| 0.029 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
|
| 0.015 | 0.038 | 0.017 |
|
| 0.029 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
|
| 0.054 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
|
| 0.033 | 0.020 | 0.040 |
|
| 0.020 | 0.049 | 0.017 |
|
| 0.038 | 0.016 | 0.050 |
Figure 1The 50% consensus Bayesian Inference and strict consensus maximum parsimony tree of Holcoglossum s.l.
A. the combined DNA dataset, B. DNA and morphology dataset. The bootstrap percentages and posterior probability of >50% are shown above each branch.
Figure 2Dendrograms of relationships among Holcoglossum.
A. Cladogram from Bayesian inference, B: Corresponding patrocladogram with equal weight.
Figure 3Pollinia of Holcoglossum and its alliance.
A–B. H. amesianum; C–D. H. himalaicum; E–F. H. kimabllianum; G–H. H. nujiangense; I–J. H. omeiense; K–L. H. rupestre; M–N. Vanda pumila; O–P. Aerides rosea.
Figure 4Flowers of Holcoglossum.
A. H. wangii; B. H. nagalandensis; C. H. nujiangense; D. H. himalaicum; E. Pollinarium of H. flavescens; F. Pollinarium of H. wangii.
Figure 5Relationships between pollination and flower color in Holcoglossum.
The left panel shows diversity of the pollination types, and the right panel indicates the evolution of flower color.