Phylogenetic relationships in Carex, subgenus Vignea (Cyperaceae), based on ITS sequences

• Published in: Plant systematics and evolution Vol. 246; no. 1/2; pp. 109 - 125
• Main Authors: Hendrichs, M., Michalski, S., Begerow, D., Oberwinkler, F., Hellwig, F. H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Heidelberg Springer 01.04.2004; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: A posteriori knowledge; Achenes; Biological taxonomies; Carex; Chromosomes; Clusters; Herbs; Markov analysis; Markov chains; Monte Carlo simulation; Phylogenetics; Phylogeny; Plants; Ploidies; Subgroups; Taxa
• ISSN: 0378-2697; 1615-6110; 2199-6881
• DOI: 10.1007/s00606-004-0127-1

To evaluate the sectional classification in Carex, subgenus Vignea, the ITS region of 58 species of 20 sections was analyzed with Neighbor Joining (NJ) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Sections Dioicae, Physodeae and Ovales are found to be monophyletic, with C. bohemica well integrated in the section Ovales. Section Heleonastes turns out to be monophyletic, if C. canescens is treated separately in section Canescentes. Section Elongatae is monophyletic, but C. remota is placed in section Remotae and C. bromoides in section Deweyanae. In both analyses, six representatives of section Arenariae cluster together in a terminal group, whereas C. disticha, C. repens and C. siccata form a basal cluster. C. maritima, as the only member of section Incurvae, shares this basal position. C. chordorrhiza is ascribed to section Chordorrhizeae and not ascribed to the paraphyletic section Divisae. C. vulpina and C. otrubae are assigned to section Vulpinae and separated from the heterogeneous section Stenorhynchae. The other members of sections Divisae, Muehlenbergianae, Multiflorae and Stenorhynchae are scattered throughout the trees. The representatives of section Foetidae are dispersed in both analyses, section Paniculatae appears to be non-monophyletic in the molecular results as well. The subgenus appears subdivided in at least four larger subgroups in all analyses. Whereas these subgroups are strongly supported, the relationships between these subgroups remain only poorly resolved.